Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Schneier Says We Don't Need a Cybersecurity Czar

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the but-sir-these-polls-show-that-you're-winning dept.

Security 173

Trailrunner7 writes "Threatpost.com reports that security guru Bruce Schneier says not only should the NSA not run cybersecurity for the federal government, no one should. 'Really what I think is it shouldn't be anybody. We do better without a top-down hierarchy. Our economic and political systems work best when there isn't a dictator in charge, when there isn't one organization in charge. My feeling is there shouldn't be one organization in charge. Not only shouldn't it be the NSA, it shouldn't be anybody,' Schneier said."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Our economic and political systems (4, Interesting)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 5 years ago | (#27941639)

Our economic and political systems work best when there isn't a dictator in charge

Next in News: Bruce Schneier asked to be member of a Cybersecurity Tribunal.

Re:Our economic and political systems (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27941685)

It has come to my attention that the entire Linux community is a hotbed of so called 'alternative sexuality,' which includes anything from hedonistic orgies to homosexuality to pedophilia.

What better way of demonstrating this than by looking at the hidden messages contained within the names of some of Linux's most outspoken advocates:

  • Linus Torvalds [microsoft.com] is an anagram of slit anus or VD 'L,' clearly referring to himself by the first initial.
  • Richard M. Stallman [geocities.com] , spokespervert for the Gaysex's Not Unusual 'movement' is an anagram of mans cram thrill ad.
  • Alan Cox [microsoft.com] is barely an anagram of anal cox which is just so filthy and unchristian it unnerves me.

I'm sure that Eric S. Raymond, composer of the satanic homosexual [goatse.fr] propaganda diatribe The Cathedral and the Bizarre, is probably an anagram of something queer, but we don't need to look that far as we know he's always shoving a gun up some poor little boy's rectum. Update: Eric S. Raymond is actually an anagram for secondary rim and cord in my arse. It just goes to show you that he is indeed queer.

Update the Second: It is also documented that Evil Sicko Gaymond is responsible for a nauseating piece of code called Fetchmail [microsoft.com] , which is obviously sinister sodomite slang for 'Felch Male' -- a disgusting practise. For those not in the know, 'felching' is the act performed by two perverts wherein one sucks their own post-coital ejaculate out of the other's rectum. In fact, it appears that the dirty Linux faggots set out to undermine the good Republican institution of e-mail, turning it into 'e-male.'

As far as Richard 'Master' Stallman goes, that filthy fudge-packer was actually quoted [salon.com] on leftist commie propaganda site Salon.com as saying the following: 'I've been resistant to the pressure to conform in any circumstance,' he says. 'It's about being able to question conventional wisdom,' he asserts. 'I believe in love, but not monogamy,' he says plainly.

And this isn't a made up troll bullshit either! He actually stated this tripe, which makes it obvious that he is trying to politely say that he's a flaming homo [comp-u-geek.net] slut [rotten.com] !

Speaking about 'flaming,' who better to point out as a filthy chutney ferret than Slashdot's very own self-confessed pederast Jon Katz. Although an obvious deviant anagram cannot be found from his name, he has already confessed, nay boasted of the homosexual [goatse.fr] perversion of corrupting the innocence of young children [slashdot.org] . To quote from the article linked:

'I've got a rare kidney disease,' I told her. 'I have to go to the bathroom a lot. You can come with me if you want, but it takes a while. Is that okay with you? Do you want a note from my doctor?'

Is this why you were touching your penis [rotten.com] in the cinema, Jon? And letting the other boys touch it too?

We should also point out that Jon Katz refers to himself as 'Slashdot's resident Gasbag.' Is there any more doubt? For those fortunate few who aren't aware of the list of homosexual [goatse.fr] terminology found inside the Linux 'Sauce Code,' a 'Gasbag' is a pervert who gains sexual gratification from having a thin straw inserted into his urethra (or to use the common parlance, 'piss-pipe'), then his homosexual [goatse.fr] lover blows firmly down the straw to inflate his scrotum. This is, of course, when he's not busy violating the dignity and copyright of posters to Slashdot by gathering together their postings and publishing them en masse to further his twisted and manipulative journalistic agenda.

Sick, disgusting antichristian perverts, the lot of them.

In addition, many of the Linux distributions (a 'distribution' is the most common way to spread the faggots' wares) are run by faggot groups. The Slackware [redhat.com] distro is named after the 'Slack-wear' fags wear to allow easy access to the anus for sexual purposes. Furthermore, Slackware is a close anagram of claw arse, a reference to the homosexual [goatse.fr] practise of anal fisting. The Mandrake [slackware.com] product is run by a group of French faggot satanists, and is named after the faggot nickname for the vibrator. It was also chosen because it is an anagram for dark amen and ram naked, which is what they do.

Another 'distro,' (abbrieviated as such because it sounds a bit like 'Disco,' which is where homosexuals [goatse.fr] preyed on young boys in the 1970s), is Debian, [mandrake.com] an anagram of in a bed, which could be considered innocent enough (after all, a bed is both where we sleep and pray), until we realise what other names Debian uses to describe their foul wares. 'Woody' is obvious enough, being a term for the erect male penis [rotten.com] , glistening with pre-cum. But far sicker is the phrase 'Frozen Potato' that they use. This filthy term, again found in the secret homosexual [goatse.fr] 'Sauce Code,' refers to the solo homosexual [goatse.fr] practice of defecating into a clear polythene bag, shaping the turd into a crude approximation of the male phallus, then leaving it in the freezer overnight until it becomes solid. The practitioner then proceeds to push the frozen 'potato' up his own rectum, squeezing it in and out until his tight young balls erupt in a screaming orgasm.

And Red Hat [debian.org] is secret homo [comp-u-geek.net] slang for the tip of a penis [rotten.com] that is soaked in blood from a freshly violated underage ringpiece.

The fags have even invented special tools to aid their faggotry! For example, the 'supermount' tool was devised to allow deeper penetration, which is good for fags because it gives more pressure on the prostate gland. 'Automount' is used, on the other hand, because Linux users are all fat and gay, and need to mount each other [comp-u-geek.net] automatically.

The depths of their depravity can be seen in their use of 'mount points.' These are, plainly speaking, the different points of penetration. The main one is obviously/anus, but there are others. Militant fags even say 'there is no/opt mount point' because for these dirty perverts faggotry is not optional but a way of life.

More evidence is in the fact that Linux users say how much they love `man`, even going so far as to say that all new Linux users (who are in fact just innocent heterosexuals indoctrinated by the gay propaganda) should try out `man`. In no other system do users boast of their frequent recourse to a man.

Other areas of the system also show Linux's inherit gayness. For example, people are often told of the 'FAQ,' but how many innocent heterosexual Windows [amiga.com] users know what this actually means. The answer is shocking: Faggot Anal Quest: the voyage of discovery for newly converted fags!

Even the title 'Slashdot [geekizoid.com] ' originally referred to a homosexual [goatse.fr] practice. Slashdot [kuro5hin.org] of course refers to the popular gay practice of blood-letting. The Slashbots, of course are those super-zealous homosexuals [goatse.fr] who take this perversion to its extreme by ripping open their anuses, as seen on the site most popular with Slashdot users, the depraved work of Satan, http://www.eff.org/ [eff.org] .

The editors of Slashdot [slashduh.org] also have homosexual [goatse.fr] names: 'Hemos' is obvious in itself, being one vowel away from 'Homos.' But even more sickening is 'Commander Taco' which sounds a bit like 'Commode in Taco,' filthy gay slang for a pair of spreadeagled buttocks that are caked with excrement [pboy.com] . (The best form of lubrication, they insist.) Sometimes, these 'Taco Commodes' have special 'Salsa Sauce' (blood from a ruptured rectum) and 'Cheese' (rancid flakes of penis [rotten.com] discharge) toppings. And to make it even worse, Slashdot [notslashdot.org] runs on Apache!

The Apache [microsoft.com] server, whose use among fags is as prevalent as AIDS, is named after homosexual [goatse.fr] activity -- as everyone knows, popular faggot band, the Village People, featured an Apache Indian, and it is for him that this gay program is named.

And that's not forgetting the use of patches in the Linux fag world -- patches are used to make the anus accessible for repeated anal sex even after its rupture by a session of fisting.

To summarise: Linux is gay. 'Slash -- Dot' is the graphical description of the space between a young boy's scrotum and anus. And BeOS [apple.com] is for hermaphrodites and disabled 'stumpers.'

FEEDBACK

What worries me is how much you know about what gay people do. I'm scared I actually read this whole thing. I think this post is a good example of the negative effects of Internet usage on people. This person obviously has no social life anymore and had to result to writing something as stupid as this. And actually take the time to do it too. Although... I think it was satire.. blah.. it's early. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

Well, the only reason I know all about this is because I had the misfortune to read the Linux 'Sauce code' once. Although publicised as the computer code needed to get Linux up and running on a computer (and haven't you always been worried about the phrase 'Monolithic Kernel'?), this foul document is actually a detailed and graphic description of every conceivable degrading perversion known to the human race, as well as a few of the major animal species. It has shocked and disturbed me, to the point of needing to shock and disturb the common man to warn them of the impending homo [comp-u-geek.net] -calypse which threatens to engulf our planet.

You must work for the government. Trying to post the most obscene stuff in hopes that slashdot won't be able to continue or something, due to legal woes. If i ever see your ugly face, i'm going to stick my fireplace poker up your ass, after it's nice and hot, to weld shut that nasty gaping hole of yours. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

Doesn't it give you a hard-on to imagine your thick strong poker ramming it's way up my most sacred of sphincters? You're beyond help, my friend, as the only thing you can imagine is the foul penetrative violation of another man. Are you sure you're not Eric Raymond? The government, being populated by limp-wristed liberals, could never stem the sickening tide of homosexual [goatse.fr] child molesting Linux advocacy. Hell, they've given NAMBLA free reign for years!

you really should post this logged in. i wish i could remember jebus's password, cuz i'd give it to you. -- mighty jebus [slashdot.org] , Slashdot

Thank you for your kind words of support. However, this document shall only ever be posted anonymously. This is because the 'Open Sauce' movement is a sham, proposing homoerotic cults of hero worshipping in the name of freedom. I speak for the common man. For any man who prefers the warm, enveloping velvet folds of a woman's vagina [bodysnatchers.co.uk] to the tight puckered ringpiece of a child. These men, being common, decent folk, don't have a say in the political hypocrisy that is Slashdot culture. I am the unknown liberator [hitler.org] .

ROLF LAMO i hate linux FAGGOTS -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

We shouldn't hate them, we should pity them for the misguided fools they are... Fanatical Linux zeal-outs need to be herded into camps for re-education and subsequent rehabilitation into normal heterosexual society. This re-education shall be achieved by forcing them to watch repeats of Baywatch until the very mention of Pamela Anderson [rotten.com] causes them to fill their pants with healthy heterosexual jism [zillabunny.com] .

Actually, that's not at all how scrotal inflation works. I understand it involves injecting sterile saline solution into the scrotum. I've never tried this, but you can read how to do it safely in case you're interested. (Before you moderate this down, ask yourself honestly -- who are the real crazies -- people who do scrotal inflation, or people who pay $1000+ for a game console?) -- double_h [slashdot.org] , Slashdot

Well, it just goes to show that even the holy Linux 'sauce code' is riddled with bugs that need fixing. (The irony of Jon Katz not even being able to inflate his scrotum correctly has not been lost on me.) The Linux pervert elite already acknowledge this, with their queer slogan: 'Given enough arms, all rectums are shallow.' And anyway, the PS2 [xbox.com] sucks major cock and isn't worth the money. Intellivision forever!

dude did u used to post on msnbc's nt bulletin board now that u are doing anti-gay posts u also need to start in with anti-black stuff too c u in church -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

For one thing, whilst Linux is a cavalcade of queer propaganda masquerading as the future of computing, NT [linux.com] is used by people who think nothing better of encasing their genitals in quick setting plaster then going to see a really dirty porno film, enjoying the restriction enforced onto them. Remember, a wasted arousal is a sin in the eyes of the Catholic church [atheism.org] . Clearly, the only god-fearing Christian operating system in existence is CP/M -- The Christian Program Monitor. All computer users should immediately ask their local pastor to install this fine OS onto their systems. It is the only route to salvation.

Secondly, this message is for every man. Computers know no colour. Not only that, but one of the finest websites in the world is maintained by a Black Man [stileproject.com] . Now fuck off you racist donkey felcher.

And don't forget that slashdot was written in Perl, which is just too close to 'Pearl Necklace' for comfort.... oh wait; that's something all you heterosexuals do.... I can't help but wonder how much faster the trolls could do First-Posts on this site if it were redone in PHP... I could hand-type dynamic HTML pages faster than Perl can do them. -- phee [slashdot.org] , Slashdot

Although there is nothing unholy about the fine heterosexual act of ejaculating between a woman's breasts, squirting one's load up towards her neck and chin area, it should be noted that Perl [python.org] (standing for Pansies Entering Rectums Locally) is also close to 'Pearl Monocle,' 'Pearl Nosering,' and the ubiquitous 'Pearl Enema.'

One scary thing about Perl [sun.com] is that it contains hidden homosexual [goatse.fr] messages. Take the following code: LWP::Simple -- It looks innocuous enough, doesn't it? But look at the line closely: There are two colons next to each other! As Larry 'Balls to the' Wall would openly admit in the Perl Documentation, Perl was designed from the ground up to indoctrinate it's programmers into performing unnatural sexual acts -- having two colons so closely together is clearly a reference to the perverse sickening act of 'colon kissing,' whereby two homosexual [goatse.fr] queers spread their buttocks wide, pressing their filthy torn sphincters together. They then share small round objects like marbles or golfballs by passing them from one rectum to another using muscle contraction alone. This is also referred to in programming 'circles' as 'Parameter Passing.'

And PHP [perl.org] stands for Perverted Homosexual Penetration. Didn't you know?

Thank you for your valuable input on this. I am sure you will be never forgotten. BTW: Did I mention that this could be useful in terraforming Mars? Mars rulaa. -- Eimernase [slashdot.org] , Slashdot

Well, I don't know about terraforming Mars, but I do know that homosexual [goatse.fr] Linux Advocates have been probing Uranus for years.

That's inspiring. Keep up the good work, AC. May God in his wisdom grant you the strength to bring the plain honest truth to this community, and make it pure again. Yours, Cerberus. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

*sniff* That brings a tear to my eye. Thank you once more for your kind support. I have taken faith in the knowledge that I am doing the Good Lord [atheism.org] 's work, but it is encouraging to know that I am helping out the common man here.

However, I should be cautious about revealing your name 'Cerberus' on such a filthy den of depravity as Slashdot. It is a well known fact that the 'Kerberos' documentation from Microsoft is a detailed manual describing, in intimate, exacting detail, how to sexually penetrate a variety of unwilling canine animals; be they domesticated, wild, or mythical. Slashdot posters have taken great pleasure in illegally spreading this documentation far and wide, treating it as an 'extension' to the Linux 'Sauce Code,' for the sake of 'interoperability.' (The slang term they use for nonconsensual intercourse -- their favourite kind.)

In fact, sick twisted Linux deviants are known to have LAN parties, (Love of Anal Naughtiness, needless to say.), wherein they entice a stray dog, known as the 'Samba Mount,' into their homes. Up to four of these filth-sodden blasphemers against nature take turns to plunge their erect, throbbing, uncircumcised members, conkers-deep, into the rectum, mouth, and other fleshy orifices of the poor animal. Eventually, the 'Samba Mount' collapses due to 'overload,' and needs to be 'rebooted.' (i.e., kicked out into the street, and left to fend for itself.) Many Linux users boast about their 'uptime' in such situations.

Inspiring stuff! If only all trolls were this quality! -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

If only indeed. You can help our brave cause by moderating this message up as often as possible. I recommend '+1, Underrated,' as that will protect your precious Karma in Metamoderation [slashdot.org] . Only then can we break through the glass ceiling of Homosexual Slashdot Culture. Is it any wonder that the new version of Slashcode has been christened 'Bender'???

If we can get just one of these postings up to at least '+1,' then it will be archived forever! Others will learn of our struggle, and join with us in our battle for freedom!

It's pathetic you've spent so much time writing this. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

I am compelled to document the foulness and carnal depravity [catholic.net] that is Linux, in order that we may prepare ourselves for the great holy war that is to follow. It is my solemn duty to peel back the foreskin of ignorance and apply the wire brush of enlightenment.

As with any great open-source project, you need someone asking this question, so I'll do it. When the hell is version 2.0 going to be ready?!?! -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

I could make an arrogant, childish comment along the lines of 'Every time someone asks for 2.0, I won't release it for another 24 hours,' but the truth of the matter is that I'm quite nervous of releasing a 'number two,' as I can guarantee some filthy shit-slurping Linux pervert would want to suck it straight out of my anus before I've even had chance to wipe.

I desperately want to suck your monolithic kernel, you sexy hunk, you. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

I sincerely hope you're Natalie Portman [geocities.com] .

Dude, nothing on slashdot larger than 3 paragraphs is worth reading. Try to distill the message, whatever it was, and maybe I'll read it. As it is, I have to much open source software to write to waste even 10 seconds of precious time. 10 seconds is all its gonna take M$ to whoop Linux's ass. Vigilence is the price of Free (as in libre -- from the fine, frou frou French language) Software. Hack on fellow geeks, and remember: Friday is Bouillabaisse day except for heathens who do not believe that Jesus died for their sins. Those godless, oil drench, bearded sexist clowns can pull grits from their pantaloons (another fine, fine French word) and eat that. Anyway, try to keep your message focused and concise. For concision is the soul of derision. Way. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

What the fuck?

I've read your gay conspiracy post version 1.3.0 and I must say I'm impressed. In particular, I appreciate how you have managed to squeeze in a healthy dose of the latent homosexuality you gay-bashing homos [comp-u-geek.net] tend to be full of. Thank you again. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

Well bugger me!

ooooh honey. how insecure are you!!! wann a little massage from deare bruci. love you -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

Fuck right off!

IMPORTANT: This message needs to be heard (Not HURD [linux.org] , which is an acronym for 'Huge Unclean Rectal Dilator') across the whole community, so it has been released into the Public Domain [icopyright.com] . You know, that licence that we all had before those homoerotic crypto-fascists came out with the GPL [apple.com] (Gay Penetration License) that is no more than an excuse to see who's got the biggest feces-encrusted [rotten.com] cock. I would have put this up on Freshmeat [adultmember.com] , but that name is known to be a euphemism for the tight rump of a young boy.

Come to think of it, the whole concept of 'Source Control' unnerves me, because it sounds a bit like 'Sauce Control,' which is a description of the homosexual [goatse.fr] practice of holding the base of the cock shaft tightly upon the point of ejaculation, thus causing a build up of semenal fluid that is only released upon entry into an incision made into the base of the receiver's scrotum. And 'Open Sauce' is the act of ejaculating into another mans face or perhaps a biscuit to be shared later. Obviously, 'Closed Sauce' is the only Christian thing to do, as evidenced by the fact that it is what Cathedrals are all about.

Contributors: (although not to the eternal game of 'soggy biscuit' that open 'sauce' development has become) Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, phee, Anonymous Coward, mighty jebus, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, double_h, Anonymous Coward, Eimernase, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward. Further contributions are welcome.

Current changes: This version sent to FreeWIPO [slashdot.org] by 'Bring BackATV' as plain text. Reformatted everything, added all links back in (that we could match from the previous version), many new ones (Slashbot bait links). Even more spelling fixed. Who wrote this thing, CmdrTaco himself?

Previous changes: Yet more changes added. Spelling fixed. Feedback added. Explanation of 'distro' system. 'Mount Point' syntax described. More filth regarding `man` and Slashdot. Yet more fucking spelling fixed. 'Fetchmail' uncovered further. More Slashbot baiting. Apache exposed. Distribution licence at foot of document.

ANUX -- A full Linux distribution... Up your ass!

Why an ANYTHING Czar? (5, Insightful)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 5 years ago | (#27942583)

The second they use the term "Czar", to describe a person in administrative capacity over a regulatory body, they betray the authoritarian and anti-democratic ideology with which they conspire against representative government and individual rights and liberties.

Czar is the Slavic rendering of Caesar. Why anybody sees this as an expediency worthy of trade-off for democratic involvement and oversight is a question I leave you, the dear reader to resolve.

Bruce Windu says... (1)

geobeck (924637) | more than 5 years ago | (#27943901)

"You don't need a cybersecurity czar... This isn't the issue you're looking for... They can go about their business... Move along."

I dunno, this whole thing smells like bantha poodoo to me.

Actually what's really going on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27941733)

Is that he would love to do it if they asked him, but they HAVEN'T.

Re:Our economic and political systems (4, Insightful)

Cornwallis (1188489) | more than 5 years ago | (#27942217)

Hah! Since he dares question the powers-that-be: Next in News: Bruce Schneier to be tried by Cybersecurity Tribunal.

Re:Our economic and political systems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27942677)

Tsar? I thought US is a democracy.

Makes sense (4, Interesting)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 5 years ago | (#27941643)

The internets are decentralized (mostly), so why shouldn't the security model be?

Re:Makes sense (2, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#27941689)

Because we don't want varying standards for security. The cybersecurity czar would more likely than not be mostly responsible for making sure efforts are coordinated and testing. In the past the various departments have done a piss poor job of verifying that systems are in fact hardened.

Re:Makes sense (5, Informative)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#27941745)

The cybersecurity czar would more likely than not be mostly responsible for making sure that the public perceives that the feds are doing actually something while actually accomplishing very little other than to direct a few contracts to vendors who donated the right amount of money and/or were buddies of his while he was in school

Fixed that for you. Given the track record of the other "czar's" appointed by the Federal Government, you'll forgive me for my skepticism.

Re:Makes sense (5, Funny)

flyingsquid (813711) | more than 5 years ago | (#27941947)

The problem isn't the basic idea of having a 'czar', which is a good idea. The issue is that we have too many czars appointed, so it has become difficult to keep track of them all and coordinate their efforts. What we need is a single individual given the executive power to oversee all of these czars, and appoint them, discipline them, and fire them at will, so as to centralize control of the czars. That person will be the Czar Czar.

Dictatorships have always worked so well (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27942015)

that I can see why you want another one.

Re:Makes sense (3, Insightful)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 5 years ago | (#27942693)

Also known as The President?

Mind you, maybe that's part of the problem ... and the Czar Czar should be the Speaker of the House...

Re:Makes sense (4, Funny)

snspdaarf (1314399) | more than 5 years ago | (#27942835)

....Gabor?

Re:Makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27943337)

No... you're thinking of Binks.

Re:Rule (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 5 years ago | (#27943737)

One Czar to Rule them all and in the Darkness bind them?

Re:Makes sense (1)

Trailrunner7 (1100399) | more than 5 years ago | (#27942057)

That's exactly it. The czar concept in general is flawed, even in departments or industries that have a clear mission and control of that mission. Neither is true in cyber security. We don't need another figurehead creating the illusion of action.

Re:Makes sense (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27942103)

And given the track record of this administration, will either have cheated on taxes or be so inept at cyber security that every computer he owns is a member of multiple botnets.

Along with a recent investigation into his former employees that indicate they were running the botnets installed on his computers, with clues that he may or may not have been aware of this.

The quality of appointees from this administration has so far been a bit on the disappointing side, to say the least.

Re:Makes sense (1)

gadabyte (1228808) | more than 5 years ago | (#27942243)

The quality of appointees from this administration has so far been a bit on the disappointing side, to say the least.

and yet they're still somehow better than bush appointees...rumsfeld, gonzales, brown, et al...

Re:Makes sense (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27942403)

Yeah, Bush's appointees kept us safe from terrorist attack for six years, while Obama's appointees have thrown us into the largest recession since the Great Depression, causing the collapse of the banking and automotive industries.

Yep, Obama's definitely an improvement, because he's like got hope and change and stuff. Yay.

Re:Makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27942725)

Nice historical re-write there. You mean all that stuff that started last year? When that other guy (oh yeah, Bush) was in office?

Re:Makes sense (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27942975)

Yeah, that stuff that started suspiciously after the Democrats had control of Congress and started blocking all of Bush's policies? What a coincidence that all this starts when the Democrats have control of Congress and then spirals completely out of control when they get the house. What a weird coincidence...

Re:Makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27943231)

Not for nothing, but the recession started in 2007 and was predicted long before. Your favorite government cronnies were waving off the downward trending of the economy, too focused on ridiculous wars and "protecting us" from terrorism to do anything about it.

The terrorists "won" (if there is such a thing, its like a war on fucking jealousy), the moment the PATRIOT Act was passed and gave a REPUBLICAN-controlled, executive branch of the government free-fucking-will to do what they please. So please, save us your painfully stupid, shortsighted wisdom, Fox News already spews plenty for everybody.

The Democrats aren't much better, but at least they're trying to spend money on people in THIS HEMISPHERE, let alone in this country.

Re:Makes sense (2, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 5 years ago | (#27943947)

"The Democrats aren't much better, but at least they're trying to spend money on people in THIS HEMISPHERE, let alone in this country."

While I'm very concerned about the amount of money they are currently spending.

Why in the HELL should/would they be spending our money (that we don't have) on any people that aren't citizens of the United States??

I don't mind helping out when you have excess.....but, right now, we do not, and one thing to do, would be to cut out foreign aid.

Re:Makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27944681)

No more money to be thrown at Iraq then, eh? Those soldiers are there to aid the Iraqi populace aren't they?

Re:Makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27942713)

Are you an idiot ??? I personally know Rumsfeld and even though he is not the brightest bulb in the pack his heart and his interest's in this country is right on track. go take your liberal shit and shove it up your ass.

Re:Makes sense (1)

slugstone (307678) | more than 5 years ago | (#27943745)

Hey lets look forward and do better, and not compare ourselves to the past.

Re:Makes sense (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 5 years ago | (#27941929)

Because we don't want varying standards for security.

Actually, we do, especially when you think of it from an ROI perspective. For example, I don't secure my home network to the same standard I've secured my business' network. Two different entities, two different priorities: two different security strategies.

Take it to the next level: A Fortune 500 company's security will be radically different than the one I use for my small business.

Now, if you're talking standards as in encryption, I'd rather have whatever works instead of whatever passed committee.

Re:Makes sense (1)

JayJay.br (206867) | more than 5 years ago | (#27942099)

That would be two strategies, but hardly two standards.

It could easily be the same security framework or standard (ISO27000?), applied to different realities gives you a different strategy of course.

Different realities = divergence (2, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 5 years ago | (#27942843)

It could easily be the same security framework or standard (ISO27000?), applied to different realities gives you a different strategy of course.

Actually no it cannot. If you are "applying a standard to different realities", you have divergence and two real de-facto standards.

Furthermore the data you are trying to protect varies wildly by domain. CC are protected differently from SSN are protected differently from medical records, for they all have different data paths.

The variances are great enough we do not need to pay for a federal position that writes up proclamations that people ignore or apply in ways they see fit. We already have industry groups that give us security standards aplenty (like OWASP) that are the devil to apply already, so what good is someone at the federal level going to do beyond that? It's just a total waste of money when we have none to spare.

Re:Makes sense (1)

osgeek (239988) | more than 5 years ago | (#27942523)

responsible

That's where you went wrong, right there. Responsibility implies accountability. Accountability implies consequences like jail, or fines, or maybe just firing. When was the last time we ever saw any of those things for government officials? Scooter Libby? Poor sap was a scapegoat.

Re:Makes sense (1)

54mc (897170) | more than 5 years ago | (#27941697)

Because your Uncle Sam knows best.

Re:Makes sense (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#27942429)

As soon as you drag "security" into it, that practically becomes a bipartisan article of faith.

Re:Makes sense (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 5 years ago | (#27941779)

Why then it couldn't be controlled and the feds can't have that. This won't be the first time the feds have tried gettiing their hands on the inner workings of a system to "improve" it and it won't be the last. Their idea is that if it's "under their control" and centralized that it will mean things will be improved everywhere for the most part, unfortunately as is the case with other decentralized systems [the economy] centralization doesn't actually mean things will improve, often the reverse is true.

Re:Makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27942709)

He's right, we shouldn't try a government cybersecurity approach because the current system has been so effective against trojans and bots.

Perhaps we should just stick our head in the sand, give all our money to Nigerians and order cheap viagra on a daily basis.

Re:Makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27943383)

sure the internet is distributed, but it's not decentralized... In fact it's exactly the opposite. The reason the internet works as it does is there are many central nexuses for many different providers all gathered together. I'd say there should be standards as far as things like, oh I dunno, physical access go. That and what minimum security our government should meet before connecting their network to the internet are basically all that a central authority could manage to do for the public good... other than that, it would just be more beurocratic overhead... as if SOX isn't bad enough.

No overlord necessary. (4, Funny)

Bentov (993323) | more than 5 years ago | (#27941673)

I, for one, would be happy without an overlord.

Re:No overlord necessary. (5, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#27941705)

I, for one, would be happy with an oversight committee that does its job.

Examples of oversight committees working, please (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27942133)

All regulatory agencies, oversight committees, etc. are taken over by the regulatees.

This is a law of human social system-level nature as inexorable as the law of gravity.

History is full of layers and layers of oversight, none of which substitute for the self-interest of the operational group doing their job 'right'.

That doesn't happen very often even in large corporations, is rare in government : precisely what you expect from the relative levels of self-interest of employees in these orgs.

I have worked in organizations from startups through state and federal governments. I am currently in a 30-person small network products company. As a generalization, I find that startups generally work, small organizations do quite often, but the larger the organization and the less connected the employees with management, the worse they execute,

So you're saying, you want a pony (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 5 years ago | (#27942889)

I, for one, would be happy with an oversight committee that does its job.

So would be all, but the very nature of an oversight committee (heck, a committee in general) is to make no-one happy and basically consume funds as it grows.

Thanks for wanting me to pay for that, but no thanks.

Re:No overlord necessary. (3, Interesting)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 5 years ago | (#27942899)

I, for one, would be happy with an oversight committee that does its job.

oversight: (n) an unintentional failure to notice or do something.

Job descriptions don't come more accurate than that...

Re:No overlord necessary. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27942269)

So you're an atheist then?

OMG (-1, Troll)

z-j-y (1056250) | more than 5 years ago | (#27941675)

Schneier is a fucking right wing nut, possibly racist too.

Re:OMG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27941969)

So, let me see if I understand correctly. If a person opposes expensive, gargantuan, highly centralised, omnipotent government programs then you would consider that person to be a "right wing nut". Then, with no qualification you tack on the 'possibility' that he might be a racist. Is that because he isn't a socialist?

It is 'possible' that you spend your evenings participating in 'donkey shows' and turning tricks as a transgendered hooker, but I will not imply that it is likely without any evidence to back it up.

Re:OMG (1)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 5 years ago | (#27942735)

Really? You have video?

On second thought, I'll just take your word for it, and you keep the videos.

Re:OMG (1)

pwfffff (1517213) | more than 5 years ago | (#27944309)

Opposing large government generally makes one 'right wing'.

Using bombastic, hyperbolic terms such as 'gargantuan' and 'omnipotent' is what makes one a nut.

I love Schneier (5, Insightful)

PingXao (153057) | more than 5 years ago | (#27941701)

He won't make any friends with the government research grant people with that attitude, though. Seriously, if you only occasionally read what Schneier has to say, and follow his advice and guidelines, you'll be more "secure" than 99% of everyone else. That's because 99% of the people (and companies) don't follow his advice, which is often simple and just requires a little effort and awareness. It's the "effort and awareness" thing that most people find challenging.

Re:I love Schneier (4, Insightful)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27943403)

I completely agree. The biggest point people need to take from Schneier is that security is more of a mindset than anything else. If you care about security and you're willing to take a little effort to achieve it, you can (at least until you get humans involved, then there will be a willing idiot almost every time). Encryption is a solved problem, XSS attacks are easily dealt with if you know what you're doing and head the problem off early in development, etc. The biggest thing that would be accomplished is just to get people thinking about it and dealing with it proactively.

Amen (0)

Lovedumplingx (245300) | more than 5 years ago | (#27941741)

Amen

Cyber Security is OUR problem (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27941743)

I couldn't agree more. I wrote this blog post [mobiusdevelopment.com] a few months ago arguing the exact same thing. There will always be crisis situations where government intervention and coordination may be necessary, but the first line of governance and management should be at the personal, community, and company level.

Re:Cyber Security is OUR problem (1)

outcast36 (696132) | more than 5 years ago | (#27941791)

This is my post, forgot to log in.

Re:Cyber Security is OUR problem (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#27942635)

Is there some special reason you are serving this link (and a couple others like it):

http://gumblar.cn/rss/?id=2 [gumblar.cn]

Instead of rss, it leads to a pdf with embedded javascript (which I haven't executed, so I can't really say if it is an attack).

Looking at the various components of your page, I would suspect the obfuscated javascript at the bottom of niftycube.js is responsible, the file is here:

http://www.mobiusdevelopment.com/dev/niftycube.js [mobiusdevelopment.com]

There is the potential for some bloody good irony going on here.

Re:Cyber Security is OUR problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27942777)

Brace for epic.

Good job on the find, would only have been better had you posted anon so I could say good job anon.

Re:Cyber Security is OUR problem (1)

outcast36 (696132) | more than 5 years ago | (#27943259)

see, it's my problem and yours as well. If you're ever in the DC area, you are +1 beer.

The NSA is more qualified than DHS (4, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 5 years ago | (#27941873)

DHS is a hodge podge of federal agencies that performs like the Keystone Cops in Gestapo uniforms. Not only is the NSA more qualified to take over federal infosec in a time of crisis, but it is statutorally safer for the general public because as a member of the intelligence community, it is not legally a part of the law enforcement apparatus. In order for information to flow to law enforcement, the NSA would not only have to be willing to cooperate, but have to jump a large number of hoops and hurdles to hand off the information. There are a lot of restrictions on the intelligence community with respect to information about Americans that simply don't exist for law enforcement like DHS.

The real reason why we don't need a Cybersecurity Czar is that 99 times out of 100, the systems that are getting hacked are not sensitive systems. Who cares if the Department of Labor or Interior gets hacked here and there since the intelligence community and military are generally competent at securing their classified networks?

Re:The NSA is more qualified than DHS (5, Informative)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 5 years ago | (#27942391)

At the Department of the Interior, "Alan Balaran, a court-appointed special master, soon confirmed that a team of hackers could break into the trust accounting system with relative ease and then write checks on the trust funds" [washingtonpost.com] . Those trust funds were held for the benefit of Native American nations, who filed a multi-billion dollar lawsuit over the security problems.

There are sensitive systems all over.

Re:The NSA is more qualified than DHS (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27942419)

The government does most things really well and spot on; however you are completly correct in your assessment of the Dept. of Homeland Security.

It should be abolished and it's fund be given to the FBI and FEMA.

It only exists to get around procedures in place to protect our rights.

why NSA shouldn't be used for defense (3, Interesting)

SethJohnson (112166) | more than 5 years ago | (#27943615)



The problem with the NSA is that it IS part of the intelligence structure. If you insert them as a defensive player, more often than not, they will take absolutely NO action in order to protect their spying capabilities.

At present, nobody knows exactly what the reach is of the NSA. Nobody knows what they can and can't hear. If you task them with defending assets, each probe or attack reveals new information about what the NSA has at their disposal, depending on what the response is. I really don't think the NSA is willing to compromise the secrecy of its capabilities in order to thwart hackers.

Seth

looks like someone's going to dissapear soon (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27941885)

God's speed.

Maybe someone to keep the feet on the fire? (1)

seer (21011) | more than 5 years ago | (#27941913)

I could see someone who will do testing and be the point person for the money. We need someone to do penetration testing with a white hat on.

Any volunteers?

Re:Maybe someone to keep the feet on the fire? (2, Funny)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27943443)

We need someone to do penetration testing with a white hat on.

Can I use my wizard hat and robe instead?

Czar? (4, Insightful)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 5 years ago | (#27941991)

Better question is why the USA needs Czars of anything?

Weren't they leaders of imperialist Russia?

Why would that label seem appropriate?

Re:Czar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27942469)

Because their full administrative title is a mouthful.

Re:Czar? (1)

Welshalian (733176) | more than 5 years ago | (#27943581)

In Imperialist Russia, Czar needs YOU!

Re:Czar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27944165)

Now that rlations with Cuba are warming, think we need a Cigar Czar.

The business generalization is too crude (4, Interesting)

hey! (33014) | more than 5 years ago | (#27942003)

Top down works -- for managing the efficient, repeated performance of a task with well defined and stable success criteria, and where performance can be improved incrementally by local adjustments. Top down has a place in the world. When consistent is at a premium, top down is the way to go.

Bottom up works too -- for tasks that involve things that are too complex and fluid for a single person or chain of command to comprehend and react to. Where creativity is at a premium, bottom up is the way to go.

No structure works too -- for tasks where there is a body of people who understand every part of that task. Think a Shaker barn raising. When you have a body of people who've mastered every aspect of a task and everyone can see what task needs more hands, then no structure is the way to go.

It seems to me that something like cybersecurity needs a bit of each approach. It's organizationally difficult, if not impossible to approach such a problem perfectly. However, I think the rough appearance of a structure to handle this would be top down with expertise pushed out to the various groups in the organization and discretion allowed.

Re:The business generalization is too crude (2, Insightful)

Crispy Critters (226798) | more than 5 years ago | (#27942411)

All good points. I would add that top down is valuable when budgeting is most important and bottom up works better when transparency is needed. I think I want the people who are deciding what hash functions are secure to be different from the people worrying about whether it will annoy their vendors to ask for a patch and how much it will cost to push the patch to all vulnerable systems. There doesn't seem to be enough overlap between, say, testing encryption, securing the root DNS servers, and locking down desktops running Windows to put all these under one person.

Exactly why we don't need a CSZAr (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 5 years ago | (#27942795)

Top down works -- for managing the efficient, repeated performance of a task with well defined and stable success criteria, and where performance can be improved incrementally by local adjustments. Top down has a place in the world. When consistent is at a premium, top down is the way to go.

And not one aspect of that sounds anything like systems security, where attacks are fluid and the definitions of success are countless.

We do not need to fund federally a position that is far better met by people closer to the domain they are protecting.

Re:Exactly why we don't need a CSZAr (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 5 years ago | (#27944195)

It seems to me that this issue has different dimensions, some of which are fluid, others of which are not.

You would not expect the so called czar to direct a response to an attack by himself. That's not feasible. However the czar could oversee the aspects of the problem that are repeatable, for example ensuring training programs exist for system administrators; making sure groups working with critical systems have contingency plans; ensuring that vulnerability testing is done; investigating open installations which haven't installed recommended security patches. That sort of thing.

When an attack on a large scale occurs, then there needs to be a team in place to coordinate the response. That team will move to fast for some administrator to make all the decisions. But who ensures the team exists, and is ready, trained and equipped?

No, I think this would be a very useful position, so long as we don't think of security per se as someting that can be produced by he fiat of a centrally managed bureaucracy. There are multiple styles of organizational preparation needed to promote security, and some of those responses are dependent on repeated, efficient execution of reasonably routine tasks like training.

Re:The business generalization is too crude (1)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 5 years ago | (#27942895)

No structure works too -- for tasks where there is a body of people who understand every part of that task. Think a Shaker barn raising.

You mean like every editor on Wikipedia understanding every detail about how to write an encyclopedia?

Re:The business generalization is too crude (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 5 years ago | (#27944039)

Well, what are the requirements of an encyclopedia?

You will find that when it comes to consistent scholarly accountability, Brittanica is the way to go. If responsiveness to changing needs is at a premium, Wikipedia is far more useful, albeit not entirely reliable. No responsive medium could be.

Just refine the idea a little (2, Interesting)

Punk CPA (1075871) | more than 5 years ago | (#27942199)

There is already a set of standards and an agency with responsibility for setting and updating them, namely the Computer Security Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. We don't need another czar; we're running out of Fabergé eggs and gaudy uniforms.

What they need is a solid system of IT auditing to make sure the standards are followed. To the extent they are done now, IT audits are done within each agency and rarely receive attention at the department secretary level. Each department has an inspector general with oversight responsibilities, but they don't seem to put IT audits at the top of their agendas. GAO does not do much with this, either. Why not?

A White House directive for IT audits and request for reports of results would really be sufficient. Let them know the president is taking the issue seriously and they would do so as well.

Turner Says We Don't Need Another Hero (1)

xerxesVII (707232) | more than 5 years ago | (#27942213)

She said it many times. Loudly. With seashells on the sides of her head.

What this all boils down to (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27942313)

In capitalist America, Czar disappoints BRUCE!!

Has Bruce gone bat shit loco? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27942365)

First, it's not a dictator.
Second, Government works best when it's open and has a top down functionality.
Third, Do you propose that some account be in charge of handling his own security? that every agency works in a bubble?

Do we need a Cybersecurity position? maybe not, but we do need a person security guideline and procedure come from. This way they can be vetted, and you don't ahve to train your entire staff in computer security.

Watch the Slashvertarians go! (0)

7Prime (871679) | more than 5 years ago | (#27942369)

*sigh*

Re:Watch the Slashvertarians go! (1)

homer_s (799572) | more than 5 years ago | (#27943415)

God forbid somebody says something sensible...*sigh* indeed.

Waves hand... (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 5 years ago | (#27942389)

We Don't Need a Cybersecurity Czar.

... These are not the droids you're looking for.

The "tyranny of the hierarchy" (4, Interesting)

macraig (621737) | more than 5 years ago | (#27942665)

Schneier seems to instinctively grasp what so many people don't: the hierarchical nature of virtually all human organizations - and derived from that vestigial alpha-male instinct - is prone to corruption, subversion, and ultimately ethical failure. Or to quote the old cliche: the Peter Principle applies here, with a twist: it's often the least ethical scum that rises to the top, not the least capable. Even the supposedly democratic United States government is organized in such a fashion, and the successful treasonous behavior of the Bush administration is a useful demonstration of how it can go wrong very quickly.

What Schneier is very reasonably suggesting is that we lessen that hierarchy, not add to it.

Re:The "tyranny of the hierarchy" (2, Insightful)

mmaniaci (1200061) | more than 5 years ago | (#27944027)

...and the successful treasonous behavior of every administration after Kennedy is a useful demonstration of how it can go wrong very quickly.

(And yes this includes Obama!) I do agree with you in principal. What can be corrupt, will be corrupt and we need less legislation that has the potential to become corrupt. Due to this, no Czar is a good thing, and I don't think I need to explain the connection with absolute power and corruption.

P.S. "Czar" is the dumbest buzzword that the interwebs has given birth to in a long time and I for one am sick of hearing it. But I guess its not really birth... its more like stealing someone's kid, calling it your own, then beating the shit out of him until he's a she.

Re:The "tyranny of the hierarchy" (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 5 years ago | (#27944453)

No counter-arguments here, not even vis-a-vis Obama. He ain't no messiah, and he's not really even a reformer. He's a MEDIATOR, a true politician's politician. He'll dissemble and twist and manipulate just like Bush, though we may not catch him red-handed at it quite so often.

Bruce Schneier Facts (3, Funny)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 5 years ago | (#27942691)

Bruce Schneier's secure handshake is so strong, you won't be able to exchange keys with anyone else for days.

http://geekz.co.uk/schneierfacts/ [geekz.co.uk]

Re:Bruce Schneier Facts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27943711)

No one else cooks blowfish like him!

He should stick to something he is good at. (1)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 5 years ago | (#27942699)

He's good at security, but government policy is not something in his league. Besides, private interests are beholden to foreign countries that do not share our interests(China, India) and cannot be trusted for such qualities.

Take your "bash government" speech elsewhere.

Re:He should stick to something he is good at. (1)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 5 years ago | (#27944073)

> private interests are beholden to foreign countries that do not
  > share our interests... and cannot be trusted
I don't know about that, but it's safe to say that the American government itself is beholden to the private interests you so distrust.

  > government policy is not something in his league
You got it backwards - the US government's data security is not in Schneier's league.

  > Take your "bash government" speech elsewhere.
Where would you suggest nerds go to discuss cybersecurity policy issues?

Schneier's blog (2, Interesting)

GoNINzo (32266) | more than 5 years ago | (#27942763)

I'm looking forward to his opinion directly from his blog [schneier.com] as well. I have a feeling that he has a lot to say on this topic, if only someone would listen.

He mentioned last year about the last security czar [schneier.com] who had no security experience, but didn't do his rant right then. And his rant should be good. `8r)

Re:Schneier's blog (1)

GoNINzo (32266) | more than 5 years ago | (#27942811)

And awesome, I have a lower slashdot id than him [slashdot.org] as well. Time to remind him to talk to us!

Re:Schneier's blog (1)

jdgeorge (18767) | more than 5 years ago | (#27944513)

And awesome, I have a lower slashdot id than him [slashdot.org] as well. Time to remind him to talk to us!

Good grief. Having a low Slashdot ID is like having been the first one on your block to wear polyester leisure suits. Sure, you were a trendsetter, but wearing a polyester leisure suit before your neighbors is nothing to be proud of.

dictator or bureaucracy? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#27942981)

Which is worse? i donno.

Re:dictator or bureaucracy? (3, Interesting)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 5 years ago | (#27943069)

The one that exists in the private sector, and controls government.

Or:

The one that exists as a foreign government that controls us via large amounts of debt and/or business lobbies.

Bruce got this one wrong (2, Interesting)

brennz (715237) | more than 5 years ago | (#27943091)

More was done to secure the US govt by OMB fiats [whitehouse.gov] , than any other recent actions.

Why? Because someone at OMB said:
Harden every desktop installation of Windows XP & Vista [nih.gov] . One leader at the NSA, for the entire federal government, could greatly assist in doing the same for every piece of IT we operate. This is a start on the massive IT security problem the federal govt has. After that, a govt wide approach for software security would be nice.

24? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27943185)

so that means that CTU guys can't access FBI databases? Cloe's can... she has helped Jack a LOT with that

S773 'Cybersecurity' Bill is unconstitutional. (2, Interesting)

catmistake (814204) | more than 5 years ago | (#27943347)

Thanks to an old man of the stack I read S773, but I didn't need to, nor do you, to KNOW its unconstitutional. Take a look at Amendments 9 & 14 of the US Constitution (something something any powers not specifically set aside for the federal gov. is under the exclusive domain of the States or local gov.s something). They can't create a federal authority for cyberspace out of thin air... they'll need to amend the Constitution to do it. Well, they can, but they'll be destroyed in the courts. If they DO amend the Constitution, making such an appointment legal, then we can go over S773 with a fine toothed 4th Amendment comb... and again find it unconstitutional.

Re:S773 'Cybersecurity' Bill is unconstitutional. (1)

pi_rules (123171) | more than 5 years ago | (#27944063)

They can't create a federal authority for cyberspace out of thin air

They'll just say it's authorized by the interstate commerce clause.

Re:S773 'Cybersecurity' Bill is unconstitutional. (1, Troll)

catmistake (814204) | more than 5 years ago | (#27944581)

disclaimer: in my gp post, I said 9th (and that might work too) but I meant 10th.

afa the Commerce Clause... they can't use it nowadays... but maybe they can. Rehnquist's Court put a stop to the broad interpretation of the Clause, argueing broad interpretation justifies a federal police state... and no one wants that now that the Republicans are out of office (and losing members left and right). Then again, Rehnquist has been gone a few years... it could swing back, but I doubt it will happen under a liberal administration.

Let me guess (0, Troll)

justcauseisjustthat (1150803) | more than 5 years ago | (#27943367)

He voted for John McCain or Ron Paul. I always find it funny when people go on like that, because with that thinking we should do away with CEOs and have everyone in a company do whatever they want. LMAO

Czar is no good (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27943461)

The Czar thing didn't work in Russia. They aren't good at rescueing things in the time of crisis.
Besides, why not appoint some more authentic American character? How about Security Superman?
And change the 'S' on the shield to 'SS'?

Don't worry ... (2, Insightful)

jc42 (318812) | more than 5 years ago | (#27944225)

If the NSA (No Such Agency) is in charge, it'll be the same as having no security oversight at all. They naturally keep everything secret, so if they want to tell you to do something, you won't have the security clearance to read the order or any of its details.

Yes, they can write secret orders, not show them to you, and then prosecute you for not obeying them. But this has been true for around a decade now, so it won't be anything new.

Anyway, the main area where security is important is in the corporate world's handling of its comprehensive information about all of us. And in the modern US, agencies of the government don't give orders to corporations; the corporations give orders to the government. So corporate databases will continue to be as insecure as always, which doesn't really matter because the information is always for sale to the highest bidder, secure or not. Security really means that the information can't be read by anyone who hasn't paid for it, y'know.

If there are any changes, the most likely are that the NSA will be forced to adopt corporate-style "security" measures such as 4-digit PINs or password rules so complex that you have to write your passwords down and carry them in your wallet. And they'll routinely leave entire databases in laptops inside parked cars. This will be by policy, not accident. It'll result in more funny news stories; we'll mostly laugh and go about our lives.

I'd add a ;-), but I'm not sure that this actually qualifies as humor ...

(I'm sure that Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert will explain it much better than I can.)

We Don't Need a CyberSecurity Czar (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 5 years ago | (#27944763)

Well... Duh!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?