Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Cyber-Security Czar To Be Named

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the lightning-rod-for-blame dept.

Government 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."

cancel ×

139 comments

The Googles (1, Funny)

desmogod (792414) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522820)

Schmidt was an advisor to President Bush on cyber-security matters.

Well I for one hope that he knows how to use The Googles to make sure the Internets is secure.

Re:The Googles (1)

ickleberry (864871) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522916)

Since his name is "Schmidt" I'm assuming he knows all about The Google

Re:The Googles (1)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 4 years ago | (#30523534)

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.

Good luck with that, Howard (2, Insightful)

Jawn98685 (687784) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522858)

You are going to need it. "...much responsibility and little true authority..." is a recipe for failure and scapegoating. As it is so often in business, so it is even more so in government, the PHB's (those with the real authority) don't grasp the issues and will make bad decisions, forcing you to deal with the consequences.
Get it in writing. There words and yours. Let there be as public a record as possible as to what recommendations were ignored.

Re:Good luck with that, Howard (0)

BCW2 (168187) | more than 4 years ago | (#30523132)

Typical Government job. All the responsibility and no authority to do anything.

Re:Good luck with that, Howard (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#30523438)

Typical entry level government job.

The aim is to hack your way to the top, where you have all the authority and no responsibility.

It depends upon how he works it. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 4 years ago | (#30523422)

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:It depends upon how he works it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30524210)

Mod parent up!

I've seen huge conflict of interest issues with Schmidt in the past. Notably, vendors where Schmidt has a board position will try to sell products by using recommendations from the Ponemon Institute. Schmidt, by the way, also works for the Ponemon Institute.

Call it coincidence or conflict of interest, but there is real credibility issues with this guy.

Re:Good luck with that, Howard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30523540)

Hey, I've got loads of security problems with my networks, anyone want a job (PS you may be liable for imprisonment for some time when people find out you were responsible for major security leaks)?

How's Gary McKinnon able to hack into the Pentagon? Beacause security is / was poor. I think they only caught him after he used his girlfiends credit card to buy remote admin software (to install to systems he compromised). So do any of the more savvy criminals use their girlfriends credit card for such a purpose? I doubt it. Gary did mention that 100's of hackers were floating around - Chinese, Russian, you name it they were there.

Re:Good luck with that, Howard (1)

earlymon (1116185) | more than 4 years ago | (#30523908)

"...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 (4, Insightful)

readthemall (1531267) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522864)

Secretary: 1 [xkcd.com] through Secretary: 5 [xkcd.com]

Re:Here comes XKCD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30522994)

tl;dr

What's next (2, Insightful)

Alarindris (1253418) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522866)

the Fuhrer of Healthcare?

Re:What's next (4, Funny)

ddxexex (1664191) | more than 4 years ago | (#30523054)

"Freedom Fuhrer" has a cooler ring to it...

Re:What's next (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 4 years ago | (#30523188)

But the USA already has one. They call him "President".

Re:What's next (1)

Icegryphon (715550) | more than 4 years ago | (#30523744)

More Czars than a bolsheviks wedding!

Re:What's next (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30524400)

"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.

Where are all those libertarians of convenience? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30523056)

You know, the ones who got all up in arms when Booosh!!! went berserk with "warrantless wiretaps"?

Health care "reform" promises to jail people who don't pony up tens of thousands of dollars of their own money for health insurance, whether they want to spend that money or not.

That is without a doubt the largest trampling of freedom in the history of the US.

if you don't have health insurance (0, Offtopic)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30523354)

and you have a heart attack, the hospital cannot turn you away, for simple ethical reasons. so when the bill comes due, and you can't pay, i have to pay for that out of my pocket. this is an imposition on MY freedom

if you have a car accident and have no insurance, they suspend your license. is this a horrible imposition on your freedom? no, its a horrible imposition on everyone else's freedom to drive around without insurance, and you deserve to be punished

if you understand that simple common sense, maybe you understand why you HAVE to buy insurance, and if you do not have insurance and you cost the taxpayers $20K to cover your hospital bills, you SHOULD be punished, for imposing on everyone else

there's no such thing as freedom from responsibility, asshole

Re:if you don't have health insurance (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30523492)

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 (1, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30523580)

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 what we have now, i can only conclude morons and assholes who defy it do so only out of some alien atavistic hatred for simple, obvious progress

are you like those townhall retards who stand up and shout "big government, keep your socialist hands off my medicare!" (snicker)

you're going to PAY for healthcare one way or another genius. the current way you pay for it sucks FAR FAR WORSE than a government run system could ever be. try to understand the fucking obvious someday

Re:hey, moron (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30523792)

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 discussion about cyber-security.

everyone suffers for the crimes of a few, always (3, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30523904)

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:everyone suffers for the crimes of a few, alway (1, Insightful)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 4 years ago | (#30524256)

as for making you spread your beliefs: why force people to believe in god? why not make it voluntary? because people are fucking irresponsible, and they won't believe in god, follow his rules, 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 have faith and have their souls safe from damnation. you HAVE to, because it is your RESPONSIBILITY as a member of GOD'S CHILDREN from which you derive SALVATION.

I hope you know realize why your argument sounds fucking ridiculous. I would have no objection to government health care if my participation were voluntary. Otherwise, you're essentially removing choice and freedom from the equation. If you want me to foot the bill for someone else's medical care, you can sure as hell bet I'm going to want to have a say in how their life is run. They'd better damn well eat right, quit smoking and drinking, not engage in any risky behavior, and must exercise properly. If they're hellbent on taking away my freedom, they can kiss theirs goodbye as well.

You can go ahead and bring out the list of all of the wonderful things that I get from taxes or society, but save yourself the trouble. If they cost something, I'd prefer to pay based on what I consume, not some blanket tax from the federal government that pays for all kinds of crap I don't want ranging from social security to wars in the Middle East.

You can't have freedom without responsibility.

you don't understand what freedom is (2, Informative)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30524630)

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 your responsibility to take care of your health. if you don't do that, you are not exercising a freedom of yours, you are acting irresponsibly. you are willfully or ignorantly avoiding the fact that if you are passed out on the ground, we can't simply walk by you, we have to take you to the hospital, or we aren't being ethical. therefore you MUST get health insurance because this is your RESPONSIBILITY. not having insurance is not a right or a freedom you are exercising, it is an act of IRRESPONSIBILITY you are committing

do you understand now?

Re:you don't understand what freedom is (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 4 years ago | (#30525398)

What's wrong with just billing everyone. Insurance is a scheme run by the same banking institutions that f'd up the economy already. The fact is, if people were simply billed for their healthcare costs with a decent rate of repayment, then costs would remain lower and pricing would be more consistent. As it is, the "insurance" is used to obfuscate and inflate costs by hospitals so that they overcharge, then get underpaid. If people were billed directly, then costs would remain lower, and it would be possible to get a medical quote for something other than dental, eye and cosmetic procedures that are more commonly paid for out of pocket, and the costs are relatively low.

With dentists, eye doctors, and cosmetic surgeons the pricing is far lower for procedures of similar complexity to those performed by other types of doctors, because insurance programs only inflate the problem. Similar to how credit has inflated the cost of housing and cars. Funding into for-profit insurance companies is akin to asking the fox to guard the hen house, and then wondering why the losses are so high.

Re:you don't understand what freedom is (1)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 4 years ago | (#30526054)

I agree with much of what you say, but it will still be necessary to have health insurance to cover serious health issues.

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 out of pocket, such as check-ups or minor medical procedures which are not overly complex.

Technology can be used to drive down the costs of medicine more than any method of health insurance. It's possible to imagine that in the future, heart surgery need not be complex or expensive. Of course, there will be some need bleeding edge procedure which is incredibly expensive to take the old expensive procedures place.

I have no objection to a public option, so long as it is both optional and not my only option. I do not, however, wish to be stuck paying for something that I do not want.

Re:you don't understand what freedom is (1)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 4 years ago | (#30525796)

"you are willfully or ignorantly avoiding the fact that if you are passed out on the ground, we can't simply walk by you, we have to take you to the hospital, or we aren't being ethical."

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 offer assistance as part of their job, but as a member of the public no such obligations exist for me.

I would probably see if you were alive and needed further help, since it doesn't really cost me anything, but after that it's not my problem. If you don't have insurance or can't pay for your medical bills, you can only get help at the expense of someone else, either through their charity or through force. Medical care isn't some unlimited resource that can be freely conjured up at need. It has a cost, and I don't see why I should be stuck paying for you or anyone else if I am unable to limit that cost to myself by running your life for you.

In a certain sense it could be considered irresponsible not to have insurance or wealth stored to deal with any kind of emergency. I do not believe it is right to force my beliefs of what constitutes responsible behavior on anyone else as long as they do not force their beliefs on me. What I consider irresponsible is to let people make their own free choices, many of which I would consider poor or irresponsible, and then force me to pay for the consequences of their own actions.

If you can't be a good example, at least you can be a horrible warning. If someone chooses not to take care of their health, let them be a horrible warning.

EVERYONE READ THE ABOVE (2, Informative)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30526430)

"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:you don't understand what freedom is (1)

moeinvt (851793) | more than 4 years ago | (#30526010)

"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.

you are lying in the street, dying (2, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30526182)

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 retarded beyond belief or have less sense of morality than a kindergartener if you actually believe those words

the "twisted context" you refer to asshole is called simple morality according to any definition of morality by any culture that has ever existed: you render aid to the sick and fallen

let me repeat: you render aid to the sick and fallen

are you willing to argue that? are you willing to call this simple obvious unavoidable morality a "twisted context"?

if yes, you are an amoral asshole who has no place in the debate

if no, you agree with me

decide, motherfucker

Re:everyone suffers for the crimes of a few, alway (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 4 years ago | (#30525016)

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:everyone suffers for the crimes of a few, alway (1)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 4 years ago | (#30525952)

Why should you be forced to pay for some condition of mine for which you are in no way responsible. If you shot me, I might have a case for seeking financial compensation from you for medical expenses, but otherwise why should you pay?

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 Security is still around, let alone worth anything at all, by the time I expect to be able to collect any of it. Try telling to the government that you won't pay. They'll most likely just laugh at you, but if they wanted to, they could imprison you.

Re:everyone suffers for the crimes of a few, alway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30526702)

as for making you spread your beliefs: why force people to believe in god? why not make it voluntary? because people are fucking irresponsible, and they won't believe in god, follow his rules, or a whole bunch of other things they need but are usually too stupid to understand why they need it.

Um... That is just too bizarre. You're comparing belief in your imaginary friend with life and death? Why don't you try a more apt example:

Why force people to pay for the military? Why not make it voluntary?

In case you can't figure out why health care is important and why we all need to pay for it, let me spell it out. Even though you might not need it today, both services protect you from an untimely death. Sheesh... Sometimes I wish they'd just establish a Mad Max, post-apocalyptic island where every selfish libertarian could live without government, in complete self-sufficiency. That is, until someone more powerful crushed their skull and took their stuff.

Re:everyone suffers for the crimes of a few, alway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30524460)

So, because some people drive drunk, we should outlaw alcohol? Yeah, that went over really well in the 1920s.

no, we should outlaw drunk driving (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30524842)

duh

Re:everyone suffers for the crimes of a few, alway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30524474)

Let me explain what's wrong with your logic.

You tell me I NEED health insurance, because 21 year old marathoners have heart attacks and broken legs.

How much does a heart attack or a broken leg cost? I'm guessing treatment for a heart attack might be $10M at the VERY high end, including a rush to the hospital, emergency heart replacement surgery, ongoing treatment and recovery. Broken Leg, not so much - maybe $100K, including fixing the bone sticking through my skin, fixing busted pieces, ongoing therapy.

But let's say that my ridiculously high estimates are low by a factor of ten.

So that means that the heart attack can be covered by $100M. That seems safe. Agree?

How many $100M events is it possible that someone might have in their lifetime? First, I'd argue that No ONE has a $100M event. But, ok, let's say that the worst case imaginable, some unfortunate person has ten of these catastrophic events in their life. Would you agree, worst case, that someone's lifetime healthcare upper limit is a Billion Dollars? I can't imagine it's any higher. Can you?

OK, so why does EVERYBODY need insurance?
I mean, there are billionaires out there. Are you assuming that I am not one of them?

ok (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30524738)

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

Re:ok (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30525700)

Sure. [wikipedia.org]

Since your argument was founded on an incorrect assumption, which was easily shot down, there's no need. And since your argument was based on ridiculously high-odd events (a 21-year old having a heart attack), it seemed appropriate to show you how stupid your argument was, through analysis.

However, one can perform a similar analysis, and calculate an expected cost per person of health care. For me, my "expected cost of care" is WELL under my net worth (and I am FAR from being a billionaire), and so health insurance is a choice, not a necessity.

Your argument seems to be based on the assumption that people can't afford catastrophic events, without regard for the probability of such catastrophic events. I proved that some people can. I know I can.

So you've rephrased your argument to claim that only one in a million can afford their healthcare without insurance. This, too, is false (as I am far from being one of the 300 richest Americans (out of 300M Americans), yet I can easily afford my healthcare without insurance).

The real situation is that (a) the vast majority of Americans can afford routine health expenses, and (b) a very small minority of those will have catastrophic events that they cannot afford. Part "(a)" MUST be true, or no insurance program would ever work. After all, it's these same Americans that you are trying to legislate government confiscation of wealth (taxes) in order to pay for the routine care that you advocate.

Government bureaucracy and Insurance companies do NOT increase the dollars filtered through them; they reduce the dollars. For every dollar brought into the tax system and filtered through insurance companies, significantly less than a dollar comes out to pay for health care. Anyone with common sense should be able to see that government and insurance adds drag to the efficiency of the dollars spent on healthcare.

Supporters of the Obama-care program seem to want everyone to be forced into a program that 1) I've already shown that not everyone needs, and 2) actually adds to the cost of healthcare due to the drag of government and insurance. In an effort to "make healthcare affordable", you are making it more expensive.

This is senseless and illogical.

But if you can't see how illogical your argument is, let me take another stab at it:

Society already accepts certain limits on healthcare costs today, and along with those limits comes a certain rate of morbidity and inconvenience. We don't, for example, assign personal live-in doctors for each citizen, or build emergency rooms in each neighborhood. We've accepted that some people are going to die on the way to the hospital, and (although it's a shame), there's an implied cost/benefit trade-off. In fact, if you took the time to do the math, you could arrive at a dollar value of a human life - we're willing to pay $X to save lives, but we're not willing to pay more to save more. That's today, and it's very much reality. And in ANY society, with ANY healthcare program, that's how it works. This is not a free-for-all, where "unlimited costs to save a life" are considered acceptable.

The fact of the matter is that some people are going to die on the way to the hospital. The reason that society has accepted this tragedy is that money can be spent in better ways to benefit society. It's a cost/benefit trade-off.

Now, if it's YOUR dad, mom, sister, etc., that dies because the decisions of society, then it feels wrong. And if it's an innocent baby, then it feels worse. But using emotion to determine policy is the way to end up with bad policy. What we really should be looking at is this: What is the best way for society to spend money, to benefit society? And confiscation through taxes, to give it back has inherent inefficiencies. Yet that's what the current plan does.

We, as a society, have already agreed that a certain amount of morbidity is acceptable, when we consider the cost to eliminate it. So tell me again why 40 million Americans not having insurance is a problem. Is it because it's the "wrong" morbidity? Is it because the vast majority of these 40 million people have "one-in-a-million" catastrophes? no. It's because there's an EMOTIONAL appeal that makes for bad policy.

Don't forget, the poor (Medicaid) and aged (Medicare) are not among those 40 million. So who are these 40 million? Oh, it's my sister-in-law, who'd rather buy beer and cigarettes, than buy insurance. She's got a job (selling insurance, in fact). It's the live-for-today people. And you want to take away her freedom to do this. Why? Somebody tell me why! If she wants to be a dumbass, I see no reason we owe it to her to prevent her stupidity, and no reason we owe it to her to provide the best care when she has a medical problem. She's playing the odds, and having her fun. And you want to legislate that me and every responsible person be penalized and forced into an insurance program, for her stupidity.

This is crazy.

tl,dr (2, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30525908)

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, you are not exercising a right of yours, you are abrogating a responsibility of yours. really. its quite fucking simple

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

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

Re:everyone suffers for the crimes of a few, alway (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30525242)

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 (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30525300)

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:i know you need it (0, Flamebait)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30525434)

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 (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30525804)

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 you honestly tell me with a straight face otherwise?

Re:my point is completely logical and solid (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30525888)

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 (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30526040)

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 responsibility for your health onto me

let me repeat that for the hard of understanding:

you. are. not. exercising. a. right. when. you. do. not. to. have. health. insurance. you. are. offloading. your. responsibility. to. take. care. of. your. health. onto. me.

there is no logical route around this simple obvious as fucking day truth

that you don't understand this fucking obvious truth means nothing more than us, the society you expect to pay for your healthcosts, has to compel you, kicking and screaming TO LIVE UP TO YOUR MOTHERFUCKING RESPONSIBILITIES. we are not imposing on your freedoms in the least, moron, we are making sure you are not imposing on OUR freedoms. get it?

is it acceptable that i walk by you dying in the street because you have no health insurance and no way to pay for care? of course not. therefore, you better be fucking RESPONSIBLE and pay for unforeseen costs with insurance. unless you believe you are an immortal and will never be injured beyond your means

it is only this delusion of immortality that could convince you that holding your ground in this retarded argument any further makes the slightest bit of fucking sense

Re:red herring (1)

Chapter80 (926879) | more than 4 years ago | (#30526134)

Please take an 8th grade civics course.

Your lack of understanding of our Constitution is frightening.

i understand the constitution just fine (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30526344)

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 somehow stands against healthcare reform is the egregious lack of understanding of constitution in play here, friend

Re:red herring (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30526166)

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 freedom of religion alongside the freedom of association?

Your whole argument boils down to my "responsibility" while ignoring the constitutional question. It is therefore irrelevant. Nonetheless, I would add one final point: If the notion of paying for the medical expenses of the uninsured bothers you so much, why aren't you trying to get rid of the mandate that hospitals treat those who can't pay?

(smacks forehead) (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30526538)

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:(smacks forehead) (0, Troll)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30526838)

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 universal healthcare that isn't?

Somehow I doubt you'll be able to come up with a good argument. You've yet to respond with anything more meaningful than "you simply don't understand". That's not a dialogue, that's you sticking your head in the sand and refusing to think critically.

As far as your "intellectual growth" insult, allow me to respond with this quote: If you aren't a socialist by age 25 you have no heart. If you still are at age 40 you have no mind.

Re:hey, moron (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#30523944)

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:hey, moron (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30523990)

I guess Libertarian views are unwelcome here at slashdot.org

Re:hey, moron (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30524822)

"universal health care coverage is so fucking obviously superior to what we have now" actually it is not. Not the way they are trying to do it at least. Why does health care have to be about insurance, government or private. Wouldn't it be far better to take the money being used foolishly here and instead hire more front line dr's. Military units survive on medical services by medics and corpsmen. You could hire 100,000 corpsmen/medics for a mere percentage (under 5%) of what will be wasted on insurance. These 100,000 medical personnel would be able to treat those in need. And in fact would drive the prices of current insurance down.

Re:hey, moron (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30524870)

Once again you show your ignorance. Government is the reason it's so high to begin with. FIRST the government tells insurance companies who and what they are going to cover in a state. Which decreases competition, because some insurance companies are not going to do business in that state because of the coverage that is required. SECOND, because the gov is soooo involved that they will only pay for x amount for a service. I would like someone come to YOUR work and say you job pays this much, but..... we think that is to high so we will only pay you 40% of what you deserve. WELCOME to medicare and medicaid. They only pay so much for a service regardless how much it cost the doctor to do. And since we cannot charge insurance one rate and gov another.. ALL OF IT goes up. SINCE you are soooo into the gov and it's programs, can you name me a gov program that works and is efficient? If you don't like the system then why don't you move to some country that has your system, since you hate this country so. Just move. Go live in Canada or Europe and then come back and tell me if the system is soooo wonderful.

Re:hey, moron (1)

moeinvt (851793) | more than 4 years ago | (#30525638)

"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 financial institutions in the nation, warrantless wiretapping and ex-post facto immunity for the telecoms, irresponsible fiscal policy adding trillions to the national debt and a general disregard for The Constitution and the rule of law. Are you saying that you want to give this VERY SAME government power over the healthcare system? Are you also saying that you trust them to manage it in a way that's for the general good of the U.S. population?

Only morons, government employees, and a few wealthy elites that benefit from Washington DC's generally disastrous policies would be in favor of giving even more power to the government. The only fucking obvious thing that I can see is that the big government experiment of the 20th century is an utter and complete failure.

Re:if you don't have health insurance (2)

Bicx (1042846) | more than 4 years ago | (#30523618)

I'm pretty sure we'll have plenty of people costing taxpayers $20K regardless of the required insurance. If you're too poor to be able to be able to pay for insurance, you're probably in the bracket which will have almost completely government-subsidized insurance. If you have enough to pay for insurance but don't, odds are that you can pony up some money for the hospital bill. If you're in this position but can't pay, then you should be forced to foot the bill as a debt. However, I'm willing to bet (from my personal experience anyway) that the majority of people who currently use the emergency room for free care are also at the poverty level that would allow them highly-subsidized insurance. Therefore, we're all still probably going to take a hit, but it might just be more distributed.

It really comes down to how we foot the hospital bills for the poor, either through high hospital bills or mandatory insurance for those who can pay. Anyone else taking advantage of the system should be punished.

Re:if you don't have health insurance (2, Insightful)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 4 years ago | (#30523642)

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 'elective' surgeries like Lasik. The fundamental reason why universal health care won't work in America is thinking like this.

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.

Some other nice amenities that those 'socialist' countries get that we don't: We are the only country that has no mandatory parental leave [wikipedia.org] . This graph [wikipedia.org] is in weeks. Way down at that tail end is the United States with 0 days. We also have the proud distinction of being the only country with 0 minimum days of vacation. [wikipedia.org] .

If I had fewer ties to America, I would move to one of those 'socialist' countries in a heart beat. I would gladly give 70% income tax to know that I (or my children) are covered cradle to grave (including while on vacation out of the country). School (including college), healthcare, maternity leave, unemployment, etc etc.

Hopefully when you reach the age you need to move into a home, your family makes the right decision and just has you euthanized instead, wouldn't want you imposing on their freedoms.

Re:if you don't have health insurance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30523912)

>0 minimum days of vacation
WTF ? I thought slavery was abolished ?

Re:if you don't have health insurance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30524066)

So, the fact that you have a shitty job, that only gives you eight days of vacation and no parental leave is a reason to mandate that I offer it to my employees? Get a better job, and STFU. Better yet, start your own business, and offer your employees 4 weeks of paid vacation and six months paid parental leave. You should be able to attract great people; what's stopping you?

By the way, we do offer more vacation than you are receiving, plus parental leave. But times are tough, and it is nice to have the flexibility to be able to ratchet back benefits to save a few jobs, if necessary.

As a small business owner, we have two budgets for 2010, one strictly as a contingent plan for if the current health care bill passes (or something similar). And our contingent budget has 9% less staff.

Want less jobs? The current bill should do it. I have very real, anecdotal evidence to support this.

Congratulations. Now we've built a society that has more dependence on government. Call me greedy, because I make smart financial decisions, if you'd like. But I take a lot of pride in providing jobs for people for the long run, and so smart day-to-day financial decisions are necessary, even if they are a bit ruthless.

Anyone who shares the attitudes that you expressed in your post should spend one year as a small business owner, trying to create jobs instead of looking for the government to take care of you, before you show your ignorance.

Re:if you don't have health insurance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30525580)

So, the fact that you have a shitty job, that only gives you eight days of vacation and no parental leave is a reason to mandate that I offer it to my employees?

No, actually. If you re-read his post, you'll see that he states that because everyone has a shitty job that he wants to mandate vacation and parental leave.

You might want to work on your reading comprehension before posting further.

Re:if you don't have health insurance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30524618)

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

And what do you think are the chances of that happening in reality? I'd put them roundabout the low end of zero.

Re:if you don't have health insurance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30524932)

Then go to another country. I sure as hell don't want to pay for your lasik, and can find a much better use on that 70% than pay for other people shortcomings. Don't you understand that you are pretty much a slave to the state at this point. Sooner or later the producers will stop producing then were will you be? Will you force them to produce at the point of a gun? I am proud to say that my life is all about me me me, and I don't want to babysit you you you.

Re:if you don't have health insurance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30525010)

If I had fewer ties to America, I would move to one of those 'socialist' countries in a heart beat. That is the whole point, we are a great nation and all of these thing that TIE you here are because we are not like those other countries. We left those countries and formed our own for the very reason of what they are. And now those people with those mindsets are trying to make this country something it was not and never intended to be. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. To live off the bounty of the freedoms in this country and yet bad mouthing the very thing that you are enjoying.

Re:if you don't have health insurance (0, Offtopic)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30525366)

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 speech, can't keep and bear arms and are slowly having their rights taken away by an unelected cabal of bureaucrats in Brussels. As with everything in life, it's a trade-off. Just because you are willing to pay 70% income taxes and surrender your liberty doesn't mean the rest of us are.

We are the only country that has no mandatory parental leave

Umm, I take it you've never heard of FMLA?

We also have the proud distinction of being the only country with 0 minimum days of vacation. [wikipedia.org].

So what? You do realize that if you mandate vacation time you raise the cost of hiring new employees to the point that many businesses just won't bother, right? Again, everything is a trade-off.

Hopefully when you reach the age you need to move into a home, your family makes the right decision and just has you euthanized instead, wouldn't want you imposing on their freedoms.

My family won't have to make that choice because I'm setting aside money for that possibility and will probably invest in long term care insurance as well.

Now I await my -1 off-topic mod even though you've got a +5 for something that's equally off-topic. Right-of-center political ideas = off-topic, even in political discussions. Left-of-center political ideas = +5 insightful, regardless of the story at hand.

Re:if you don't have health insurance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30525058)

and you have a heart attack, the hospital cannot turn you away, for simple ethical reasons. so when the bill comes due, and you can't pay, i have to pay for that out of my pocket. this is an imposition on MY freedom

if you have a car accident and have no insurance, they suspend your license. is this a horrible imposition on your freedom? no, its a horrible imposition on everyone else's freedom to drive around without insurance, and you deserve to be punished

if you understand that simple common sense, maybe you understand why you HAVE to buy insurance, and if you do not have insurance and you cost the taxpayers $20K to cover your hospital bills, you SHOULD be punished, for imposing on everyone else

there's no such thing as freedom from responsibility, asshole

You HAVE to allow the government to read all your mail and listen to all your phone calls, because there MIGHT be a terrorist somewhere.

Same "logic".

Re:Where are all those libertarians of convenience (1)

Alarindris (1253418) | more than 4 years ago | (#30523752)

I just meant czar is an inappropriate name...

Re:Where are all those libertarians of convenience (0, Troll)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 4 years ago | (#30525830)

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 (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30523498)

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:What's next (2, Informative)

earlymon (1116185) | more than 4 years ago | (#30523870)

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:What's next (2, Informative)

Manchot (847225) | more than 4 years ago | (#30524560)

In all seriousness, "czar" is just an informal term that the media began using to describe these types of positions. Unfortunately, people who aren't very well-informed see the word and think that they represent some sort of communist plot to seize power. They really don't have any authority, and are ultimately just specialized advisors to the president.

Re:What's next (2, Insightful)

Uniquitous (1037394) | more than 4 years ago | (#30524956)

True, but those people see communist plots hiding in every shadow. It's like a Rorschach test. They see what they want to see. The sad part is that they don't know the first thing about any of the -isms that they claim to despise; they just get good & mad whenever their talking heads tell them to.

Just in time for Cristmas! (1)

tbgreve (857544) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522920)

YEY!!! Another Czar!!! Merry Holiday time Comrades!!

Re:Just in time for Cristmas! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30523478)

"comrade" is a communist term. They got rid of their Czars.

(Cue for the in soviet russia jokes)

Re:Just in time for Cristmas! (3, Funny)

isama (1537121) | more than 4 years ago | (#30523586)

In soviet russia You get rid of czar!
In kapitalist america Czar gets rid of YOU!

Named? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522982)

Given the sensitive nature of the job, they should go unnamed.

Hathaway (2, Interesting)

el_tedward (1612093) | more than 4 years ago | (#30523008)

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 national level and then applied across different agencies. Each agency has to be forced to create a good information security culture for themselves (this is already happening, to an extent).

The National Cyber Security Division within Homeland Security has been trying to do this. They have neither the resources, nor the authority to do this, however.. even though it's part of what their mission is. As a result, they've had some extreme issue when it comes to leadership, with almost no one lasting more than a year or so there without resigning.

I wouldn't be surprised if I saw Mr. Schmidt resigning at some point, but hopefully having an experienced advisor with the Presidents ear will move cyber security up enough in the list of priorities so that people aren't scared just to take the job in first place.

No takers? (2, Funny)

MrMr (219533) | more than 4 years ago | (#30523046)

Not a single democrat willing to take the job...
The party has just crawled up one notch in my esteem.

Should have called him "Minister of Information" (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 4 years ago | (#30524184)

And suddenly it is the Mother of all Jobs!

How would this work? (1)

Bicx (1042846) | more than 4 years ago | (#30523074)

I can understand why some of the potential candidates declined the offer. Trying to improve internet security from the level of a politician will be like trying to carry water in a spaghetti strainer. There are only two ways to really fix internet security: wait for technology to improve through private industry, or pull the plug. I really hope no attempt is made to use government funds to back a particular contractor. Traditional government funding provides little incentive for rapid improvement (your productivity does not affect your income, and a government-backed organization inevitably turns political inside and out, resulting in a long chain of ass-kissing).

I really fear that more deals will be made with AT&T and other top infrastructure-owning companies. I am a big proponent of fair market, and each deal made between a private company and the government puts us one step farther away from equal competition. Stepping away from equal competition means it is that much harder for bright, new companies to enter the market.

One other way. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 4 years ago | (#30523888)

There are only two ways to really fix internet security: wait for technology to improve through private industry, or pull the plug.

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:One other way. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30524836)

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.

wait for the private industry to fix security ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30525752)

"There are only two ways to really fix internet security: wait for technology to improve through private industry, or pull the plug"

You mean like TCP/IP or SSH or KERBEROS ?

"each deal made between a private company and the government puts us one step farther away from equal competition"

You mean like when Homeland Security [washingtonpost.com] standardized on Microsoft Windows [washingtonpost.com] ?

Yet another LITTLE KING (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30523100)

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??

Re:Yet another LITTLE KING (1)

EmperorKagato (689705) | more than 4 years ago | (#30524028)

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:Yet another LITTLE KING (2, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30524904)

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? (1)

kaaona (252061) | more than 4 years ago | (#30523102)

Captain Dunsel comes to mind...

No Authority (1)

Virtucon (127420) | more than 4 years ago | (#30523106)

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 situation.

Most of the Federal Bureaucracies in IT serve the budget and unless congress mandates some sort of funding strings I doubt that you'll see any positive movement in security the litany of websites, servers and other things that contain government information.

Scapegoat (3, Interesting)

2gravey (959785) | more than 4 years ago | (#30523280)

Funny, they had to give the job back to the last guy who had it because no one else would take it. I wouldn't take it either, because that guy is going to get strung up by the angry mob when the inevitable Chinese cyber-strike occurs.

This is the best and brightest? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30523304)

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 from "Seinfeld."

I don't know how he could be taken seriously after he did an infomercial on youtube for his alma matta, the University of Phoenix: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep2ykil-cmU

A first (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30523360)

The first non-socialist, non-tax-cheat appointed by the administration!

Re:A first (0, Troll)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30523800)

The first non-socialist, non-tax-cheat appointed by the administration!

Someone else already said he's not a Democrat.

Letting Obama off easy (2, Interesting)

lseltzer (311306) | more than 4 years ago | (#30523462)

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.

It's not even practical (4, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 4 years ago | (#30523524)

Each federal department behaves differently. Agencies like the various DoD support and intelligence agencies, not to mention the CIA which is its own separate agency unto itself from any department, are not going to let the yahoos from Homeland Security or Justice tell them what to do or even be in on the conversation about how they organize and communicate, especially with regard to classified information.

A cyber-security czar who cannot command the CIA and DoD agencies is quite literally one with no practical authority since those groups are the majority of what matters with real, important IT security in the federal government.

Czar Howard II (1)

lseltzer (311306) | more than 4 years ago | (#30523532)

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.

Re:Czar Howard II (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30525012)

his educational background is what worries me. University of Phoenix? Really?

Just in time! (1)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30523850)

Of course we need a Cyber-Security Car. With so many cars getting electronic enhancements, even becoming WiFi hot spots, it is obvious that we need more security for them. However, they should all have security, not only one car. Unless one Cyber-Security Car offers so much protection that a single one in an area is able to protect a nearby herd of cars. I hope the manufacturers quickly add security, so the government won't try to control the kinds of security in cars.

Not a bad choice though there is a missed criteria (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30524756)

Not a bad choice given the constraints. My only complaint is that he has no Internet backbone experience, which will hurt his ability to communicate with those groups (which form and direct most of the real internet...the feds are only a teeny spec).

If I were he, I would make a call to the head of US CERT, and to each backbone provider asap to get the real scoop.

DEFCON (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30525464)

Didn't Dark Tangent get nominated ?

job interview . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30525600)

President Obama: Good afternoon Mr. Schmidt, could you tell us who you worked for previous in cyber-security?

Howard A. Schmidt: Microsoft .. :o
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...