Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

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

House Overwhelmingly Passes Cybersecurity Bill

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the critical-mass-of-buzzwords dept.

Government 170

eldavojohn writes "The Caucus, a NY Times Blog, is reporting on the overwhelming majority vote (422 yeas) the House gave a new cybersecurity bill. The Cybersecurity Enhancement Act, H.R. 4061 has a number of interesting provisions. Representative Michael Arcuri, a Democrat of New York who sponsored the bill called cybersecurity the 'Manhattan Project of our generation' and estimated the US needs 500 to 1,000 more 'cyber warriors' every year in order to keep up with potential enemies. The new bill 'authorizes one single entity, the director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, to represent the government in negotiations over international standards and orders the White House office of technology to convene a cybersecurity university-industry task force to guide the direction of future research.'"

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

Why Icecream has no bones (-1, Offtopic)

fibrewire (1132953) | more than 4 years ago | (#31025416)

The Federal Food Safety Act of 1921 prohibited bone-in ice cream and all ice cream and ice cream novelties had to be sold boneless after that.

There was an interesting turn of events that led to the Federal Food Safety Act of 1921. Evidently Grover Cleveland , who was the US President at that time, had a daughter named Ruth.

Ruth was very fond of ice cream, which back then was a rarity because electric refrigeration was not yet largely available to the public. They had to haul ice from the frozen lakes on mountains down to where the homes where at, in order to make ice cream. But I'm getting off onto another subject.

Anyway - the ice cream they made back then naturally had bones in it - how else would you make ice cream? Normally this was not an issue - every child back then knew how to hold a drumstick ice cream cone at the bottom and lick around the bone so that they would not accidentally choke on it. Although it was possible to make ice cream with out bones - it was very expensive to do it because only the Chinese craftsmen, who invented ice cream, were clever enough to debone and ice cream drumstick and not make a mess of it.

So anyway - Ruth was eating an ice cream cone at the exact instant her father was elected president of the United States. So shocked was she, that she accidentally swallowed the bone from the ice cream and began to choke.

Luckily, Henry Heimlich Sr. (Father of Henry Heimlich Jr, inventor of the Heimlich maneuver) was nearby and was able to expel the bone from the windpipe of young Ms Cleveland and save her from certain death.

Well - this was a great thing that Henry Heimlich had done, saving the daughter of the President of the United States. However, Grover Cleveland was away for his inauguration while this happened and wasn't aware of it for several months afterward - when his daughter retold the story of how she almost died from an ice cream bone. Grover was pretty busy at the time and really didn't pay much attention to this until around the time of Ruth's next birthday.

Taking time away from the war, Grover Cleveland asked his daughter what she wanted for her birthday. Giving it some thought, young Ruth finally said "Daddy, I want an sweet snack that I can eat that won't cause me to choke again." It was then when President Cleveland remembered the incident she told him of many months earlier.

He asked Ruth - "What kind of ice cream were you eating when you almost died?" She told her dad she was eating a chocolate covered ice cream cone with nuts and caramel in it.

Ruth's father thought about this and called his old friend James Curtis who owned the Curtis Candy Company in Chicago to see what could be done on Ruth's request.

James told Grover that he would get back to him after trying out a few things, and they hung up the phone which only recently had been invented.

While James Curtis was working on a treat in which Ruth would not possibly choke on - President Cleveland was bothered by the fact that if his adorable daughter almost died from eating ice cream with the bone still in - that there must be other children suffering the same fate.

So - President Cleveland called up congress and told them he wanted them to pass a bill to outlaw bones in ice cream in an effort to save the children of the United States the dangers of choking on ice cream bones.

Congress said "say what..??" But they decided there was something they could do and they hung up their phone. Congress and the president and the Curtis Candy Company had phones back then -but not many other people.

So about that time - James Curtis called the President with the news that he had come up with a candy bar, with chocolate and nuts and caramel with NO BONES in it what so ever! And his daughter could eat them and not be afraid of choking on the bones because it had no bones.!

President Cleveland told James Curtis to bring his newly invented confection to the White House and to come as quickly as possible because his daughter's birthday was next Thursday. James knew this was urgent so he flew by Jet, which actually had not been invented yet, but the secret underground government had been working on it for some time.

So - anyway - James Curtis shows up at the White House with a box of his new candy bars at the same time Congress showed up at the back door, having stopped by for a beer after work. Grover invited James and Congress to the oval office for a drink and James showed him the candy bar and said "Here. President Cleveland - have your dear baby Ruth try this new candy bar."

Now Ruth, who was eavesdropping from the Green Room as this meeting was going on - heard her name and waltzed in like nothing was going on - and gave her the candy bar and said "here, try this and try not to choke on it this time."

Well - the candy bar was very delicious and Ruth really loved it and did not choke at all! She was so overjoyed by this she gave her father a

Re:Why Icecream has no bones (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31025438)

Uhmm.....you forgot to check the "Post Anonymously" box.

Re:Why Icecream has no bones (3, Interesting)

fibrewire (1132953) | more than 4 years ago | (#31025596)

Nah, I just get sick of cybersecurity bill garbage - not like anyone on slashdot is going to do anything about it.

Re:Why Icecream has no bones (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026008)

so the real answer is that you're saying you forgot to check off "post anonymously", then.

Re:Why Icecream has no bones (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026124)

better to be ignorant of it then right?

Re:Why Icecream has no bones (0, Offtopic)

fibrewire (1132953) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026358)

Yes - i like rice, too.

Re:Why Icecream has no bones (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31025634)

Even worse, he forgot the punch line.

Re:Why Icecream has no bones (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026530)

Why do I have to do this? I don't know, but I do. Alas, Ruth Cleveland [wikipedia.org] died in 1904, while the Baby Ruth candybar made its debut in 1921. Its predecessor dates back to 1916 presumably, at the founding of Curiss Candy.

I wonder (5, Insightful)

jwinster (1620555) | more than 4 years ago | (#31025418)

Since this new body is designed to "represent the government in negotiations," I wonder if there's any relation to the ACTA treaty currently discussed behind closed doors.

Re:I wonder (3, Insightful)

coinreturn (617535) | more than 4 years ago | (#31025480)

Since this new body is designed to "represent the government in negotiations," I wonder if there's any relation to the ACTA treaty currently discussed behind closed doors.

I don't wonder at all.

Re:I wonder (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#31025560)

You don't have to wonder. This is one of the final moves being put in place to distance themselves from public controversy. They're expressly putting treaty powers into the hands of someone who isn't an elected official. When it finally blows open, they'll conduct an investigation, which will be tied up in committee for years. The investigation will continue until it drops off the media radar and people forget about it. In the meantime, no direct criticism can be made of ACTA -- because the investigation hasn't resolved. It's a standard PR move, and it's been done before. If the public demands blood, they'll pin it on the scapegoat -- "We Were Misled" will be the headline. But the treaty will remain.

This is how bureauacracy deals with things they know will become controversial: They elect a fall guy, and then create a web of deceit to blunt the minds of their critics and hopefully dissipate entirely any demands for their power to be reduced. And most of the time, it works.

HITLER HAS A POSSE! (-1, Offtopic)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 4 years ago | (#31025696)

On thar IntarWebz!

Heh! Moore's law states that I can introduce Hitler into a discussion more frequently than Hitlr was discussed during his entire lifetime! Take THAT, Mr. Godless!

Re:I wonder (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31025758)

You don't have to wonder. It has nothing to do with ACTA. Really. Read the bill. It's S&T driven: research, education, and having somebody there when standards setting bodies meet.

You're dreaming if you think that State Dept. listens to NIST. Or that this bill would pass the House without going before Foreign relations committee if it had that kind of reach.

Re:I wonder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31026400)

On one hand, you're probably right. On the other, the absolute last thing I want is to have the person in charge of computer security in the US be an elected individual. I can only see that ending badly.

Re:I wonder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31025862)

What new body? WTF?

There's a loose R&D planning council. But it's NIST that reps in negotiations. Does anybody read the source, or just comment on blogs?

Yeah, I know, I'm new here etc.

Re:I wonder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31026064)

"new body?"

NIST has been around for over a century.

Re:I wonder (4, Informative)

Tekfactory (937086) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026418)

NIST isn't a new entity, they are the US Government's standards body, they are part of the Dept of Commerce, and write all kinds of standards the government has to use.

So when the government directs their standards body to take part in standards negotiations on their behalf, there is no conspiracy there.

Take a look at some of what NIST does

http://www.nist.gov/index.html [nist.gov]
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/orgchart.htm [nist.gov]

Also note that like IEEE all of their Technology Special Publications go through public comment periods.

http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/PubsSPs.html [nist.gov]

One of my favorites is SCAP, its like an XML for Security products that helps to standardize vulnerability reports and security settings so you can check using an array of SCAP compatible tools if your thousands of machines are all patched and up to date as well as running your enterprise security config.

http://scap.nist.gov/ [nist.gov]

I'd be concerned if some new bill made someone ELSE without some of the worlds best test labs, scientists and engineers negotiate standards for the US.

NIST is not new (1)

forand (530402) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026662)

NIST [nist.gov] is not a new agency and has been around for some time. They are responsible for keeping track of US time and other standards. If the directory of NIST is anything like those I know who work there I do not think this will be anywhere near as bad as you imply. Finally ACTA has nothing to do with "international standards" and everything to do with copyright law.

OutSource 'em! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31025426)

"the US needs 500 to 1,000 more 'cyber warriors' every year in order to keep up with potential enemies."

Hey, there is plenty of skilled cyber warriors in China, India and Eastern Europe.

Re:OutSource 'em! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31025498)

Hi, I'm from the internet, and I say we take a band of 300 leet nerd-warriors, to where the inter-tubes enter the country, and hold back the armies of OVER ONE MILLION evil foreign hackers.

Re:OutSource 'em! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31025592)

I hope you're not marked as funny, since strangely enough this likely isn't a joke.

What the * is a Cyber Warrior? (1)

CoffeePlease (596791) | more than 4 years ago | (#31025736)

Just saying it does not make it mean something. We need a new congress.

Re:What the * is a Cyber Warrior? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31025782)

A sexually-aware solider? A solider engaged in fetish or p0rn0graphic activity broadcast or otherwise distributed via the Internet?

Re:What the * is a Cyber Warrior? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31026106)

That's easy. A Cyber Warrior is someone empowered (for your own protection) to watch your communications, analyze your network of friends for suspicious links, grant your tax money to friendly contractors, seize your dangerous data, and defend your computer against its true enemies (who, as we speak, are probably planning their next attack with exploding wigs instead of flammable jock straps).

It is an unintended and unfortunate side-effect that Cyber Warriors, in order to keep you safe, require significant funding and additional powers over you.

Needless to say, we'll require lots of them.

At least (1)

sleekware (1109351) | more than 4 years ago | (#31025446)

It's a step in the right direction...

Re:At least (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31025778)

off a cliff

Re:At least (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31025974)

I guess you could look at it that way... haha

Re:At least (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31026378)

Perfect! Tell me it's a really high cliff with an impossible to survive landing... then, I might just be down for this!

I need a job and this one fits my life to a tee. (2, Interesting)

JDeane (1402533) | more than 4 years ago | (#31025450)

Where do I sign up?

Re:I need a job and this one fits my life to a tee (3, Interesting)

chill (34294) | more than 4 years ago | (#31025492)

Re:I need a job and this one fits my life to a tee (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31025538)

https://www.sfs.opm.gov/ [opm.gov]

I went through this program. Got a FREE MS in CompSci in 3 semesters, interned at NIST for a summer and ended up working for NSF for a couple years. Started at NSF and a GS-9, was GS-12 within 2 years.

Shivers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31025458)

Why did reading this article send shivers down my spine? Especially the last paragraph?

Re:Shivers... (1)

Narnie (1349029) | more than 4 years ago | (#31025700)

If we don't act now, we will fall behind and develop a cave^H^H^H^Hcyber gap. Once the nuclear winter clears, the Ruskies^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Hackers will invade and we will have a serious disadvantage! And every cyber warrior should have 10 women to impregnate. Of course these will have to be attractive women to encourage procreation.

Re:Shivers... (1)

BerneAI (448306) | more than 4 years ago | (#31025838)

why should it...the bill, like those that passed it, is meaningless. passed by the clueless, to impress the uninformed, or uniformed, your choice. more drivel....

Cyber Warrior positions available? (4, Funny)

PingSpike (947548) | more than 4 years ago | (#31025464)

I knew all those years playing Quake would come in handy eventually.

Re:Cyber Warrior positions available? (2, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026170)

I think you mean System Shock 1!

Re:Cyber Warrior positions available? (1)

ArundelCastle (1581543) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026192)

Can you imagine handing out shiny new business cards?
-----
[DHS logo]

Bill "FraggleR0x0rs" Ferguson

Cyber Warrior
U.S. Government

Cell: ### Skype: ### AIM: ###
-----

Dude, awesome.

eeep (3, Funny)

the_Bionic_lemming (446569) | more than 4 years ago | (#31025484)

The house overwhelmingly approved? That means it'll add to the deficit, be largely useless, and misused by RIAA.

God help us all.

Re:eeep (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#31025670)

That means it'll add to the deficit

By this, do you mean to imply there's a tax cut hidden in there somewhere?

Cyber Warriors.... (5, Funny)

neogeographer (1568287) | more than 4 years ago | (#31025486)

Come out to playyyyyyyyy

Re:Cyber Warriors.... (1)

DarrenBaker (322210) | more than 4 years ago | (#31025636)

Why is it that the Government, when referring to IT matters, always uses terminology like that... What is this, the United States of Johnny Mnemonic?

Re:Cyber Warriors.... (1)

Jawn98685 (687784) | more than 4 years ago | (#31025918)

Dude,
Tell me that you didn't not get the "Warriors" reference...
More seriously, would you prefer cyber "cops"? Cops or warriors, the terminology does, in my mind, trivialize this truly global contest (war, battle, struggle, whatever). As others have observed, there is some serious talent out there and it is well motivated. Unless/until there is similar motivation for those inclined to wear white hats, things are going to get worse, not better. The military will (just like in Gibson's novels) understand the threat and build or buy the best defenses. Big Corporate World will, eventually, come to a similar conclusion and pony up, though signs seem to indicate that this will be later, rather than sooner. The rest of us are on our own. "The government" can't/won't throw enough resources at the problem to keep the spam bots off grandma's PC. And honestly, I am not sure I want anyone, especially the government, that close (as in close enough to make a difference) to my edge of the network.

Re:Cyber Warriors.... (1)

DarrenBaker (322210) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026094)

What? Yeah, I got the reference.

It's stupid chest-beating bill-marketing terminology aimed below most people's intellect, because that's how the bill authors see us. The intent and effect of the bill is irrelevant here. It just irks me that they feel they need to dumb it down for us. Instead of 'Information Technology Security Official', it's 'Cyber Warrior'. How gauche.

Re:Cyber Warriors.... (1)

tyrione (134248) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026112)

He probably wasn't born to see the movie when it first aired back in the days when our cable boxes were rotary dials.

Re:Cyber Warriors.... (1)

Dalambertian (963810) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026442)

I do wonder whether the government is capable of guiding the future of IT security, especially if they insist on having their own back-door as a matter of national security. I really had no idea how vulnerable we were until I saw this lecture http://www.demoscene.tv/prod.php?id_prod=13914 [demoscene.tv] and his discussion of mebroot.

Re:Cyber Warriors.... (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 4 years ago | (#31025870)

Alas, most Slashdotters are too young to get your reference [imdb.com] .

Re:Cyber Warriors.... (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#31025970)

Wrong movie. Cyber warriors are like road warriors [imdb.com] except the "road" is the information super-highway. Now, I know that's confusing because the Internets are more like tubes than like dumptrucks, but still, the Internet is exactly like a highway for information only superer.

So much as you'd expect, these cyber warriors will be riding around in cyber-cars (aka computers) trying to hoard cyber-gasoline, and perhaps trying to get revenge for their murdered cyber-wives. I know, it sounds funny, but you'd totally understand if you were a hacker who was familiar with cyberspace. The most important thing is to make sure all the T1s don't break through your firewalls and get access to your IP addresses.

Re:Cyber Warriors.... (1)

tyrione (134248) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026132)

Wrong movie. Cyber warriors are like road warriors [imdb.com] except the "road" is the information super-highway. Now, I know that's confusing because the Internets are more like tubes than like dumptrucks, but still, the Internet is exactly like a highway for information only superer.

So much as you'd expect, these cyber warriors will be riding around in cyber-cars (aka computers) trying to hoard cyber-gasoline, and perhaps trying to get revenge for their murdered cyber-wives. I know, it sounds funny, but you'd totally understand if you were a hacker who was familiar with cyberspace. The most important thing is to make sure all the T1s don't break through your firewalls and get access to your IP addresses.

And you thought he was interested in an analogous reference? It was meant to be tongue-firmly-in-cheek.

So now suddenly it's OK again? (3, Interesting)

moz25 (262020) | more than 4 years ago | (#31025500)

Too little, too late.

For more than a decade, effort was done to *weaken* the domestic talent at developing themselves or helping (causing) to harden the existing infrastructure.

Re:So now suddenly it's OK again? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31025620)

Standard operating procedure: Eradicate what's there, bring in your own guys.

Re:So now suddenly it's OK again? (5, Informative)

GovCheese (1062648) | more than 4 years ago | (#31025748)

The federal government hasn't done a particularly good job advertising their Scholarship for Service Federal Cyber Service program where promising cyber students are given scholarships in return for a promise to give the government 2 years of service as federal employees in a cyber security related position. Few in the IT field even know it exists. But it's an exceptional idea and most government agencies are lobbying for expanding it to bring in even more students. The federal government isn't entirely incompetent or bereft of good ideas or lacking the will to implement them. The SFS Cyber Service program is one of their success stories.

Re:So now suddenly it's OK again? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31025950)

As someone who transitioned through the program, yes it is an excellent system. The problem is that it is very difficult to find clearable talent in the the field, so to remedy the situation they expanded who can be accepted to the program.
As of now, the SFS program is filthy with Business degrees and the CS, ECE, CompE degrees are a rarity. Somehow i don't think the business kids are quite the "Cyber Warriors" that everyone is talking about.

Re:So now suddenly it's OK again? (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026188)

They should up the ante a bit on this. Since they want four year degrees the should pay for 4 yrs of schooling. If they want you to have completed two years on your own to show commitment that is fine but they should reimburse those two years after successful completion. They could even up the service requirement to four years to match.

It just doesn't make sense to stick people in low paying government jobs with student loans to pay as their reward.

Re:So now suddenly it's OK again? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31026062)

It gets better:

H.Amdt. 545:
An amendment numbered 1 printed in House Report 111-410 to address the lack of minority representation in the cybersecurity industry including women and African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans. The amendment adds language in Sec. 107 to describe how successful programs are engaging said minorities and in Sec. 108 to include minority-serving institutions on the Cybersecurity University-Industry Task Force.

Yay, more quotas.

H.Amdt. 548:
An amendment numbered 4 printed in House Report 111-410 to require the National Science Foundation to study ways to improve detection, investigation, and prosecution of cyber crimes including piracy of intellectual property, crimes against children, and organized crime.

Won't someone think of the children? And "This bill brought to you by the MPAA/RIAA".

Cybersecurity? Wtf? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31025504)

Why is "cybersecurity" needed? (And does that really have anything to do with cybernetics?) If you've got important data you need locked down, keep it strictly on a closed network or offline. The only government machines that should be online are those to serve up the web site. For everything else, computers are not secure enough.

Private sector (4, Funny)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31025510)

A private company could be delegated for most of the dirty stuff. OCP, Cyberdyne, and Umbrella Corporation already proposed themselves for that task.

Re:Private sector (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 4 years ago | (#31025640)

Did Weyland-Yutani bid on it?

Re:Private sector (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 4 years ago | (#31025662)

That is knda why the government hires contractors. If they are caught it is those immoral contractors, if they are not they perform a valuable asset to the country... Even if they do get caught and take the PR mess they hire them again as all they did was what they were hired to do.

Klingons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31025554)

The Klingons are gearing up for a new field of battle. I guess all those ridiculous stories about "Chinese" attacks on various inconsequential web sites had a meaning.

Orders? (-1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#31025598)

The new bill 'authorizes one single entity, the director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, to represent the government in negotiations over international standards and orders the White House office of technology to convene a cybersecurity university-industry task force to guide the direction of future research

I wasn't aware that Congress could order the White House to do anything. What part of the Constitution gives it this power? What about "separation of powers"?

Re:Orders? (3, Insightful)

mujadaddy (1238164) | more than 4 years ago | (#31025656)

Hi, I'm Separation of Powers, and I take laws that Congress makes and give them to the Executive branch so they can enforce them.

In other news, you really don't know what those words you said mean, do you?

Re:Orders? (-1, Troll)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#31025764)

Yes, I do. Congress writes the laws, the President enforces the laws, and the judiciary judges both the laws and those accused of breaking them. Nothing in the Constitution gives anybody but the judiciary the power to order anybody to do anything (except the President is Commander in Chief of the military and can order troops around).

Now, the SCOTUS can order the President to obey the laws congress passes (and he or his predecessors sighn), but Congress can't order him.

This is Junior high school shit, everyone should know it.

Re:Orders? (2, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026060)

If Congress passes a law which has requirements of the Executive branch, then they are required to meet them. This law contains such a provision. By signing the bill into law, the President is clearly agreeing to the terms. It's not so much an "order" -- and even if it is, Congress has subpoena powers as well as the power of impeachment, so they're fully well able to order people to do things.

If you really wanted to become the most powerful person in the country, you don't really want to be president. You want to be Speaker of the House, and then also get the chairmanship of the Ways and Means and Appropriations committees. Some other stuff like foreign affairs, defense and intelligence, etc might be nice, but controlling what comes to a vote on the house floor, and the committees which control the purse strings, pretty much everyone would have to just bow down and suck it.

Re:Orders? (1)

mujadaddy (1238164) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026280)

Now, the SCOTUS can order the President to obey the laws

Andrew Jackson would disagree with that.

This is Junior high school shit, everyone should know it.

Congress issues requirements for the Executive branch all the time. Everyone should know this "Junior high school shit."

Re:Orders? (1)

tyrione (134248) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026176)

Hi, I'm Separation of Powers, and I take laws that Congress makes and give them to the Executive branch so they can enforce them. In other news, you really don't know what those words you said mean, do you?

Touché.

Rule of law, which Congress writes... (1)

weston (16146) | more than 4 years ago | (#31025776)

I wasn't aware that Congress could order the White House to do anything. What part of the Constitution gives it this power? What about "separation of powers"?

In theory, we have rule of law in this country, and the executive branch is bound by law, which congress writes, except the Constitution. The theoretical separation of power lies in the fact that the executive is generally part of the legislative process via the veto/signing power.

In practice, the executive branch has even further freedom pretty broad latitude, arising partly from being the executor of the law, and partly from human sociology (most people have some natural aversion to adversarial actions against high-status individuals) and politics (sure, maybe Bush and Cheney are guilty of war crimes, but you open that can of worms and you're going to start a big fight and potentially find yourself staring down the barrel of similar accusations in the future).

If anything, the executive branch is stronger in practice than it should be.

Re:Rule of law, which Congress writes... (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#31025966)

If anything, the executive branch is stronger in practice than it should be.

I certainly wouldn't argue with that.

Re:Rule of law, which Congress writes... (5, Insightful)

shaitand (626655) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026258)

The entire federal government is dramatically more powerful than it should be. Just look how many powers it has stolen for itself by twisting a simple authority to regulate interstate commercial traffic.

Re:Orders? (1)

starfliz (922954) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026118)

separation refers to the creation of law. Just because the house passes a bill it does not make it a law. The white house has the power to veto. If the white house signs this then it agrees to it. The executive can be overridden of course but that just means the senate and house believe the bill is to important for the executive to have judgement.

Google attack? (3, Interesting)

antiaktiv (848995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31025608)

Would it have had as much support without the recent (allegedly chinese) attack against Google and other companies?

BYOCT... (Bring your own conspiracy theory)

Re:Google attack? (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026274)

ALLEGEDLY Chinese?

glad that's taken care of (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31025642)

now we can get back about the 'business' of surviving the escalating assault on ourselves, by us, & 'them'.

consult with/trust in your creators, providing more than enough security, & everything else we need, with no personal gain motive, using an unending supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

Where is their test environment? (2, Insightful)

zerointeger (1587877) | more than 4 years ago | (#31025678)

Since when does using a fuzzer to modify http headers constitute as a l337?

So do I have to give up my computer while somebody that wants to test out their l337 skillz essentially destroying my development server and hard work without compensation?

Where are the bills protections to me as a non-felon, voting, tax-payer?

Bleh (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31025722)

It's incredibly difficult to do something in an official, bureaucratic capacity without making your plan (and your goals) seem ridiculous, and your knowledge of the problem laughably ignorant. The internet is championed as a communication medium designed to be 'un-patrolable,' and any system that inspires hollywood-type 'hacking' will be immediately, firmly, and justifiably criticized by those who value it for exactly that reason. It sounds like our politicians are convinced that China has a few more 'cyber-warriors' than us, so we need to get in on that arms-race and move some of those crazy xbox kids away from shooting zombies so they can make pew pew at the holes China's punching in the giant 'firewall' UI buried under Nebraska. Why does the language of our policy, the words coming from the mouths of our representatives, have to be so over-simplified? Why can't the media hire somebody who knows what the hell they're talking about, and have him explain it in language appropriate for the content? Aren't the people who actually care about the issue, and so become its audience, the same people who are insulted by the simplified method in which its presented? Honestly, if you want my Grandmother to read an article in your newspaper, fine, if you want her to vote for you, fine, but don't spoon-feed me BS and tell me it's good for me.

Re:Bleh (1)

starfliz (922954) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026246)

not enough citizens care. to have proper citizens people need to be educated on civics, logic, and management. The government(s) are in charge of our schools. This is the foundation on which all problems rest.

What the heck is a Cyber Warrior? (2, Informative)

Qualin74 (1491297) | more than 4 years ago | (#31025730)

Can someone tell me WTF a "Cyber-Warrior" is? Seriously. Like, what is it.. A bunch of script-kiddies running 1337 ha0r tools? Or someone who just knows how to pingflood? If they really want to be concerned about "Cyber Security", why don't they nuke all the computers running Bot nets? Why don't they go after the jerkoffs running the C&C servers? Why don't they set up Honeypots acting as spam traps and go after all those spammers clogging up the pipes? Why don't they go after the RBN equivalents out there? Nobody would dare to sue a military unit, would they? Am I missing something here?

Re:What the heck is a Cyber Warrior? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31025986)

If they really want to be concerned about "Cyber Security", why don't they nuke all the computers running Bot nets?

Like yours? Or your parent's? Or your grandma's? Or the XP-based prescription medication dispenser controlling the IV in my dad's hospital room that connects to the nurse's station with WEP?

Why don't they go after the jerkoffs running the C&C servers?

By air-dropping fully-armed Navy seals into China and India and Canada and California and France and Germany?

Why don't they set up Honeypots acting as spam traps and go after all those spammers clogging up the pipes?

We do.

Why don't they go after the RBN equivalents out there?

We are.

Nobody would dare to sue a military unit, would they? Am I missing something here?

The American people and the International Community would probably be pretty P.O.'d if the U.S. military starts responding to every IT security problem with bullets and missiles.

Re:What the heck is a Cyber Warrior? (1)

Akita24 (1080779) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026360)

It's like a Road Warrior only different.

Re:What the heck is a Cyber Warrior? (1)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026366)

Right now, it is trivial to get into any medium or large company's datacenter. And it happens all the time. I would imagine that the term "cyber-warrior" would refer to someone skilled in the craft of doing exactly that.

Are they hiring these people to "hack back" for counter-intelligence purposes? Will they be using these guys to try and get botnets all over countries we have poor relations with for intelligence-gathering purposes? Or are they hiring them merely ramp-up penetration testing efforts against our own systems?

It's hard to say, but I'm guessing there might be some of each.

Re:What the heck is a Cyber Warrior? (1)

chrisG23 (812077) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026494)

Can someone tell me WTF a "Cyber-Warrior" is?

Someone involved in any aspect of computer security, which can contain any of the following: penetration testing of systems to determine their vulnerabilites, network monitoring and analysis/intrusion detection, malware analysis, research into new exploits, analysis of botnet infrastructures and so on on the defensive side, and for the offensive side it is scanning target computer systems and networks, enumerating, exploiting, and pwning, either as a script kiddie with tools or as a more real hacker, creating your own tools for the particular system.

If they really want to be concerned about "Cyber Security", why don't they nuke all the computers running Bot nets?

International law. They (the FBI) already goes after people operating the C2C servers inside the borders of this country (the USA). Most people don't know it when their computer is infected with a botnet, depending on the botnet.

Why don't they go after the jerkoffs running the C&C servers? Why don't they set up Honeypots acting as spam traps and go after all those spammers clogging up the pipes?

I think that is the idea of this whole thing actually.

Why don't they go after the RBN equivalents out there?

It is hard to find the ringleaders, and then even if the USA did, they would likely be in Russia, and Russia may not accept our evidence. (Begin rumors without citation) There are some that think the Russian government unofficially supports the RBN, as long as their activities do no mess with Russian interests.(/rumors)

Nobody would dare to sue a military unit, would they? Am I missing something here?

Military action is never a good first option, or second, third or fourth option for that matter. There are serious consequences for violating a sovereign nation with an act of war, unless they are really weak and poor and have no friends.

If there is evidence that countries are beefing up their own cyber warfare capabilities, then it sorta the explicit and implicit responsibility of a government to its people to protect them. You don't see any countries in the world that can afford a military without one do you? Unless they can get it way with it some other way (think Switzerland of countries that are not allowed a sizable military as a condition of their surrender in a previous war by the winning country(ies).)

Welcome to the future. Its like Robot Jox but without the robots and just the software.

the 'Manhattan Project of our generation' (1)

KharmaWidow (1504025) | more than 4 years ago | (#31025774)

So does this mean that they are trying to wreck havoc on our lives like nuclear bombs have? ...Wars, threats of terrorism, devastating economic sanctions, preemptive wars, and cold wars?

Reminds me of the DEVO song "It's a Beautiful Life"

umm wat? (2, Insightful)

nilbog (732352) | more than 4 years ago | (#31025808)

Shouldn't treaties be made by people who are responsible to an electorate? Isn't that the point of our entire system of government? This seems really shady to me.

Re:umm wat? (1)

Tekfactory (937086) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026538)

The Director if NIST a confirmed presidential appointee.

Appointees get chosen by the president and grilled by the Senate, all of whom are elected and in theory responsible to their electorate.

I give it 6 months (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31025818)

I give the NIST six months before they're over-ruled by the NSA and DHS. Six months.

Separating reality and fantasy (4, Insightful)

Angst Badger (8636) | more than 4 years ago | (#31025848)

Every time I hear a government official -- or, for that matter, anyone else -- refer to a "cyber warrior" outside of the context of a game or movie review, I want to take their television away from them until they're old enough to tell the difference between reality and fantasy. And in the case of this buffoon and his thousand extra cyber warriors per year, he also needs to read The Mythical Man-Month before he's allowed to leave his room.

Re:Separating reality and fantasy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31026128)

So let me get this strait as a "cyber warrior" we get to use swords, knifes, maces, axes to dispense justice on those rotten scammers? Sign me up.

Re:Separating reality and fantasy (1)

spinkham (56603) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026302)

I'm sure that kenetic response for network threats is part of the US strategy. Though we don't use swords much anymore...

Re:Separating reality and fantasy (1)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026454)

If anyone is living in fantasy, it's you. Computer systems are compromised all the time here in reality. Sometimes it's by bored teenagers, sometimes it's by the mafia, and sometimes it's by foreign governments and their proxies. There is nothing of fantasy about hiring people with those skills; they could help you secure your own systems and gather intelligence on your enemies.

WHO THE FUCK CARES (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31025894)

about a stupid tv show?

I wonder? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31025972)

That's really great.
Question:
- Haging mandated this conference and extension to our bloated government, did this knowledgable legislater provide funding for this addition?

If funding was NOT provided and since this clown thinks this is such an important issue, let's take the funding from his budget, and if that is not enough, cut his pay, and if that is not enough, he is going to have to get a 2nd job to cover the difference.

This is called - being responsible.

Google/NSA (1)

Temujin_12 (832986) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026004)

Hmmm.... this [cnet.com] would be related now would it?

Google is finalizing an agreement with the National Security Agency to help the search giant ward off cyberattacks, according to the Washington Post.

millions get infected with malware (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31026016)

and the government does nothing
a F500 company gets hacked and all of a sudden we need cyberwarriors

good to know those priorities come election day

I give up (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026244)

I'm done fighting this stuff. I have only two questions. [1] Where do I send a resume to be a cyber warrior and [2] do I get an awesome badge?

Re:I give up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31026420)

As a cyber warrior you need to tank the cyber criminals, while your teammates deal most of the damage and kill them.
I wanna become cyber warlock btw. Like the magic and stuff.

Re:I give up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31026652)

They could be a fury cyber warrior. :)

I'll be your John Wayne (3, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026292)

the US needs 500 to 1,000 more 'cyber warriors' every year in order to keep up with potential enemies

I'm ready to serve my country. But if you want me on the team I'll need Top Secret clearance, one of those cool James Bond gun pens, a military uniform so I can get laid in bars, and a lifetime supply of Diet Mountain Dew Code Red and Doritos.

Right before elections? Good luck! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31026310)

That was a pretty stupid move, now wasn't it? I know a certain 422 members of congress who likely won't be re-elected!

too coincidental (1)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026374)

Does anyone else also think its entirely too coincidental for the progress of the new cybersecurity bill, that a large scale hack of a giant US company (Google) was supposedly perpetrated by a comunist country a mere couple of weeks before the bill goes before the house?

No differnt to a state post office (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31026428)

Usually a country's post office is given powers to represent the country in international postal negotiations and the UPU. This seems to be no different, except that it deals with standards.

Cyber Warriors??? (1)

Khan (19367) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026506)

Phft! All you need is Jack Bauer and CTU. THAT'LL teach them not to mess with the US! ;-)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?