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!

Who Would Want To Be Obama's Cybersecurity Czar?

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the fine-i'll-do-it dept.

Security 131

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.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


Stephen Conroy (4, Funny)

Gandalf_Greyhame (44144) | more than 4 years ago | (#28145379)

We'll give you Stephen Conroy if you like.

Re:Stephen Conroy (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28145655)

GNAA confirms it: Gamito is dead.
GNAA confirms it: Gamito is dead.

Mario Gamito, a well known attention whore in the blogsphere community who has been struggling for ages to get his books about self-sodomizing with hi-tech gadgets from Apple sold in any store.

After bloging about pictures of him having backdoor fun with GNAA member JacksonBrown, Gamito was banned from a popular portuguese blog aggregator P*. This led to the mass suicide of an estimated 16% of the Portuguese gay nigger population. This is believed to be the single most damaging factor since jews did wtc.

This event led Gamito to join an yaoi oriented cosplay group and create his own blog aggregator, PlanetGeek.

Gamito, dying of AIDS anyway, promptly committed suicide in a bid to save the remaining traumatized population. His death, thankfully, signifies the death of PlanetGeek, they both will be missed.

About Mario Gamito

About Blogs
Jews are often the maintainers of blogs. Acts such as self-promotion and seeking fame are the priorities of Jews.

About GNAA:
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY [klerck.org]?
Are you a NIGGER [mugshots.org]?
Are you a GAY NIGGER [gay-sex-access.com]?

If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America and the World! You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!

  • First, you have to obtain a copy of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE [imdb.com] and watch it. You can download the movie [idge.net] (~130mb) using BitTorrent.
  • Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA First Post [wikipedia.org] on slashdot.org [slashdot.org], a popular "news for trolls" website.
  • Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on irc.gnaa.us, and apply for membership.

Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today! Upon submitting your application, you will be required to submit links to your successful First Post, and you will be tested on your knowledge of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE.

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is NiggerNET, and you can connect to irc.gnaa.us as our official server. Follow this link [irc] if you are using an irc client such as mIRC.

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

| ______________________________________._a,____ | Press contact:
| _______a_._______a_______aj#0s_____aWY!400.___ | Gary Niger
| __ad#7!!*P____a.d#0a____#!-_#0i___.#!__W#0#___ | gary_niger@gnaa.us [mailto]
| _j#'_.00#,___4#dP_"#,__j#,__0#Wi___*00P!_"#L,_ | GNAA Corporate Headquarters
| _"#ga#9!01___"#01__40,_"4Lj#!_4#g_________"01_ | 143 Rolloffle Avenue
| ________"#,___*@`__-N#____`___-!^_____________ | Tarzana, California 91356
| _________#1__________?________________________ |
| _________j1___________________________________ | All other inquiries:
| ____a,___jk_GAY_NIGGER_ASSOCIATION_OF_AMERICA_ | Enid Al-Punjabi
| ____!4yaa#l___________________________________ | enid_al_punjabi@gnaa.us [mailto]
| ______-"!^____________________________________ | GNAA World Headquarters
` _______________________________________________' 160-0023 Japan Tokyo-to Shinjuku-ku Nishi-Shinjuku 3-20-2

Copyright (c) 2003-2009 Gay Nigger Association of America [www.gnaa.us]

Re:Stephen Conroy (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28146185)


Re:Stephen Conroy (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28147359)


Afro-American Racism Against Whites & Asians (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28147311)

During the election, about 95% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin. See the exit-polling data [cnn.com] by CNN.

Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc. These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against non-Blacks. Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is a non-Black minority. So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate. Only about 65% of them supported Obama.

If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65% of them would have supported Obama. At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.

At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals. That claim is an outright lie. Look at the exit-polling data [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries. Consider the case of North Carolina. Again, about 95% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton. Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical. Yet, 95% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton. Why? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.

Here is the bottom line. Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America. He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.

African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100% acceptable. Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior. Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color. Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American. You need not defend your actions in any way. Voting on the basis of skin is quite acceptable by the standards of today's moral values.

Kevin Mitnick (5, Interesting)

Tehrasha (624164) | more than 4 years ago | (#28145399)

...nuff said.

Re:Kevin Mitnick (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28145751)

Bruce Schneier would love to do it, since he would be the center of attention. But since he know he'll never get picked he says we shouldn't have a cyber tzar.

Not Bolden (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28145403)

It seems like everytime somebody is about to be OR IS appointed for a NASA job, Obama moves them elsewhere.

hostile nation-states and terrorist organizations (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#28145409)

What about hostile countries that are not nation-states?

No! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28145413)

Not me! I don't want Congress telling me to "remove all references to them from the Internets" or "turn off the Internets".

First post.

Iâ(TM)m from the government and Iâ(TM)m (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28145421)

"Drug" czar, Terrorism Czar, and now Cybersecurity czar. These czars seem to have a power out-of-all-proportion to any self-respecting republic and always want to infringe on personal liberties.

With Obama's record, this probably will only a RIAA/MPAA shill pushing those groups' agendas. I shiver when I think what the internet possibibly could be turned into within 10 years. (Perhaps everytime we start up a browser, that FBI copyright warning will be displayed for 30 seconds. Among other things....)

It wasn't until this that I seriously considered supporting the Pirate Party. I don't buy their message wholesale, but welcome it a whole hell lot of more than anything the government can and will do to "improve" things.

Not really... (3, Informative)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

Re:Not really... (2, Interesting)

longacre (1090157) | more than 4 years ago | (#28147463)

Obama HAS created new super-powerful positions, for example the new "Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change," aka the Environment Czar, to which he appointed Al Gore buddy Carol Browner. Never in White House history have cabinet members reported to a czar, but today the Secretaries of Energy and Interior, and the EPA Administrator don't report to the President but to a private citizen who has never been vetted by the Senate.

The rights holders want it... (2, Informative)

icebike (68054) | more than 4 years ago | (#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).

Theo de Raadt!! (-1, Troll)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 4 years ago | (#28145435)

I can't wait for the edict that every single government owned computer must be running a recently patched install of OpenBSD. Yeah he's not really American but apparently he's enough of an ass that everyone will assume he is.

Spammers are the Cyberterrorists (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28145437)

Whoever he picks, I hope they are technologically savvy enough to realize that all of the terrorists in the world won't be able to do one millionth of the damage that's already being done by spammers.

Re:Spammers are the Cyberterrorists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28145601)

do you honestly believe what you just wrote?
undermining western values through naked aggression and fear tactics is far worse than having to occasionally click an opt-out for a "v1@gr@ CHEAP 4 REAL" e-mail.

RIAA Lawyers (5, Insightful)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 4 years ago | (#28145439)

Are there any RIAA lawyers left who don't yet have high level Obama positions?

Re:RIAA Lawyers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28145741)

No, but there are plenty of israeli dual-nationals...

Re:RIAA Lawyers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28146337)

He's already given the CNN and MSNBC reporter's jobs in the Transportation department. I figure if this Senate seat doesn't work out for Stuart Smalley, they could appoint him to run the interwebbie.

I paid my taxes (5, Funny)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 4 years ago | (#28145463)

so I guess I am ineligible even if I wanted the job.

Re:I paid my taxes (0, Flamebait)

that this is not und (1026860) | more than 4 years ago | (#28146059)

Don't be self-limiting. There are several members of the Obama administration who aren't tax cheats.

Re:I paid my taxes (3, Insightful)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 4 years ago | (#28146391)

How sad is it when we start to talk about a presidential administration in those terms?

"Just think about all the hotels they didn't break in to."

"Don't worry, there are plenty of terrorists that received no weapons in exchange for hostages."

"At least he didn't let all of our soldiers get dragged through the streets of Mogadishu."

Bruce . . . (4, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 4 years ago | (#28145475)

. . . Schneier and Campbell . . .

. . . Schneier can lecture us on, "What is Cybersecurity?" . . . Campbell can cut 'em up with chainsaws, and blow their brains out with his shotgun.

How could we lose?

lol cyberczar (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28145487)

is the cyberczar going to declare a "WAR ON BLOGS"?

Re:lol cyberczar (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28146061)

is the cyberczar going to declare a "WAR ON BLOGS"?

Only "right-wing extremist" ones.

Because that would be "fair".

Let's see, Obama pushed auto companies into bankruptcy and shutters dealerships owned by anyone who donated to his political opponents. The DoJ is pursuing charges against Obama supporters caught suppressing votes on video and Obama's appointees force career lawyers to drop charges.

Looks like Orwell only missed by 25 years.

at least it pays well! (1)

nikosput (1565509) | more than 4 years ago | (#28145489)

Come on, you gotta know a job like this pays some serious bank. And in todays economy, that means a lot more then it used to. Sooooo...if anybody wants to hire me, you can find my resume online. (President Obama, are you reading this?) I posted it on my website: http://www.niksput.com/resume.html [niksput.com] Also you can email me: sdn@niksput.com [mailto]

Re:at least it pays well! (1)

mokus000 (1491841) | more than 4 years ago | (#28145971)

(President Obama, are you reading this?)

A /. reader for prez?
Ugh, if so I'm leaving the country _RIGHT_ _NOW_...


Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28145491)

He couldn't do worse that an RIAA lawyer.

A no win situation (1, Troll)

AnalPerfume (1356177) | more than 4 years ago | (#28145507)

While corporate lobbyists dictate the infrastructure, it's gonna be a Windows backbone. Nobody can make that secure. While this situation remains, the position is a no win one.

Re:A no win situation (4, Informative)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 4 years ago | (#28145799)

Oh, stop. A Windows "backbone" can be made just as secure by a competent admin as a *nix "backbone" can.

Re:A no win situation (2, Informative)

Ektanoor (9949) | more than 4 years ago | (#28146135)

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:A no win situation (4, Funny)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 4 years ago | (#28146315)

Oh, stop. A Windows "backbone" can be made just as secure by a competent admin as a *nix "backbone" can.

And you CAN attach wheels to your tower and CRT, hooking it up to lead acid battery and dragging it along behind you, but it is just so much easier to get a laptop...

Re:A no win situation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28146357)

The NSA disagrees with you.

Re:A no win situation (1)

raddan (519638) | more than 4 years ago | (#28146375)

It's pretty easy to make claims like this when there are, in fact, no Windows machines providing any core Internet services (BGP, DNS, etc). It's like dividing by zero, right?

Re:A no win situation (1)

AnalPerfume (1356177) | more than 4 years ago | (#28146559)

It's getting rather predictable where the Windows proxies / astro turfers will use their mod points. To be fair to them though, Microsoft are cutting back on astro turfing budgets so those doing it have to be ruthless to ensure they are not the ones facing the unemployment lines. They are only doing their jobs, we don't take it personally when we laugh at their lack of integrity.

Re:A no win situation (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 4 years ago | (#28146903)

Some systems are inherently less insecure than others. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Everyone gets that some chips are faster than others, some hard drives have more capacity than others, etc. But when it comes to operating systems and security, a lot of people continue to insist on an equality that clearly doesn't exist.

Please inform them so they'll stop saying "cyber" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28145529)


alt.cyberczar.recovery (1)

argent (18001) | more than 4 years ago | (#28145531)

Results 1 - 10 of about 17,800 for sysadmin horror stories...

1. How do you convince the prez that he shouldn't download shonky software just because his Macbook isn't running Windows?

New military branch needed (4, Insightful)

religious freak (1005821) | more than 4 years ago | (#28145541)

We don't need a "czar", we need a new military branch. I am not aware of ANY real and lasting contribution any "czar" has ever made in the United States. The first drug czars came close... if you call that a contribution, but from everything I've seen, they're basically PR and cheerleaders, and don't have much authority or get much done.

If we're serious... and I mean really serious... we need a branch of the military to do the heavy lifting. We don't need to start this in a big way, but we need the security infrastructure to build on should tensions begin rising with nation states. These guys would be the grunts doing the front line lifting and poking around while the NSA focuses it's talent on developing high level techniques. This is what we'd do if we got really serious.

In my view, the position of czar is a joke. Czars are for 19th century Russia and have no place in a modern United States government.

Re:New military branch needed (2, Interesting)

Tigersmind (1549183) | more than 4 years ago | (#28145615)

You are right. A group of people trained properly is about the only way to do this. Thing is to really be effective they would have to operate with little to no oversight. Essentially a black-ops for a cyber war.

That idea makes me squirm. Bad enough so many groups try this already with current laws, I wouldn't want to give that much power to a unmanaged group of people. If you want effective though, that's the way. A Czar is a waste of time really.

Re:New military branch needed (2, Insightful)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#28145627)

In my view, the position of czar is a joke. Czars are for 19th century Russia and have no place in a modern United States government.

I see this as a subtle move to start referencing absolute power. Napoleon called himself "First Consul", and then "Emperor of the French Republic" after seizing total control, for a long time, because the public was not ready to go back to monarchy.

Of course I'm just being paranoid again, and the voters have total control over the government.

Re:New military branch needed (2, Insightful)

tehdaemon (753808) | more than 4 years ago | (#28145709)

"Czars are for 19th century Russia and have no place in a modern United States government."

It is worse than that. Czar [wikipedia.org] is nothing more than the slavic/russian version of the word Caesar.


Re:New military branch needed (1)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 4 years ago | (#28145829)

...19th century Russia and ...United States government.

I'm sorry, but with the way things are going, what exactly do you perceive the difference to be? (Politically that is, we all know there is such a thing as nuclear___ now).

Re:New military branch needed (1)

Ektanoor (9949) | more than 4 years ago | (#28145951)

A military branch to fight crime? While I agree th US doesn't need a "czar" and even agree with your arguments, your alternative is not brighter.

Crime shall no be fought by the military in any possible way. First they will shoot and then... They will not give themselves the question "whom are we shooting at"! They will keep shooting until the field is flat.

Second, a military environment is always preemable to crime. BTW, I have already had to deal with such a case on Internet: military+cybergangs. If you want a pure "catch 22" burning under your... You know where... Just give the military a free hand on this field.

Third, military will never give themselves the trouble of building an infrastructure of databases and longterm tracking procedures. Their methods are simple - there is a foe, track him and shoot on the spot.

Oh, I nearly forgot to mention. Military intelligence is usually... Not so intelligent. Even foes are so badly defined, that things go wrong from the very start. They call it "colateral", I call it "dumbasses".

Re:New military branch needed (2, Interesting)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 4 years ago | (#28147083)

As a person who once held a Military Intelligence slot, I want to point out some things. Properly done, MI is all about capabilities, not intentions. That is, MI when it's working right will tell you if a possible enemy has artillery with a 55 mile range or not. Mi done right won't speculate whether the enemy has the intention of aiming it at an adjacent capital city unless the owner announces it, or at least positions it so there are no other targets that would make any sense.
        It's supposed to be up to something called Civilian Oversight to ask the right questions and pick the targets for evaluation. If the civilian government asks if a drone plane Saddam was building could hit New York if launched from the Canadian border, MI will tell them whatever they know of the drone's range, but they won't ask how their supervisor thinks Saddam will get the drone to Ontario. If the civilian oversight asks if there is any known nuke small enough to fit in that drone's cargo compartment, MI will say yes, because the US, the former USSR, and several NATO allies all have such devices.
      If the Secretary of State doesn't ask if Saddam has a third generation pony nuke (or any chance of making one in the next 10 years) before he talks to the UN about them, and jumps to a conclusion (or if he doesn't ask because he already knows the answer is a flat no), then the Civilian Oversight can deliver a report, and MI has no way of knowing if he got some parts of the report from somebody else (NSA maybe) or if he's lying. Then the MI operatives usually take the blame if any of the BS part becomes public.
        If Civilian Oversight decides it's more important to investigate Mexico's submarine warfare progress than to keep an eye on the Chinese, then MI operatives will say "Yes sir, watching the Mexican Navy sir!", even if they think it's a stupid waste of resources. Civilians define who's the foe, not the military.

Re:New military branch needed (1)

KarmaRundi (880281) | more than 4 years ago | (#28146795)

These positions are never officially called czars. That's just a name the media gives them.

Re:New military branch needed (1)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 4 years ago | (#28147133)

This problem needs to be addressed from the bottom-up, not from the top-down. We don't need a "Czar", we don't need a branch of the military, we need someone more like the "Surgeon General" (and even that title sounds too military).

We need someone who explains and educates us, not someone who barks orders at us. We need to look at computer security as a public health issue. People need to be taught about basic computer hygiene (just like we were taught about normal body and sanitary hygiene after finding out about germ theory).

In the end, you can appoint a Czar and give him billions of dollars to raise an army, but we all know that's going to do squat if the idiots, the misinformed, and the technophobes among us -- still don't know why it's a bad idea to give just one piece of information to an unauthenticated person over the phone, or why it's a bad idea to plug in some random usb thumb drive they just found in the parking lot.

Re:New military branch needed (1)

bzipitidoo (647217) | more than 4 years ago | (#28147625)

I'd start by providing the means. Education is great, but we must be practical. Doesn't do any good to talk about security or order it tightened when there isn't any approved way to do it, or there are ways but no one knows it or is allowed to use it because they're all top secrets.

It's very easy to get mired in security theater. If the Czar can just keep the politics to a minimum that would be huge. "It's a national secret" is routinely abused to cover up problems. And to keep business rivals and competitors as well as enemies of the nation in the dark.

Then, it seems we've put national security second to business. I'd fix up the laws too. The US has stupidly run white hats and security work out of the country. Perhaps the low point was the imprisonment of Dmitri Sklyarov for exposing the stupidity of yet another idiotic DRM scheme. In no case should national security take a back seat to DRM! We need a clear separation between real security, for the nation, and bogus security. The nation is not at peril if pirates copy the latest pop music albums!

On providing means, I'd also take a rather different tack. Yes, sure, start a big project to create a whole new computer architecture, specially designed to run a microkernel OS or hypervisor or some such that is small enough that it can be formally verified. Of course all this would be open source. But I'd also see about providing digital notary and authentication services. Set up several quasi-governmental digital notary businesses. Maybe have the Post Office get into the business of signed and/or encrypted emails.

Good luck to the poor sucker who is handed this miserable, thankless job

Re:New military branch needed (1)

Monsuco (998964) | more than 4 years ago | (#28147251)

If we're serious... and I mean really serious... we need a branch of the military to do the heavy lifting. We don't need to start this in a big way, but we need the security infrastructure to build on should tensions begin rising with nation states. These guys would be the grunts doing the front line lifting and poking around while the NSA focuses it's talent on developing high level techniques. This is what we'd do if we got really serious.

The NSA could likely be extended to cover both ends of security (both defence against hacking and offence in the sense of monitoring enemies.)

Czar fetish (4, Insightful)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 4 years ago | (#28145545)

What is up with this American love affair with old Russian titles?

Re:Czar fetish (3, Funny)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 4 years ago | (#28145847)

Well, you see, we all have fond memories of playing with mamushka dolls when we were little and...I mean...come on... who honestly doesn't love those things?

Re:Czar fetish (1)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 4 years ago | (#28145883)

Interestingly, and on a completely unrelated note, Rule 34 [xkcd.com] curiosity led me to google image search "mamushka porn" right after posting this comic and on the second page of results the movie boxes for "Dumb and Dumber" were displayed....I love the internet.

Re:Czar fetish (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28145923)

etymology: czar = kaiser = caesar

Re:Czar fetish (1)

Ektanoor (9949) | more than 4 years ago | (#28146047)

Simple buddy... Czar is synonim to Samoderzhec, something like "the power in himself by himself". Much like the "L'Etat c'est moi..."

Re:Czar fetish (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#28146313)

They are setting the ground to make people accept the next change, a very big one. Be ready to see lots of posts titled "In Soviet America..."

ME! (1)

iamhigh (1252742) | more than 4 years ago | (#28145553)

But only because I am sure it would look pretty bad ass on my resume. I am sure with that on there I would be able to get a job somewhere, pretty much forever.

The difference (2, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | more than 4 years ago | (#28145583)

The difference this time is that Obama is a Democrat, so the media will ignore the czar's complete ineffectiveness and never criticize anything he or she does.

Re:The difference (0, Troll)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 4 years ago | (#28145617)

Heh, I take it you don't watch American news, at least you haven't at any time during the past ten years. Remember the American invasion of Iraq? The destruction of Katrina?

Etc. - my point being that, during that time, pretty much everyone in the Bush presidency got a free ride. The media basically said 'aww shucks, wull I guess he just gosh darned tried his best, and that's what counts, right?'

In contrast, the scrutinty and out-for-blood nature of most of the news coverage of the Obama campaign since it began has been absolutely viciously hostile.

So what was your point again?

Re:The difference (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28146157)

Heh, I take it you don't watch American news, at least you haven't at any time during the past ten years. Remember the American invasion of Iraq? The destruction of Katrina?

Etc. - my point being that, during that time, pretty much everyone in the Bush presidency got a free ride....

Are you really trying to say that there's been no attempt to blame Bush for Katrina and Iraq?

What universe have you been living in, you mouth-breathing moron?

Because I want to know where you could have possibly been were there hasn't been overwhelming coverage of those events.

You probably really do think it's Bush's fault that a massive fucking hurricane waxed a city built below sea level right on the water in the most hurricane-prone area of the entire damn planet.

That makes you a shining beacon of hope for every brainless shithead on the planet. The fact that such an unthinking jackass like yourself can actually figure out how to use a computer to make your fantasy-based post must mean that even an anencephalic rhesus monkey could one day be a billionaire.

Thank you for showing anencephalic rhesus monkeys that even they have hope.

As for the "out-for-blood nature" of the coverage Obama's getting, please tell us how many major news outlets are going to run with these:

In which the president discovers an American intelligence agency at Five Guys [politico.com]

Yep, that's right - the oh-so-well-prepared and oh-so-fucking-smart Obama had never heard of these guys [wikipedia.org] before going into a burger joint.

Career lawyers overruled on voting case [washingtontimes.com]

Justice Department political appointees overruled career lawyers and ended a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense of wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place last Election Day

Think that's going to be above the fold on tomorrow's NY Times and Washington Post, or featured on NBC, CBS, or CNN?

The sad thing is, you probably really do think you're smart. But then again, most morons don't know they're morons.

Re:The difference (2, Informative)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 4 years ago | (#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:The difference (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 4 years ago | (#28146865)

The difference this time is that Obama is a Democrat, so the media will ignore the czar's complete ineffectiveness and never criticize anything he or she does.

You're not just trolling, are you? You actually believe that. Dear God.

Have you actually read a newspaper, or watched a TV news program, or listened to a radio news show, at any point during Obama's administration? Or during the Clinton administration? Or during the Carter administration, assuming you're old enough to remember that? Ever?

Whats a Cybersecurity Czar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28145585)

Oh no matter, pick me....

I'd Take the job (1)

TiggertheMad (556308) | more than 4 years ago | (#28145589)

Here is why you would want it: You have the ear of the president of the USA. You get to put down on your resume that you were the cyber-security czar.

Yeah, the very idea that a cyber-security czar has any control over US cyber-security is truly silly, but who knows. Your suggestions might get a few positive changes to be made, and in the event of a catastrophic cyber-security catastrophic event (like, terrorists flying virtual 747s into the virtual world trade center in Microsoft's flight simulator...) you can just resign and write a tell all book about how you were prevented from doing the right thing by idiots and red tape.

I nominate BOFH (2, Funny)

linzeal (197905) | more than 4 years ago | (#28145637)

I am sure he will find away around this so called bureaucracy of yours as he has been doing quite well for himself in the private sector [wikipedia.org].

Of course with the new job comes new nomenclature, I present to you ladies and gentlemen the BCCFH (The bastard cybersecucurity czar from hell) and don't worry about assigning him any more power than a normal UNIX sysadmin, he'll get the job done.

I vote for Kevin Mitnick (2, Interesting)

Ouchie (1386333) | more than 4 years ago | (#28145681)

In this type of political postion reputation and personality are as important as your knowledge. Kevin has shown in his legal employment history an aptitude to address cyber security in a way that draws the necessary attention to the issue. His crimial history gives him the legitimacy with both sides of the issue.

Mission Impossible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28145707)

They want everyone else to be insecure and theirs super secure. Leaving run of the mill networks insecure as to leave a bait, to see who is doing what and let them think they are getting something. But in actuality the top brass practices such compartmentalized security right down to the electronic emissions computers make. Even Apple has compromised their security to play nice with Uncle Spook. Java exploit still not patched and it's been 7 months now.

Bill Gates, of course (1)

xednieht (1117791) | more than 4 years ago | (#28145755)

Arguably, few have had more experience dealing with gaping software security vulnerabilities than the big kahuna himself.

Enough with the Czars (1)

assertation (1255714) | more than 4 years ago | (#28145757)

I think Regan was the one who started giving government officials the the nickname of the "The _______ Czar". In every case the problem assigned to the Czar never went away and often got worse. You would think that term would fall out of use. You want to guarantee a problem will not go away? Appoint a Czar to oversee it.

Morrison! (1)

Ektanoor (9949) | more than 4 years ago | (#28145771)

Mitnick is a great guy. But he is too specific on creating a mess. Besides, too private and he seems even shy...

Go for Morrison... He knows how to make a real worldwide mess out of Internet.

Theo de Raadt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28145793)


Doesn't sound so bad actually... (5, Interesting)

iamdrscience (541136) | more than 4 years ago | (#28145813)

I'd take this job in a second. The position has a track record of failure and thus, expectations are low. This is exactly the kind of job I'm looking for. If you succeed, you're a miracle worker, if you fail, nobody blames you, either way it's not bad. It looks even better when you add in the fact that the pay is good and you have an awesome title. I mean c'mon, you'd be a freaking czar, how many people can legitimately put "Czar" on their resume?

I'll do it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28145843)

Mixture of OSs. Some Win, some BSD, some Linux, some OS-X, different flavors of each. Mixture of N, N-1, and N-2 security patches (in case a patch introduces a new 'sploit).

Range of machine architectures. X86, PPC, ARM, Itanium, Sparc, whatever else is around.

Public facing machines behind firewalls and only open the needed ports.

On corporate or government systems that are only used for tasks like word processing or spreadsheets, the ability for normal user accounts to run executables other than the system ones is disabled.

Machines needing top security are airgapped to the public internet.

I could go on. But the above stuff would go a long ways.

I'd take the Job! (1, Funny)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#28145885)

Of course, I'm not qualified but we're talking about the U.S. government here so since when would that matter?

Private Sector (1, Troll)

chrispycreeme (550607) | more than 4 years ago | (#28145927)

I'm a huge fan of this administration but in this particular case I think the private sector could do a much better job protecting against threats than any Czar. Besides, I hate anyone who's title has a C followed by a Z in it, that's just not right. Drop the "c" or just say: "KaZaar!".

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28146069)

this sounds like a job for Public Security Section 9.

Who wants the job? (1)

wowbagger (69688) | more than 4 years ago | (#28146269)

Who wants the job? Perhaps somebody who wants to have power, without all that pesky "running for office and actually being elected by the people" stuff. Somebody who wants to make rules about how everybody is to run their computers, without all that pesky "being responsible for what goes wrong" stuff.

Obviously it is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28146305)

Chuck Norris.
The internet was developed from observing his CNS.

Stallman (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#28146335)

Would love to see him in a fake photo with Czar clothes. Maybe he goes forward to the czar role, pushes us to the open source communism and Ballmer starts calling him Stalinman.

czar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28146479)

Some non-tech yes man.
Preferably visible minority.
Why interrupt the pattern.

I'd like to be but... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28146509)

but I'm an employed white male who wouldn't base my decisions on my perceptions of social injustice brought about by my situation.

I'll take... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28146689)

King of the Internet. I already provide half the commentary on it.

Adriel Desautels, CTO of Netragard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28146731)

This guy's a hard-core hacker and pen-tester who's helping to lock down banks. He does not do politics. He's just hard-core about locking down networks.

How I Would Do It (1)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 4 years ago | (#28146785)

Here's my quick, from the hip view on how to maximize the probability of a successful outcome:

Cybersecurity is focused on maintaining control of systems and networks. Cyber-warfighting is a valuable source for understanding potential threats, but it is not the objective of the cybersecurity committee to advance the state-of-the-art of cyber-warfighting.

To advance the ability of the citizens and organizations of the United States to retain control of their information systems, an elite task-force will be formed:

  1. Retain Bruce Schneier
  2. Retain Ten Specialists, Bruce's Choice, Following Criteria:
  2.1. One EFF Constitutional Rights specialist
  2.2. One ACLU Constitutional Rights specialist
  2.3. One significant code contributor from the NSA SE:Linux project
  2.4. Two information security specialists from among:
  2.4.1. Microsoft
  2.4.2. Google
  2.4.3. Apple
  2.4.4. IBM
  2.5. Two espionage defense specialists from among:
  2.5.1. General Dynamics
  2.5.2. GE
  2.5.3. Boeing
  2.5.4. Halliburton
  2.6. Three platform specialists
  2.6.1. Microsoft
  2.6.2. Mac
  2.6.3. *nix
  3. Specialists Get One Vote Each
  4. Bruce Gets Tie-Breaker Vote
  5. Each Specialist Can Employ Two Research Specialists

Votes are expected to be unanimous or nearly unanimous - non-unanimous decisions imply that every member of the panel is failing. It is every member's job to think critically, to respect diverse needs, and to help the others understand their perspective. Failure to do so implies betrayal of duty.

All votes will be secret for at least one year. Sensitive votes will be secret for five years.

Sensitive entities (corporations, organizations, government agencies) get free advanced training, room, and board, conducted at a military academy. Security practitioners get preferred enrollment. Corporations must continue to pay the employee. Corporations can choose not to send anyone, but the name of any sensitive corporation which chooses not to send some top rank security specialists will be published. It's tough, but fair, and necessary.

Curriculum will focus on practices for keeping each system under the full control of its owner. Curriculum will not sacrifice that mission to advance the ability of any non-owner of a system to compromise full control by the owner of that system.

RE: Our Nazi Racist 'n Chief (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28146929)

Looks like our Nazi Racist 'n Chief President Barak Obama is painting himself in a corner quicker than Alolf Hitler ... and will end the same. At least, perhaps, the US will not invade Poland, in its search of cyber weapons of mass destruction, in order to justify the invasion of Poland and the killing of civilians.

Greed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28147313)

The only people who would want to be the Cyber Czar would be those who'd be in it for personal benefits.
Hopefully, this means that more moral and qualified people would want to keep the job just to keep it out of shitty hands.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account