Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Security Your Rights Online

U.S. Government To Get Cybersecurity Chief 121

Posted by timothy from the save-us-uncle-cyber dept.
cmason32 writes "The Bush administration is going to create a new Cybersecurity Chief position in the Homeland Security Department. The move is supposed to demonstrate the government's dedication to cracking down on hackers and 'cyberterror.' One of the responsibities of the position is to 'secure cyberspace.' However, critics are already noting the position is not likely to be effective."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

U.S. Government To Get Cybersecurity Chief More

U.S. Government To Get Cybersecurity Chief

Comments Filter:

  • ineffective... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Metaldsa ( 162825 ) on Sunday May 25, 2003 @05:00PM (#6036947)
    I wouldn't just call this position ineffective. I would also call it a waste of taxpayer dollars, a way to abuse power, and a waste of time.

  • Not Powerful Enough? (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Industry leaders worry the new post won't be powerful enough.

    But... I thought hackers could already start World War Three with a telephone call? How can this position not be powerful enough?
    • Well, for now they can't STOP the WW3 like that, and that's the weakness, especially if the war, from lack of any more serious enemies to use up obsolete weapons on and produce new ones, is waged against them. Cybercrime, ecoscum, pacifist traitors, porn perversion, religious fanatics, paramilitary scouts... Any minority is good to attack to spend taxpayer's money.

  • Anyone wanna bet (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This will simply become a tool of the RIAA/MPAA/etc?

  • Text in case of slashdotting: (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward


    U.S. government to get cybersecurity chief
    By Ted Bridis

    May 25, 2003 | WASHINGTON (AP) --

    The Bush administration plans to appoint a new cybersecurity chief for the government inside the Homeland Security Department, replacing a position once held by a special adviser to the president. Industry leaders worry the new post won't be powerful enough.

    The move reflects an effort to appease frustrated technology executives over what they consider a lack of White House attention to hackers, cyberterror and othe

  • smells like (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Drug Czar!

  • Cyber-madness (Score:5, Funny)

    by blitzoid ( 618964 ) on Sunday May 25, 2003 @05:05PM (#6036979) Homepage
    Eventually the americans will have THREE forms of government! The first is the regular government, followed closely by a Shadow government (For emergencies only, of course!), and finally a Cybergovernment!

    Now when kids say they wanna grow up to be President, the teacher will have to ask "Will that be Shadow, Cyber, or Plain?"
    • Any key infrastructure that is controlled by computers should stand alone. It should not be connected to the internet, or to any network that is accesible from outside. There is your cybersecurity plan. This new office is a solution in search of a problem. Can you say boondoggle?
  • If you get to Guantanamo Bay before me, save me a cell, would you please?
  • is a certain Mr Anderson

  • See, we're doing something! Re-elect us! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by chill ( 34294 ) on Sunday May 25, 2003 @05:07PM (#6036993) Journal
    Typical of politics, and exemplified by the implementation of "Homeland Security". The politicians just seem to want to get something up and visible to show they're "on the job". Quality isn't Job #1, it usually isn't even on the same list. It is smoke, mirrors & hand waving -- "see we did something"!

    What about the FBI's cyber crime investigations? What about all the infrastructure/info that the NSA has? Will either of these agencies be mandated to cooperate? Or, will there be petty "Not Invented Here" and "This is MY jurisdiction" bickering?

    The gov't doesn't need a new Czar to secure their part of cyberspace (Milnet, etc.), and do they really think some agency will tell people (civilian companies & individuals) how to configure routers, firewalls and virus scanners?

  • Is that like Jeff K's website? [somethingawful.com]

  • ...wasn't the person originally tapped to hold this position the former CEO of double-click (in other words, a pop-up and ad-banner czar by trade)?

    Sorry, no links to give. Not only am I at work, but I'm lazy as well.
  • Talk about a joke job. This might be worthwhile if they made more of an effort to go after spammers, kiddie porn traffickers, and the other riff-raff. But of course, instead they'll spend all their time going after the 15-year old kids who "break into" Pentagon websites or trade Metallica MP3s, making sure to ruin the lives of these "cyberterrorists" and making the Internet safe for the RIAA and the rest of their Hollywood paymasters. Fuck this.
  • Who read that headline as
    "U.S. Government To Get Cybersecurity Chef"

    What would he serve, Johnny Mnemonic Barbecue Freedom Fries?

  • Wonder how this will work. (Score:5, Funny)

    by 2sleep2type ( 652900 ) on Sunday May 25, 2003 @05:13PM (#6037015)
    I can see it now a big box with lots of flashing lights. A big lever. The operator ( in a white coat of course). Walks up to box pulls lever.

    A display lights up 'Secure cyberspace ON'.

    Reminds me of one of my all time user requirement highlights. This was on a multi platform, multi system deployment which I was working on several interfaces for.

    21.0 Error Recovery Process

    When any error has occurred in across the system the user will select a fix error button. This will resolve all problems.

    When I suggested that the button could call a routine to print a P45 for anyone selecting it I was accused of been unresponsive to user needs.

    • I can see it now a big box with lots of flashing lights. A big lever. The operator ( in a white coat of course). Walks up to box pulls lever.

      A display lights up 'Secure cyberspace ON'.

      From the operations manual: "The secure cyberspace switch will turn off power supply of the United States. That includes your office. The lamp behind the display on the box is battery-powered."

      • From the operations manual: "The secure cyberspace switch will turn off power supply of the United States. That includes your office. The lamp behind the display on the box is battery-powered."

        Illegalize the back-up generators that foil this sceme!!! Those dirty hackers, imprison everyone with a back generator under the DMCA section 11.2 the what-ever-we-feel-like-today provision!
  • The title says it all. Watch how quickly they try to turn on us as they try to find excuses to regulate and shut down copy promoting technologies.

    Ironically, until they let go of copyrights, the forces opposed to true internet security will be too great because they will always want the right to "verify" we have the correct content.
  • "to secure cyberspace". How about that? I am sure the government will do an excellent job as it have been doing with everything else it lays its hands on.
  • Then her and Al Gore can run on the "Father and Mother of the Matrix...err, I mean Internet" platform!
  • And who's sponsoring this? I mean, fine, have another department, but I could imagine that there are some corporate interests behind this, too... "Secure cyberspace" sounds so familiar...

  • Beware! (Score:3, Funny)

    by mrpuffypants ( 444598 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .stnapyffuprm.> on Sunday May 25, 2003 @05:24PM (#6037065)
    ye hackers living within the borders of the United States shall soon fall under the tyrannical rule of the cybersecurity czar! Your constant day to day actions will be monitored by private-sector companies that control the entire Internet, told who and what to sniff by their grand ruler! All Hail The Grand Czar! ....what? there are computers outside of the US borders? Bah! We are at war with Oceania and have already eradicated these rogues operating under the control of the terrorist Linus!

  • not enough power? (Score:3, Informative)

    by phalse phace ( 454635 ) on Sunday May 25, 2003 @05:24PM (#6037066)
    Industry leaders worry the new post won't be powerful enough.

    Exactly how much more power do they really need, especially when they've got things like the Patriot [eff.org] Act [sfgate.com] and the proposed Son of Patriot Act [eff.org]?

    • well, if by industry leaders...they mean the IRAA and MPAA I think the power they are looking for is a guy who has sole control over copyright laws as well as law enforcment rules.

    • Re:not enough power? (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      They mean the post won't be powerful enough within the Homeland Security Dept. itself, not in an absolute sense.

      Being three levels deep within the organization means they will probably get a (relatively) small budget and generally be ignored.
    • The power problem is that a cybersecurity chief that's three levels below Tom Ridge on the org chart doesn't have the political cojones to beat other agencies into shape.

      Go look at the security mess over at the Department of the Interior - I suspect some of their web sites are *STILL* off the air after the court order a year or so ago. Those guys spent the better part of a decade basically saying alternately "Eat me!" and "We dont have a clue" before a federal judge finally got fed up.

      It isn't power to u
  • This is kind of playing out like the Net Force books; a goverment agency patrolling the internet (in the case of NF an independant division of the FBI) and they try to prevent "cyber terrism" ... there biggest enemy is Cybernation; a country that is totally online (no physical property and everything is free; like open source without the donation buttons).

    Does this mean that someone will try to take over the world by doing away with the current economy and create their own country online in the process?

  • yeah, 'cause the last position worked out so well (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SuperBanana ( 662181 ) on Sunday May 25, 2003 @05:29PM (#6037088)
    The Bush administration is going to create a new Cybersecurity Chief position in the Homeland Security Department.

    Cool- a new variant on the old election trick of forcing out figureheads as the election comes up; that way you can blame problems on someone who's long gone, and bring in someone new nobody can judge yet. Environmental policy sucks? Make your EPA head resign. People finally pissed off with reporters not being able to get anything out of the White House? Make your press secretary resign!

    Can't keep your "Cybersecurity chief" chair filled, because the dudes keep resigning faster than you can appoint them? Why, shift the position into a branch of the government where nbody knows what the hell is going on. Yeah, baby! Keep 'em guessing...

    By the way, wanna know why Ridge is head of Homeland Insecurity? Cause the poo baby lost his election for a congressional seat. But, no worries! The GOP sticks up for its people! Loose your election, get a post you're not remotely qualified for in a few months! But that's okay, it's probably a position that doesn't mean anything anyway.

  • Yay, now the internet can finally be free of hackers, viruses, bugs, spam, and every "cyber" problem that plagues the republicans! Um, I mean, American citizens!

  • Who's that? (Score:2, Funny)

    by jointm1k ( 591234 )

    That's Richard Gill man! The hacker enemy number one.

  • Please define "secure cyberspace" (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Virus1984 ( 624552 ) on Sunday May 25, 2003 @05:41PM (#6037139) Homepage Journal
    And while you're at it, define "cyber terrorist". Who decides who's a terrorist and who's not ? Minitru ?
  • I guess that means that spam is doomed ;-)

  • My prediction (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Phroggy ( 441 ) *
    Whoever gets appointed to this position won't know ANYTHING about computers, the Internet, or technology in general. He'll have a staff that will build a web site and print out their e-mail for him. He himself won't have the slightest idea what TCP/IP is or why it's important to his job. And yeah, he'll be in close contact with executives from the RIAA, MPAA, and Microsoft [slashdot.org].
    • I can see it now. They'll make it a rule that all the candidates must be checked out and approved by appropriate groups - like the American Bar Association gets to check out nominees to courts.

      And the "appropriate groups" will undoubtedly primarily include major corporations with clearly established expertise in the field - you can make your own list, this is /. after all. Maybe the ACM and IEEE Computer Society will get a vote each (as long as they behave and don't vote against the others).

      And of cou

    • I can spell Internet, balance brackets, defeat evil net monsters, and make touch decisions. I just got my citizenship, and my papers are in order. Plus I'm TS/COMSEC/Ultra-Magik/Double-Plus-Good cleared. Suspicious, reserved, and low-key (except for the bizarre hair color).

      Remember: Rei for Information Goddess^H^H^H^H^H^HMinister^H^H^H^H^H^H^H whatever-the-positions'-name-is: to make everything right in the cyber-world.

      Apparently they've got two weeks to look for candidates, so slashdot -- get cracking, s
  • Microsoft, and Linux will be the scapegoat for all security problems.
  • Can't the military handle this?

    It's not like Cybersecurity has to be BASED specifically for the U.S., like homeland security. I'm sure the Airforce/Navy/Army hackers can handle this. Actually, I'm pretty sure that there is already a MOS for this.

    • Re:Um...... (Score:2, Informative)

      by gruhnj ( 195230 )
      The military can handle its own. There is an Army MOS for this kind of stuff. Its any 74 series MOS, mostly 74B and 74C. (soon to be 31B and 31C). Any level 20 or higher personnel in this group should have taken System Administration/Network Security Level II, which amounts to a basic defense of Windows 2000+ and Solaris. Level 3 of this course has basic hacking. Level 4 is a full immersion into hacking, programming, etc. Anybody can take up to level two once MOS qualified. Level 1 is given in AIT. Level 2

  • Oh, thank god! (Score:3, Funny)

    by philovivero ( 321158 ) on Sunday May 25, 2003 @06:10PM (#6037272) Homepage Journal
    I am feeling so cyberterrorised lately, and this is the exact response I was looking for the government to make.

    It isn't like we have more important issues with Disney, RIAA, and MPAA buying legislation or anything.
  • i knew this would happen, but it still infuriates me. think the internet sucks now? wait about 5 years. these days will shine by comparison. fuck you, mister bush.
  • applicant [theos.com].
  • I pledge allegience to ashcroft's incompetence

    For which it stands

    An unsecure windows Nation

    Under Bill Gates

    A Nation with inseucrity and injustice for ALL!

  • It seems like that in the short history of the cyber-czar position, there has been a [slashdot.org] great [slashdot.org] track [slashdot.org] record [slashdot.org]. (Insert joke about Microsoft reliability here.)

    Best of luck to the new guy.

  • An excuse for a thought police? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by s4m7 ( 519684 ) on Sunday May 25, 2003 @06:51PM (#6037492) Homepage

    "Terrorism" in its many forms (I believe in the 50's they were referred to commies instead of terrorists) have been used as an excuse to pass Orwellian-style legislation here in the U.S. I think most of us would agree to as much. I see this whole homeland security program to have been little more than the legislated and executed implementation of more or less random spying on american citizens and it sickens me that this is being done in the name of patriotism. That is not what my father, nor his father fought for.

    Chillingly, this mentality is now being brought to be applied to a vague concept... a buzzword. How will this be interpreted by our inadequate, bloated and outdated legal machinery of U.S. Government? Essentially, "securing cyberspace" is conceptually equivalent to "restricting information" or, for the non-slashdot crowd, the monitoring and policing of any and all communications services. Calls to your spouses and parents, its all fair game. When will it be enough? why do you, a good and honest person who has no intention of breaking the law or committing acts of terrorism, become the subject of inquiry? How far will we let this go?

  • Will they start profiling against pimply faced long haired teenagers? Will they start checking everybody so the script kiddies don't feel discriminated against b/c of their acne? I can see it happening at security checks at airport:

    "Granny, will you please open up your laptop to make sure you have no software that can be used for harmful purposes."

  • That's funny... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Orne ( 144925 ) on Sunday May 25, 2003 @07:17PM (#6037631) Homepage
    I guess you can really tell the workers are on vacation for the holiday, because the only ones left to post on Slashdot are the goof-offs.

    There are computer networks that run behind the scenes that maintain every utility that runs our lives, whether it be remotely-controllable circuit breakers on the bulk power grid, hydroelectric dam controls for power & water, the multiplexors that run the telephone systems, etc. It's cheaper to put a machine out in the field and run network cable to it, than to have a live person out at the station pushing the same buttons, so more and more infrastructure is getting networked, telemetered, and controllable...

    Companies are increasingly relying on VPN and similar systems to allow workers to tunnel through the internet to connect to their business machines. Well all trust RSA encoding, but crack the operating system and you can use the tunnelling to get into a lot of restricted (price sensitive) data. Or maybe the company has a nifty database back-end to their site, and some buffer overruns gets you into schemas that weren't supposed to be exposed... Or it could be passwords on a stolen laptop. For whatever reasons, sites get hacked.

    Right now, what do companies do? If they even notice the cyber attack, they fill out some NIPC [nipc.gov] forms, and the issue vanishes into the beaurocracy. Not exactly the best measure, because the NIPC doesn't have the authority like the FBI to investigate events... or read the NIPC homepage, even they admit that there were 4 government programs that were combined, each in some way did little pieces of the puzzle but noone had the big picture of the events.

    My opinion? Appointing a Cyber-Security chief is a good thing, as long as there are additional steps taken to reduce the bloat of governement, by combining the other departments into one sector that can actually be effective in investigation. You have to not only create the position, but you have to give it the proper resources (like contacts at the FBI & NSA) who can properly identify crackers going after government resources, and hunt them down. Adding another level of red tape isn't going to accomplish much, but any step in the direction of securing national & private sector secrets is a good thing.
    • This administration has a pattern of attempting to outsource responsibility. Schools are bad - need more private schools. Need more security at the airport, let private enterprise answer the need. Now some will argue that's a good thing; I'll just say that I think there has to be a balance of private and publc sectors so I may get to my real point.

      How this administration will play the cybersecurity thing is to: first, contract out a study of how to have cybersecurity; second, contract out the implementatio

  • Securing Cyberspace (Score:3, Funny)

    by Tazzy531 ( 456079 ) on Sunday May 25, 2003 @07:31PM (#6037697) Homepage
    Securing Cyberspace will be just as effective as the
    • "War on Terrorism"
    • "War on Drugs"
    • "War on Education"
    and other asinine policies of the government

    • Re:Securing Cyberspace (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Actually, the War on Education seems to generally have been a resounding success.

  • Network Security (Score:3, Funny)

    by onosendai ( 79294 ) <oliyoung.gmail@com> on Sunday May 25, 2003 @08:09PM (#6037903)
    And here I was about to read that article about beginning Network Security; Thanks to the new cyber-tzar, I won't need to .. with his 'secur[ing] cyberspace' n'all
  • It is vitally important that this post gets filled immediately! Don't you know that, as we speak, hot chicks in skintight leather outfits are using nmap [insecure.org] and ssh 'sploits to shut down huge portions of the powergrid?!

    And naturally, the "terorists" are using 'nix...

  • The most qualified is: (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I nominate Jeff K [somethingawful.com].

  • By, Of, and For the Businesses (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Vegan Pagan ( 251984 ) <deanas&earthlink,net> on Sunday May 25, 2003 @08:32PM (#6038046)
    "It's pretty difficult for many businesses and many economic assets in this country to segregate the cyber side from the physical side because how that company operates, how that community operates, is interdependent," Ridge told lawmakers at a hearing this week.

    So this new department will only protect business? Does that mean they'll also only crack down on businesses, or will they save most of their persecution for the people who don't fund their campaigns?

  • terrorism (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dtfinch ( 661405 ) on Sunday May 25, 2003 @09:16PM (#6038210) Journal
    Why don't they just admit that they now consider all crime and unpopular use of first amendment rights to be acts of terrorism?

    The word terrorism has all but lost its meaning now. We used to consider a terrorist to be someone who kills innocent civilians to make a political statement. Now white hat hackers are terrorists. Peace march organizers are terrorists. P2P users are terrorists. And those terrorists and people who know the terrorists may be subject to FISA wiretaps, which are not checked by the judicial system.
  • I skimmed the title, and for a moment started wondering whether Emeril had enough time to hold down two jobs.

  • On tiny little step closer to 1984.
  • Anyone else read it that way? Reminds me of that snickers commercial where the guy was drawing the endzone for the KC Cheifs and his friend walks up and says "thats great, but who are the Chefs?"
  • Kevin Mitnick!

    Oh wait. I forgot. Damn.
  • Moving this position from being an advisory position to the president to being a position w/in the HDS is the *right* thing to do.

    The HDS (Homeland Security Department) is already set up to handle infrastructure threats w.r.t. transportation so, IMO, it makes sense for them to leverage that experience -- though granted not specifically applicable -- to other potential threat sources.

    It certainly makes a heap more sense for this position to be w/in an organization focused on naming then mitigating (if

  • I nominate myself. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Ayanami Rei ( 621112 ) <rayanami@@@gmail...com> on Monday May 26, 2003 @02:54AM (#6039333) Journal
    You know you want me in charge. Better than someone who can't pronounce: /.

    Any objections?
  • How many have they had now?

    Get serious...

    Another porkbarrel job for some crony of Bush...

Slashdot Top Deals

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Close