Cyber-Security Czar To Be Named 139
The Washington Post and everybody else is reporting that on Tuesday President Obama will name Howard A. Schmidt as cyber-security czar. Schmidt was an advisor to President Bush on cyber-security matters. The Post rehearses the reasons why the Obama administration has had difficulty in finding someone for the post, and notes that the turf battles did not start in this administration: "Schmidt was chosen after a long process in which dozens of people were sounded out. Many declined the post, largely out of concern that the job conferred much responsibility with little true authority, some of them said. Meanwhile, the cybersecurity chief at the National Security Council, Christopher Painter, has served as the de facto coordinator, trying to push ahead the 60-day cyberspace policy review plan unveiled by Obama in May. That plan's formulation was led by Melissa Hathaway, who resigned in frustration in August after delays in naming a cyber-coordinator. She had been a contender for the position... Schmidt served as special adviser for cyberspace security from 2001 to 2003 and shepherded the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, a plan that then was largely ignored. He left that job also frustrated, colleagues said."
Good luck with that, Howard (Score:3, Insightful)
Get it in writing. There words and yours. Let there be as public a record as possible as to what recommendations were ignored.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Typical entry level government job.
The aim is to hack your way to the top, where you have all the authority and no responsibility.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends upon how he works it. (Score:2)
Since there's no authority, he cannot force anyone to do anything.
Since he is the "Czar", he CAN make recommendations.
Any department that doesn't follow his recommendations is on their own when they get cracked.
Any department that DOES follow his recommendations has an easy out when they get cracked. They blame him.
Meanwhile, he's busy setting up all of his family and friends with high paying, low responsibility jobs with the companies trying to get him to "recommend" their products/services.
Re: (Score:2)
"...much responsibility and little true authority..." is a recipe for failure and scapegoating.
It's always bad for the executive monkey.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulcers_in_Executive_Monkeys [wikipedia.org]
Here comes XKCD (Score:4, Insightful)
What's next (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Freedom, how many crimes have been committed in your name?"
Said allegedly by Manon Rolland before she was guillotined in 1793. It's interesting how little has changed since.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
What is the difference the taxpayer is going to be paying for all of it anyway. Maybe the next time you get your paycheck, why don't you look at the taxes the government is taking from you. One of those is FICA.. You will see it. We already cover these people and now under the OBAMANATION we get to subsidize them even more. You are wrong the freedom from responsibility rests with these government tit suckers. While we (the taxpayer) continue to shoulder the load and have the responsibility of paying more
hey, moron (Score:1, Interesting)
if you buy health insurance right now, it continues to climb in price like no tomorrow, covers less and less every day, all to support a bloated inefficient system of companies competing to deny you coverage. under a single payer system, even if the government was 10x more inefficient and bureaucratic, it would still be cheaper, and you would be paying for a healthcare entity whose mandate is to take care of YOU, not some fucking stockholder
universal health care coverage is so fucking obviously superior to
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
In your earlier post, you stated "there is no freedom from responsibility". I agree with you on that, but why should everyone be punished for the crimes of a few? In my state it is now illegal to buy pseudoephedrine over the counter because a few idiots chose to use it to make Meth.
I wish everyone would take more responsibility for themselves, but I think forcing people to buy something they can't afford or don't need is a bad precedent, not to mention unconstitutional.
But this is supposed to be a discuss
everyone suffers for the crimes of a few, always (Score:4, Insightful)
if there were no laws against pseudoephedrine, you'd have more meth makers, and all of the society wide suffering that goes with that. the fact you can't buy pseudoephedrine is a different kind of suffering, but a smaller scale of suffering than not having the law around
life is not about black and white choices, its about shades of grey.you examine the issue in a vacuum, without the context of the negatives of your other choices, and this makes you have these hysterical opinions
and you NEED health insurance. even 21 yo marathoners have heart attacks and broken legs. if you believe you don't need health insurance, you have some sort of god complex, and then you definitely need mental health coverage
as for not affording it, you can't afford NOT to have it
as for making you pay for it: why force people to pay taxes? why not make it voluntary? because people are fucking irresponsible, and they won't pay for taxes, health insurance, or a whole bunch of other things they need but are usually too stupid to understand why they need it. so you NEED to force them because if given a choice, people won't do the right thing. which is pay your fucking taxes and pay your fucking health insurance. you HAVE to, because it is your RESPONSIBILITY as a member of SOCIETY from which you derive BENEFITS
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
you don't understand what freedom is (Score:3, Informative)
according to any philosphical understanding of what freedom means conceptually, freedom has never meant behavior which imposes on other people. your problem is you don't understand in which direction the imposition is happening in the healthcare debate. the issue is not that the government is imposing on you to pay for health insurance, the issue is you are imposing on society thinking you can walk around without health insurance
"You can't have freedom without responsibility."
this is exactly right. it is yo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't subscribe to your ethics, so I don't believe your conclusion follows. I'm only imposing on society, if I think society needs to solve all of my problems at no cost to me. If you are passed out on the ground, I can simply choose to walk by without caring. Police officers or other public servants may be required to
Re: (Score:2)
"freedom has never meant behavior which imposes on other people."
Agreed.
"... you are imposing on society thinking you can walk around without health insurance"
Just by THINKING it? :-)
Only in the twisted context where we have made "society"(i.e. government) responsible for the well being of the individual.
Re: (Score:2)
It's unlikely that you will ever be presented with dental bill in the hundreds of thousand of dollars, but that's a possibility for a hospital bill. Most people can't pay that out of pocket, so they get insurance to cover those cases. The main problem, as you point out, is that people have started to use insurance to cover all medical expenses, even those that could be easily paid for
you are lying in the street, dying (Score:3, Insightful)
i have an ethical duty to make sure you get care
i do not say "do you have health insurance or $200K in an emergency health fund?" and if you say no, i walk away and let you die
if you understand why it is impossible for anyone with even a rudimentary human conscience to do that, then you understand the "twisted context" in play here as you call it
Only in the twisted context where we have made "society"(i.e. government) responsible for the well being of the individual
incredible. amazing. you are simply retard
EVERYONE READ THE ABOVE (Score:3, Informative)
"If you are passed out on the ground, I can simply choose to walk by without caring. Police officers or other public servants may be required to offer assistance as part of their job, but as a member of the public no such obligations exist for me."
this is the part where those who oppose something as simple and obvious as universal health insurance show their true colors: selfish self-centered irresponsible unethical assholes
thank you for going on record and showing to the world exactly what you are
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
You seem to be suffer from a great misunderstanding of medical billing and reimbursement. Cosmetic surgeons bill their patients directly (and usually up front before services are rendered). Their prices are fairly exorbitant for relatively simple procedures (e.g. breast augmentation via implant; ~ 10K per side) as compared to what medicare, or even PPO insurance will pay a physician for something as complex as coronary bypass surgery (medicare avg ~ $2200).
Having third-party payers is what "distorts" prici
Re: (Score:2)
I don't go around responding arguments from pro-choice advocates with something like: "This is th
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you have your grave dug and paid for so that when you do suffer some unexpected ailment you can crawl in and not use any of the services you decided not to pay into. That's the responsible thing to do.
Re: (Score:2)
As I said, I have absolutely no objection to government-run health care as long as my participation is voluntary and I can choose another provider at any time.
Also, I am currently forced to pay into many of the services I do not wish to pay into. I'll be lucky if Social
Re: (Score:2)
The deal is that either you pay for yourself, or I pay for you. You pay for yourself by voluntarily getting health insurance and using that health insurance when you, or your kid, or your spouse gets sick and needs to visit the emergency room, or the doctor. I pay for you, or your spouse, or child when they break a leg, get sick or whatever, and you don't have insurance.
At the end of the day, the cost gets absorbed some how. Have you ever had to pay a doctor's bill without insurance? They're absolutely
Re: (Score:2)
and you NEED health insurance. even 21 yo marathoners have heart attacks and broken legs. if you believe you don't need health insurance, you have some sort of god complex, and then you definitely need mental health coverage
Just because you think I NEED it doesn't make a mandate from the Federal Government requiring me to buy it any more Constitutional.
i know you need it (Score:2)
are you immune to sudden unforeseen health costs that you can't afford? unless you are a billionaire, the answer is no
therefore, as a matter of objective fact, you do need health insurance. furtermore, it must be mandated, because there are so many morons out there like you who can't tell the difference between a responsibility and a freedom
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Congratulations on completely ignoring my point. You must be a TV pundit or member of Congress to stick to your talking points with such efficiency. Shall I call you Mr. Olbermann or Mr. Schemer?
my point is completely logical and solid (Score:2)
question: can you drive without insurance?
answer: no, and you are punished if you get in accident and you do not have insurance
why? because you are imposing on everyone else's freedoms, by forcing them to pay for your accidents. you understand that, right?
if you understand that, why do you not understand the simple obvious logic about health care insurance? not getting health insurance is not you exercising a freedom of yours. not getting health insurance is you not fulfilling a responsibility of yours. can
Re: (Score:2)
Having an automobile is a choice. Being alive and an American citizen is not.
You are still ignoring the fact that it's completely unconstitutional for the Federal Government to do this. You might note that the apples-to-oranges comparison you just made with auto policy is irrelevant for this reason as well. That mandate comes from the states. It doesn't come from Uncle Sam. I assume you are familiar with the 1st, 4th, 5th and 10th amendments to the United States Constitution?
red herring (Score:2)
but i'll take a bite at that retarded bait anyways: is the constitution not the fucking bible. it is a living breathing contract for a living breathing society. it grows and changes as the society grows and changes. the constitution is not the fucking quran that requires a holy war if someone suggests the horrible sacriledge of a new better way TO ENSURE OUR FREEDOMS FROM IRRESPONSIBLE ASSHOLES
fact: you are not exercising a right when you do not to have health insurance. you are offloading your responsibili
Re: (Score:2)
Please take an 8th grade civics course.
Your lack of understanding of our Constitution is frightening.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't "grow and change" outside of the amendment process, which unless I've missed the news story is not how we are implementing health care.
The 1st amendment grants me the freedom of association. SCOTUS has previously held that this also includes the freedom not to associate. How is this compatible with a mandate that I purchase something from a private concern? What if I have a moral objection to the way insurance companies do business? What about a religious one? Are we going to gut the freedo
i understand the constitution just fine (Score:2)
in addition, i am wary of individuals who treat it like fundamentalists treat their religious documents, that it is without question. everything should be questioned: this is the philosophical spirit in which the founding fathers wrote the fucking thing!
the constitution is a living breathing document, it describes a pact between a people and their government. naturally and inescapably, it changes over time. to not understand this is the frightening part
furthermore, to say any part of the constitution someho
(smacks forehead) (Score:2)
if you honestly think the constitution is somehow arranged against universal healthcare, you simply don't understand the constitution. i see a whole bunch of broad concepts out of context up there, a gordian knot of confused misunderstandings. good luck in your intellectual growth kid, you'll get it someday
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Except we aren't getting "universal healthcare". We are getting a mandate to do business with private entities. I would not be making this argument against a single payer system. Do you have any idea what freedom of association means? Look it up. Then tell me how it's compatible with a mandate to do business with private entities. You've also completely ignored the troubling implications for the free practice of the religion of your choice. Gonna trample all over that right in your quest for universa
the entirety of the legislative (Score:2)
and executive branches is embroiled in the healthcare overhaul
the entirety of the media and all of the partisan hacks are out in full force
do you honestly believe that the common fucking sense legislation currently being passed, in the full blinding light of everyone's attention, is something only you have discovered to be an abrogation of some sort of basic constitutional principles?
you're a middle school teenager or a complete moron if you do believe that
Re: (Score:2)
Who said I'm [washingtonpost.com] the [slashdot.org] only [spectator.org] one [cnsnews.com] that's discovered it?
I guess you get all of your news from Keith Olbermann, eh?
i don't know who keith olberman is (Score:2)
if he's some sort of partisan hack, liberal or conservative, i am proud not to know who he is, as all these loud ignorant vindictive partisan assholes is the problem with our country, not a solution. i am a moderate. if you hadn't noticed, the issue of healthcare overhaul is not some sort of liberal agenda, its a squarely moderate concern
furthermore, thanks for the links. what exactly are your links suppose to tell me? that there are more morons than you out there? ok, you win, i admit defeat. i was wrong t
Re: (Score:2)
You are a moderate? Could have fooled me. You are behaving exactly as the partisan hacks that you just claimed to hate so much.
You refuse to acknowledge any of the points I've made. You can't tell me why the individual mandate isn't a violation of free association. You can't tell me why it isn't an overreach of Congressional power. I doubt you even know what free association is or the case/constitutional law behind it. All you can tell me is that "people have looked at it", "you simply don't understa
humorous ;-) (Score:2)
crackpots on teh intarwebs, who have identified a vast conspiracy to pass flagrantly unconstitutional laws in the senate and the house
fight on, retards!
if this is the best you pathetic morons can muster against healthcare reform in this country, the legislation is obviously a winner. but its good to know there's low iq assholes out there bravely defending the constitution, as they pathetically understand it, from dire threats in this country. dire threats like common sense legislation in the full glare of e
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for not disappointing me. For a second there when I saw that you had replied I thought you might have come up with some meaningful insight into Constitutional law.
I hope you take your head out of the sand long enough to enjoy the Christmas season. Have a good holiday :)
this holiday season (Score:2)
why don't you try reading A Christmas Carol?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Christmas_Carol [wikipedia.org]
do you happen to notice any parallels between the themes enunciated by those who oppose universal health insurance, and the mentality of the protagonist in that fable?
what does the fable teach us about the protagonist's attitude and why it fails?
and therefore, maybe this christmas you can come to appreciate why the currently losing side on healthcare debate might be founded on losing principles, if you can see how A Ch
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if you spent less time attacking my knowledge and more time displaying some of your own we could have a productive dialog here?
Just answer me this: Do you understand what free association means and if so how is a mandate that I do business with private entities compatible with it?
do you possibly conceive (Score:3, Insightful)
that there are other issues in play in a free society, other than free association, and that some of those issues override free association IN CERTAIN LIMITED CONTEXTS. and all of this is perfectly agreeable with the us constitution. in fact, that the constitution itself has limits on free association, for example. furthermore, that these limits actually serve to maximize your freedom in a well-functioning of a free society
i'm not getting drawn into this discussion, because its intellectual charity. its ben
Re: (Score:2)
I like how you keep saying "universal healthcare" when the current legislation is anything but. It's amusing. Almost as amusing as your claims of not being a left wing partisan. If you were the moderate that you say you are you would realize that this legislation doesn't even provide the "universal" health care that you keep attributing to it.
Certain "limited contexts"? The whole concept of free association goes out the window if you can be compelled to associate with a private entity against your will
ok (Score:2)
if are a billionaire, you don't have to buy health insurance, because you can afford a sudden huge healthcare expense
now would like to comment on the reality of sudden horrible unaffordable health expenses for the other 99.9999% of us?
pfffffft
tl,dr (Score:3, Insightful)
it is your responsibility to take care of your health. it is not my responsibility to take care of your health. correct?
any person alive today might be in the hospital by the end of the day. correct? are you immortal? do you deny this simple truth?
therefore, it is your responsibility to have insurance to make sure that you are paying for your health maintenance, which might include sudden unforeseen unaffordable costs. i shouldn't have to pay for it, correct?
therefore, if you do not have health insurance, y
Re: (Score:2)
it is your responsibility to take care of your health. it is not my responsibility to take care of your health. correct?
It is HIS responsibiliy to take care of HIS heath, correct?
any person alive today might be in the hospital by the end of the day. correct? are you immortal? do you deny this simple truth?
irrelevant
therefore, it is your responsibility to have insurance to make sure that you are paying for your health maintenance, which might include sudden unforeseen unaffordable costs. i shouldn't have to pay for it, correct?
it is his responsibility to take care of HIS health
therefore, if you do not have health insurance, you are not exercising a right of yours, you are abrogating a responsibility of yours. really. its quite fucking simple
Mandating ME to buy insurance because HE will cause YOU guilt if you don't take care of him is unconstitutional and immoral.
that you think anything else is logically incoherent. follow the bouncing ball. it is airtight, simple logic. that you deny it is probably not a sign stupidity on your part, but judging by the quantity of effort you put into debating me, some sort of horrible propagandized state you live in. denial, denial, denial
do you read your own writing you dumb fuck?
look at every other industrialized democracy on this planet. having universal health care is a fucking brain dead obvious duty of a free society. SO MY FREEDOMS ARE NOT IMPOSED UPON BY YOUR UNFORESEEN COSTS. duh
Please move, you fucking idiot. You don't deserve freedom.
no, we should outlaw drunk driving (Score:2)
duh
Re: (Score:2)
Typical knee-jerk reaction meant only to appease the hue and cry of an angry electorate by sweeping the problem under the carpet where it can't be seen.
Re: (Score:2)
"the current way you pay for [health care] sucks FAR FAR WORSE than a government run system could ever be"
Never underestimate the Federal government's unparalleled talent for making things "suck".
Just in the last decade, the government in Washington D.C. has brought you two illegal and un-Constitutional wars, The Patriot Act, military commissions act, extraordinary renditions, torture, an absurd loose monetary policy which caused the housing bubble, trillions of dollars of handouts to the biggest banks and
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And THIS is what is wrong with American thinking and why "Universal Health Care" will never work. EVERYONE is thinking about 'me me me' and the bottom line on THEIR wallet.
Every single other first world nation in the world has figured out health care for everyone, and as far as I can tell they haven't devolved into chaos. It's not a matter of money. If we cut Military spending in half and quit tried being the world's big brother we could easily fund full health care for everyone in the US including some 'el
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
EVERYONE is thinking about 'me me me' and the bottom line on THEIR wallet.
My god, the nerve of wanting to keep the money you've labored to earn. The nerve I tell you!
If we cut Military spending in half and quit tried being the world's big brother we could easily fund full health care for everyone in the US
Except the rest of the world doesn't want us to do this. To be sure, they hem and haw when we wield our military power -- but taken as a whole the US is a stabilizing force on the world and nobody wants that to go away. Even some Chinese leaders have been quoted as saying that they see this as America's place in the world (at least for the time being)
I got to take all 8 days of vacation to India this year for a wedding where I met quite a few travelers from Europe. Not a single one has this mentality. Not a single one worried about how those 'bums' were imposing on 'their' freedom.
And in many (most?) parts of Europe they don't have real free
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
You know, the ones who got all up in arms when Booosh!!! went berserk with "warrantless wiretaps"?
Oh I guess you can call me a libertarian. More like a conservative libertarian but whatever, but living in Canada I wrote off the US when you idiots elected Obama. You're fucked. He's Trudeau 2.0 and you couldn't even see it despite the saner heads of your northern neighbors. I'm just waiting for him to start flipping the public off and telling them: "they'll take what I give them and like it." to paraphrase Trudeau.
the pasha of pulchritude (Score:2)
the emir of enigmas
the nawab of nosiness
the sahib of silliness
the khan of the kafkaesque
you can have fun with this all day
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What's next, the Fuhrer of Healthcare?
Right on.
The Prez called him a cyber-security coordinator - it was the dumb-ass reporter for TFA that introduced the word czar, once again.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In kapitalist america Czar gets rid of YOU!
Named? (Score:1)
Given the sensitive nature of the job, they should go unnamed.
Hathaway (Score:1, Interesting)
Wow, I didn't realize Hathaway had resigned.. but I guess that's why she didn't get the job, eh? I don't think this is the last resignation we'll see in the cyber security area.
Hathaway seemed like she was really the best pick for the job, especially considering the 60 day cyberspace policy review thing she did. Not that I read through the entire thing, but she made some pretty interesting suggestions. For instance, she talked about how cyber security is not something that can just be centrally managed on a
No takers? (Score:3, Funny)
The party has just crawled up one notch in my esteem.
Should have called him "Minister of Information" (Score:1)
How would this work? (Score:2)
One other way. (Score:2)
One other way. The government can mandate standards that all products must meet in order to be considered for purchase by the government.
Think TCP/IP.
Then, keep extending the spec as new advances are made. But keep it focused on different vendors supplying different segments ... and all working together because they all follow the same spec.
Re: (Score:2)
That works fine until someone comes along with an "enhanced", "superior" model with "better" security, who gets the job because it's "better". Notably better at securing landing the next contract due to proprietary "secure" standards that won't be compatible with anything else.
Re: (Score:1)
Aern't you guys paying attention? Our country is benig overrun buy these UNELECTED leaders!!
That's not in the CONSTITUION! Its from RUSSIA! happy party members get to b leadrs!!
Hale to the thief comerad number 1. we need to recall Nobama he's ruining the contriy with socialsm and destroying our DEMOCRACY with comunism! did u vote for the czars/KINGS? I sure didnt
Why do yuo think were in a recessoin and headed towwards a global crash??
Oh you. It's a shame that are children believe this.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why do yuo think were in a recessoin and headed towwards a global crash??
Umm... because unfettered market was allowed to play hazard games with our economy? Because people were in charge whose primary interest was to fill their own pockets no matter what happens to the whole economy and we let it happen due to no laws regulating what they can or cannot do?
I didn't vote for greedy bankers tossing our economy in favor of their own wallets but guess what: You don't get to elect them!
Who? (Score:2)
Captain Dunsel comes to mind...
No Authority (Score:1)
None of these diverse organizations in the Federal Government will cede authority to an appointed bureaucrat. His office may come up with standards but adoption will face tremendous hurdles of anything that he comes up with. There's too much entropy in Washington IT and it's governed by consultants and contractors all with their own agendas. Couple that with a full time workforce that is largely unaffected by any thought of losing their jobs over something like IT Security and you have a lose/lose situa
Scapegoat (Score:3, Interesting)
This is the best and brightest? (Score:2, Interesting)
I've met Howard Schmidt several times at security events, and I think he's best suited for writing articles for the trade mags and speaking on the lecture circuit than he is for real information security work. Hre just strikes me as nothing more than a charlatan.
It's hard to meet the guy and come away liking him too, his ego fills the room, and since he's an "honorary" professor at several colleges with security initiatives, he inists on everyone calling him "professor schmidt." Reminds me of the maestro fr
A first (Score:1)
Letting Obama off easy (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't let Obama off easy on the "turf wars" thing. He specifically promised multiple times in the campaign to hire a security czar who would report directly to him and have real authority.
For months nobody would accept this position because it was set to report both to the National Security Council and National Economic Council and have no budgetary authority. Now it seems that he will report only to the National Security Council, but this still breaks Obama's promise, although this is hardly the only time he tossed aside a campaign promise.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Czar Howard II (Score:2)
Schmidt wasn't just "a former Bush administration official," he was the first cybersecurity czar, appointed shortly after 9/11 and contributed to the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace [dhs.gov]. I suppose they didn't get it right the first time, but things will be different now.
Just in time! (Score:2)
Howard is one of us, or at least used to be. (Score:1)
I've known Howard for more than a decade. He started out as a local cop who had a hobby working with computers. He was a pioneer in forensic analysis of computer evidence, and was instrumental in establishing the Air Force's information security capability which was arguably the biggest influence on the evolution of today's DoD capability. He started out doing hands on low level hardware and software analysis. He was a hacker in the true sense of the word. I visited his home, and there were always multiple
Heritage? (Score:2)
To be the welfare car of the Republic?
I'd rather buy a Ford.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know anything. You checks the google to make sure the pipes are working, then you check the mcaffee to make sure it is secure.
Re: (Score:2)
President Obama: Good afternoon Mr. Schmidt, could you tell us who you worked for previous[sic] in cyber-security?
Howard A. Schmidt: Microsoft ...
Yeah, I'd guess a lot of us are thinking that. Funny that the summary didn't mention that little fact. One of the guys who was responsible for the "security" measures that brought us the botnet phenomenon is now the one responsible for the government's computer-security policies.
So does this mean that the US government will be mandating changes that make all ot