Forgot your password?
Security Government United States IT News

Who Would Want To Be Obama's Cybersecurity Czar? 131

Posted by Soulskill
from the fine-i'll-do-it dept.
dasButcher writes "President Obama is expected to name a new cybersecurity czar sometime soon. This person will be charged with defending the digital boards from attack by hostile nation-states and terrorist organizations. But the question Larry Walsh asks is: Who really wants the job? The previous three people who held the post barely made a dent in solving the security problems. Government bureaucracy and private sector resistance make it nearly impossible to find any measure of meaningful success in this job, he writes." Reader eatcajun contributes a related link to the long-awaited US cyberspace policy review.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Who Would Want To Be Obama's Cybersecurity Czar?

Comments Filter:
  • by icebike (68054) on Friday May 29, 2009 @07:34PM (#28145425)

    The copyright holders and their corrupt organizations may want it.

    They use the position to make sure one looks too hard at the invasive digging into people's hard drives and network traffic.

    Meanwhile they totally ignore any REAL threats and protection measures. (As can be seen by stories on Slashdot about data thefts left and right).

  • Not really... (Score:4, Informative)

    by artor3 (1344997) on Friday May 29, 2009 @07:49PM (#28145569)

    These "czars" aren't new super-powerful positions being created by facists. They consist of pre-existing positions that have been given a catchy new title (drug czar instead of "head of the drug enforcement agency") and advisory roles (terrorism czar).

    The former already existed. You can't complain about there being a drug czar unless you believe that the DEA has too much power. Of course, they probably do... but that predates the nomenclature used for their leader. The so-called "war on drugs" (which Obama's drug czar want to stop) began a couple decades before that term came into use.

    The latter is simply an advisor to the president. They have no powers that the office of the president does not, nor can they overrule the president in any instance. The president would be taking advice from them anyway. All the title does is recognize that he's taking their advice.

    I know there are a lot of libertarians/anarchists on /., and that's why the "czar" thing always gets pointed at as proof that the *insert currently leading political party here* are a bunch of fascists. But when you actually look at what the "czars" do, you quickly realize that it's entirely in keeping with our democratic republic.

  • Oh, stop. A Windows "backbone" can be made just as secure by a competent admin as a *nix "backbone" can.
  • by Ektanoor (9949) on Friday May 29, 2009 @09:13PM (#28146135) Journal

    Really? I remember that Windows NT & Sons had a too classical and nearly eternal flaw, which did not give a chance for a guaranteed secure environment - the internal messaging between progs. I met it a few times and it was really painful.

    Yes Vista & Sons probably have solved this. But after 15 years on Windows I didn't wait for them.

    Besides, you don't make backbones on Windows or *nixes. Anyway you don't use *just* Windows or *nix

    A backbone admin

  • Re:The difference (Score:3, Informative)

    by Artifakt (700173) on Saturday May 30, 2009 @12:40AM (#28147175)

    I don't think you can claim fairly that the Bush administration got a free ride the whole ten years - the first few after Sept 11th, maybe, but not nearly so much by Katrina.
              However, when the Governor of Illinois recently got into trouble, CNN and NBC (both part of what Fox calls the liberal media), ran pieces on it. They both printed a quote from a phone conversation involving the perp, where he essentially said 'Obama's whole staff were Boy-scouts. When he tried to hit Obama up for a kickback through them, they wouldn't offer anything that wasn't totally legal.' Both networks then ran headlines saying Obama had some serious explaining to do. News-flash - when the crook is on tape saying your whole organization is too squeaky clean for his taste, you have no obligation to 'explain' that. Saying to the guy who didn't offer or accept a crooked deal that he has an obligation to explain why the criminal even thought their might be a chance for one is attacking the known victim of an attempted criminal act, just like blaming the victim of an attempted rape for dressing provocatively. So I'll give you your 'viciously hostile'.

  • Re:Not really... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Pinky's Brain (1158667) on Saturday May 30, 2009 @05:04AM (#28148095)

    They don't have any of the constitutional powers of cabinet member, why would they have to be vetted by the senate? The president has the constitutional right to chose how, when or if at all to listen to cabinet members. In the end it's merely a slightly higher profile presidential aide.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30, 2009 @07:45AM (#28148547)
    You're a dumbass if you actually click those "opt-out" links. Just delete the damn email. When you get junk mail in your regular mail box you don't mail a letter back to the sender to tell them to stop sending you junk, do you? SUCKER!

The economy depends about as much on economists as the weather does on weather forecasters. -- Jean-Paul Kauffmann