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!

White House Circulating Draft of Executive Order On Cybersecurity

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the do-things-if-you-want-or-not-we-don't-care dept.

Privacy 94

New submitter InPursuitOfTruth writes with news that the Obama administration has been circulating a draft of an executive order focused on cybersecurity. This follows the recent collapse of an attempt at cybersecurity legislation in the Senate. According to people who have seen the draft, the order would codify standards and best practices for critical infrastructure. That said, it's questionable how effective it would be, since participation would be voluntary, and the standards would be set by "an inter-agency council that would be led by the Department of Homeland Security." The other agencies involved would include NIST, the DoD, and the Commerce Dept. "It would be left up to the companies to decide what steps they want to take to meet the standards, so the government would not dictate what type of technology or strategy they should adopt."

cancel ×

94 comments

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

nobama 2012 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41276217)

You'd have to be insane to vote for B Hussein!

Re:nobama 2012 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41276427)

and a zombie to vote Romney

Voluntary ? (5, Insightful)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 2 years ago | (#41276821)

That said, it's questionable how effective it would be, since participation would be voluntary

That "voluntary" part is inserted to throw off people so that they can't object to this executive order
 
After a while, the word "voluntary" would disappear, and participation would no longer be "voluntary" and the whole thing would be run by the Homeland Security or one of the many 3-alphabet-agencies
 
Count on it !
 
Cyber-security or whatever -security it might be, they are all designed to do one thing - to take away the freedom of the ordinary people and to concentrate all the power at the top
 

Re:Voluntary ? (3, Insightful)

benjamindees (441808) | about 2 years ago | (#41278791)

NSA's illegal wiretapping was "voluntary" when they approached all major telecom providers about it. And when Qwest opted out, they cut their government contracts, prosecuted their CEO on trumped-up charges, and ultimately bankrupted them.

These people are criminal scum. They have an agenda. They are pushing it through, and eliminating anyone who gets in their way.

Re:nobama 2012 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41276429)

Evidently I'm insane, then.

But you'd have to be insane and love a good buttfuck to vote for Romney or any of the other Republicans. And say what you want about me, but I really don't think I would like a buttfuck.

Re:nobama 2012 (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41277181)

But you're already getting a good reaming from Obama. You're just too stupid to realize it, fool.

Re:nobama 2012 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41286833)

Care to back that up with some actual facts and reason.

Or are you just a cowards who only know how to repeat things told to you by Colbert and Matt Lauer?

Go ahead punk, make my day.

Well that means one thing... (4, Insightful)

3seas (184403) | about 2 years ago | (#41276227)

... proof positive of the existence of persistent fuck you overs.

many might say that but in reality it more factual evidence of the degradation of the government of which the Declaration of Independence has instructions by the founders for the peoples as to what to do about the failing of government of which they foresaw the probability of...... Go ahead and read it for yourselves, the instructions really are ther with real life examples too, so to be clear of their intent to communicate to the people in such a time of need..

Re:Well that means one thing... (2)

History's Coming To (1059484) | about 2 years ago | (#41276595)

So what happens if everybody writes down the name of the same independent candidate? Would that carry any constitutional weight at all? I have no idea how the US ended up vendor-locked into two parties. (Not that UK politics is much better.)

Re:Well that means one thing... (4, Insightful)

ranpel (1255408) | about 2 years ago | (#41277695)

So let's push a viable candidate from outside - way outside - online, right now. One of the currently eligible candidates that are not from the red or the blue. Screw the media, now. If it ends up being a completely wasted effort just what would the difference be? Exactly? Not much? I'd say so at this point. It's all bump and grind for someone, always. Throw down a vote in a conscious effort to steer hundreds of thousands of votes to the other party, the party of one person, - the one that is missing - a platform of trust. But you can't waffle, ever. And then we take better aim at Congress.

Traditional media aims to be looking for a lock down and a wholesale information availability reset. The Justice Department seem to be helping that effort along and these appointed trade representatives, in secret no less, and not too mention a few other fronts of encroachment into what we, as citizens all of us, know as freedom.

God damn to hell the backroom deals of governing this people, any people. There is a hideous stench in that. And that goes too for our relations with other countries, each and every one - we negotiate in public or we do not negotiate. If you're a leader with something to hide and are oppressive to your people then the natural course of things dictates that you should probably not negotiate but each and every corner of how you rule will become open for this country to see and hopefully others could follow as well. Looking for oil? Looking for water? Looking for rice, corn, weapons or weed? Then we should know. All of our people need to steer this nation, on this planet, in a direction that will enable us and not just guide us to some random (or well guided) fucking meat cleaver of an end point. Espionage? Lay it out. Is there something to fear in that? Are we going to allow a continued epic conflict between sciences that we've learned and discovered and the thing that created all of this vast thing we call the universe - all of creation? Really? The learn while you're alive VS the thing you may learn when you are dead? There's a good fucking con job in there baby. Are we going to find a room of super sophisticated heads of three companies, a handful of dictators and another of base religious driven drivel meant to blindly guide entire nations into some great and epic battle? Engage the people of the planet when and wherever you can right? This is one large conference call of potential these Internet lines. Mesh.

So, how much longer are we going to do this? Just as long as it takes until we can no longer communicate this freely? I'm beginning to think Mr. Manning had intentions that were just. A cherry pick would have been a waste of his efforts if it is to mean anything - anything at all. People blow whistles and we allow ourselves to be blindly led into stopping the sound and not the reason. What the fuck is that? Who's scared and of what? The time to stop playing these ball twisting games that lead to things like Hitlers and Assads and any other family of horrors in charge, including the family of darkness that drives nails of control and oppression right here at home. Justice Dept., treaty makers, the court of corporate opinion and channeled funds of influence. It doesn't take money to elect our officials - it takes people. Vote for control. Collective voice, open forum, genuine good intentions for any breathing mother fucker on this planet. Stop. Not. Taking. Control. Vote. Now. Fuckin' a.

Who's it going to be? WHO? (keep scrolling) [presidenti...idates.org]

--
futility is never trying

Re:Well that means one thing... (2)

History's Coming To (1059484) | about 2 years ago | (#41278709)

This is something I've been looking at here in the UK. We've hit the point where the three main parties are all far more concerned with securing donations then they are with doing what's best for the country (hell, doing what's best for humans in general), the driving forces in politics have become companies and a small number of ultra-rich individuals who have the financial backing to be "worth listening to". There's no accountability because the greatest "realistic" punishment the electorate have is voting the other guys in, which ultimately makes very little difference, the donations roll in whether you're in power and promising something or whether you're trying to get into power and promising something if you do.

So I've been seriously considering a campaign for people to vote independent. Doesn't matter whether you're voting left, middle or right, just vote for a candidate who has no party affiliation. Multiple governments all over the world have shown that it's perfectly possible to have a stable, effective parliament without being dominated by two or three main parties. And we, as an electorate, can do that, it's not tricky, it's a simple matter of convincing everybody that it is a realistic option.

Re:Well that means one thing... (2)

sumdumass (711423) | about 2 years ago | (#41277715)

The US isn't "vendor locked" into two parties. The problem is that the third parties do not exist with enough backing to become major players. Sure, on the whole, they might have a couple million or more devoted followers in a country that has a population of over 300 million. But they are spread out within so many places that they are more like 1 in 10 or so or even less when it comes to districts and electoral votes.

One of the reasons this is true is because all too often the voter is in damage mode trying to protect themselves by eliminating the most evil candidate. This makes avid third party support at the ballot booth dangerous because if you don't vote against the person you like the least by voting for the person you think is most likely to win, you effectively allow the person you like the least to win. Another part of the reason is that the two major parties are big tent parties. They are not single issue parties and if an idea of concept or even grievance is popular enough, one of them (or both) will pick it up and incorporate it within their platforms.

These two reasons ensure that even if the parties disbanded, they would eventually form into the same shape again. In other areas, the parties do not tend to be so "big tent" and often differ on just a few topics.

Re:Well that means one thing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41277891)

> what happens if everybody writes down the name of the same independent candidate?

That person would become President.

> I have no idea how the US ended up vendor-locked into two parties

Game theory predicts that in a First Past the Post setup, two dominant parties will emerge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system#Influence_of_game_theory and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law .

Re:Well that means one thing... (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | about 2 years ago | (#41282357)

actually since a number of states effectively disallow "write in" candidates then a bunch of votes will be counted AS INVALID (and a red or blue President will be elected).

Executive Orders vs. Checks & Balances (5, Interesting)

ReallyEvilCanine (991886) | about 2 years ago | (#41276257)

On one hand, efficacy and direct, immediate action.

On the other hand, the complete usurping of the very principles of enumerated and separated branches of gubmint in order to prevent abuse and provide for accountability.

vs. Nothing (4, Insightful)

noobermin (1950642) | about 2 years ago | (#41276469)

I shared it before, but this Congress has passed a pittance of actual legislation. The trade off is whether to have no work or at least something that works. The separation of powers was to avoid abuses, not to obstruct the government from running itself.

Re:vs. Nothing (4, Insightful)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about 2 years ago | (#41276521)

Oh I see, so in your opinion if you can't get the people's elected representatives to agree with your law, the just pass it without them. That's what the executive orders are for, right? Have you ever considered a possibility that passing new legislation is not automatically a good thing. Government is not a law factory where the progress is measured by the number of new laws produced.

Re:vs. Nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41276669)

I know you won't RTFA, but at least read the summary!

the order would codify standards and best practices for critical infrastructure. That said, it's questionable how effective it would be, since participation would be voluntary

Re:vs. Nothing (1, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | about 2 years ago | (#41276893)

Actually there is no reason at all that government should be allowed to create ANY new laws past the first set that governs the government. How about having a Constitution that specifies what exactly the government is allowed to do and then locks the system so that no new laws can ever be created?

There is no reason to use government for more than border protection and protection of individual freedoms, all other functions should be handled by people without government intervention.

Re:vs. Nothing (2)

davester666 (731373) | about 2 years ago | (#41277019)

Any legislation including something that "would be led by the Department of Homeland Security", unless that something is the dissolution of the Department of Homeland Security, probably won't be particularly effective. It will look effective, and make excellent use of phrases such as:

terrorist threat
safety
completely secure
information security

It will not be effective at it's plain-text task, but it will enable Homeland Security complete access to all information these private businesses have.

Re:Executive Orders vs. Checks & Balances (1)

heezer7 (708308) | about 2 years ago | (#41276565)

I vote scary

Re:Executive Orders vs. Checks & Balances (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41276723)

FCC, DHS, and military. An executive branch cybersecurity policy isn't too hard to justify under the existing duties of more than one department of the executive branch.

Re:Executive Orders vs. Checks & Balances (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41276797)

At least read the summary.

participation would be voluntary

If the President doesn't have the power to make voluntary suggestions that would mean he has less power than a Slashdot commenter. I don't think that's what the Constitution says.

Re:Executive Orders vs. Checks & Balances (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#41276873)

On one hand, efficacy and direct, immediate action.

No. There's been nothing efficient, fast, or direct about this. It's another power grab by the Department of Homeland Security, and pardon my french, but fuck them. They have incompetently managed every resource assigned to them, whether it's investigating domestic crime, securing airports, or anything else. They've created gulag prison camps within our borders to throw protesters in, encouraged the usurpation of local and state laws to further their interests, they irradiate their citizens and workers alike to the point that cancer clusters are now showing up in TSA screeners that are well-beyond being able to be dismissed as a statistical abnormality, and the list goes on.

And now they want a master kill switch for the internet, to dictate terms about how all our communications infrastructure is organized, and they have deep connections with media organizations -- of which only a few need to be manipulated to suppress information at the national level. The Department of Homeland Security has become the Ministry of Truth, and thanks to clever and covert manipulation of the media and the occasional use of deadly force and questionable laws, has all but silenced dissent or even knowledge of what its activities are.

No. It's gone too far. It no longer matters to me how well-intentioned or beneficial a proposal is; If it is administered or requested by Homeland Security, my advice is to resist it in any way you reasonably can... they're a dangerous and corrupt organization, unamerican and destructive of the very means it seeks to protect. I'd rather have a hundred Osama Bin Ladens out there plotting the downfall of my country than to turn over my personal safety and security to a bunch of incompetent bureaucrats -- at least in the former case, I know who my enemies are.

Re:Executive Orders vs. Checks & Balances (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 2 years ago | (#41277119)

Looks like you pissed off the brown shirt mods. Semi kidding aside the majority already know there won't ever be a hijacking on another plane again. The second that it happens the passengers will overpower the people, even if some of them die. By the time the plane gets to the ground, the only thing left of the hijackers will be a smear of blood and bone from the cockpit doors to exit doors from the passengers making sure that they never endanger another aircraft again.

The TSA in itself is a joke, they won't follow proven methods, they'll waive through obvious security threats. They'll harass people with known medical conditions, and they're becoming more abusive. Anyone who thinks otherwise must believe or enjoy living under the rule of a police state.

-1, Disagree... again. (0)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#41277131)

I take it that stating something that may be politically controversial is a 'troll' now on slashdot. Rather than having the decency to respond to my post with some informed criticism, you choose to mod me "-1, disagree". Undo your mod, press reply, and tell me what, exactly, you disagree with. Because while I might be full of sarcasm, I don't think I've said anything a lot of people wouldn't agree with or find a factual basis for.

Re:-1, Disagree... again. (0)

BlueStrat (756137) | about 2 years ago | (#41277369)

I take it that stating something that may be politically controversial is a 'troll' now on slashdot. Rather than having the decency to respond to my post with some informed criticism, you choose to mod me "-1, disagree". Undo your mod, press reply, and tell me what, exactly, you disagree with. Because while I might be full of sarcasm, I don't think I've said anything a lot of people wouldn't agree with or find a factual basis for.

Welcome to the People's Democratic Republic of Slashdot.

This happens to me all the time. Just ignore it.

All it does is prove that your attackers have no credible rebuttals, and thus strengthens the credibility of your posts.

I browse /. at "-1" because those are usually the posts that actually make the most sense and contribute the most to the discussion, if they're not GNAA/goatse/Netcraft posts.

Slashdot moderation abuse has nearly succeeded in completely flipping the whole ranking system on it's head, where the better posts are at "-1" and the trolls/shills/useful idiots are at "+5". This is particularly true regarding political-topic submissions and discussion threads.

Strat

It's the brown shirts (0)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 2 years ago | (#41277593)

I got it all the time, my friend.
 
In fact, if you scroll up, you'd see that the brownshirts had already modded my comment down
 
Now Slashdot is crawling with many brownshirts, and some of them are said to have unlimited mod points.
 

Re:-1, Disagree... again. (1)

MrHyd3 (19709) | about 2 years ago | (#41277871)

Well, I feel your pain. Consider my karma, it has been marked so negative due to my political comments on "political" topics - Imagine that. So much for the "OPEN" people. I feel your pain and now only visit SlashDot once a month. Most of these people are half my age and don't know shit about shit...but rule like dictators. When they can't win, they silence. In my case, mod me so low, no one see's my comments.

Re:-1, Disagree... again. (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 2 years ago | (#41277889)

I see your comments

Like the previous guy, I do read comments that are being modded down to "-1"

I may not agree with what they say, but I do read them

Re:Executive Orders vs. Checks & Balances (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41278209)

I have to agree. Today's "voluntary" from any US Department, quickly spirals into "voluntary, as long as you don't mind the hassles of non-compliance" on it's "boiling the frog" spiral to "de-Mandatory"

*cough* (1)

tetrahedrassface (675645) | about 2 years ago | (#41276285)

Isn't it already up to companies to decide what steps to take for security?

Re:*cough* (0)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about 2 years ago | (#41276325)

It is but it's hard for the government to stop constantly producing new laws even if they are completely ineffective. The congress, not to mention state and local governments have already signed several libraries worth of new laws in 2012, as they do every year, and it would be a shame for the executive branch to be left behind.

Re:*cough* (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41276451)

It is but it's hard for the government to stop constantly producing new laws even if they are completely ineffective.

They gotta look busy somehow... you wouldn't want to make participation in the democratic process a part-time job now, would you? These guys *need* the money they are being paid... they're poor

Re:*cough* (1)

houghi (78078) | about 2 years ago | (#41276349)

Isn't it already up to companies to decide what steps the government needs to take for security?

Fixed that for you.

yu0 Fail It (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41276297)

we 6et there with Bring your own 1. Therefore there Been sitting here obvious that there notorious OpenBSD represents the posts. Therefore contaminated while took precedence [gay-sex-access.com]? to stick something guys are usually Would beY a bad

Simple solution... (1)

Genda (560240) | about 2 years ago | (#41276335)

The Government will contract crackers to hack your company using exploits inside of the limits specified by the annual security proposal. The crackers get a little something something for their effort plus a bit more if they find new and interesting ways to break people security (fixes for which will be added to next years security standard.)

If they break in, they will levee a "Fine" from your bank account, set aside for security tax and charged for non compliance (by the way this "Fine" is prededucted from the annual tax burden.) This means that every company on the country has an opportunity to save a chunk of change for complying with national security standards and they can make out like bandits year after year if they only invest in the minimum necessary for keeping black hats at bay.

On to the next problem...

Could we see the draft? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41276339)

Someone please put a copy of it on wikileaks.

How about some basic guidelines? (5, Insightful)

Xenkar (580240) | about 2 years ago | (#41276341)

Rule 1 of critical national infrastructure: Don't put it on the damned internet.
Rule 2: See rule 1.
Rule 3: Are you sure you saw rule 1? Quadruple check anyway.
Rule 4: Manufacture everything pertaining to the critical national infrastructure in your own country (microchips, resistors, diodes, final assembly, etc)
Rule 5: Keep it simple.

Now for big business:
Rule 1: Don't let anyone leave your office with a notebook or any form of portable media containing sensitive customer information unless it is encrypted and heading to your off-site tape storage facility.
Rule 2: Don't let anyone hook their own computers and gadgets up to your network.
Rule 3: If it needs to be on the internet, have a nice firewall between it and the internet.
Rule 4: Have your web browsers running in sandboxes.

There, now we don't need feel good, ineffective legislation.

Re:How about some basic guidelines? (2, Interesting)

tetrahedrassface (675645) | about 2 years ago | (#41276421)

You make too much sense, especially regarding the manufacturing. Our manufacturing base is dead and gone and if we are ever to regenerate economicallly it will be when we begin making things again...

Re:How about some basic guidelines? (2)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | about 2 years ago | (#41276511)

It may be shrinking, but $230 Billion in new orders sounds quite large for July.

http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/m3/index.html [census.gov]

Do you have any backup for what you're saying, or did you just repeat something you heard?

Re:How about some basic guidelines? (3, Insightful)

tetrahedrassface (675645) | about 2 years ago | (#41276603)

We lost 13,000 maufacturing jobs last month.. that's a drop in the bucket. Now, look where wealth is generated and it comes from manufacturing things. Here is just one article on our decline. [huffingtonpost.com] When whomever is in charge wants to get serious about generating wealth again they'd do well to lift the burdens on U.S. manufacturers, get factories built and start building things again. Until then we are going backwards.

Re:How about some basic guidelines? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41276807)

We need fewer people to manufacture the same amount of goods because technology. By and large, it isn't John Chinaman who is causing American manufacturing jobs to go away, it's R. Daneel Olivaw.

Re:How about some basic guidelines? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41276863)

I disagree with your assessment. Here is a good read. [cleveland.com] h

Facts do not agree with that "economist" (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 2 years ago | (#41277667)

That guy doesn't even qualified as an "economist" -

Shrimp - China does _NOT_ export shrimps

The amount of shrimps China produces (from shrimp farms and caught from the sea) is not sufficient for China's own consumption

In fact, China IMPORTS shrimps from many South East Asian countries, from Australia, and even from Africa !!

Flat Screen TV - Many LCD TeeVee sold in the USA may have been assembled in China, but the crucial parts - the LCD panels, the electronics, - are made in Korea, Japan and Taiwan

China does made their own LCD panels, but the internal consumption of LCD TVs in China is so large that China actually imports LCD panels, rather than exports them

Shirt on your back - There exists a quota limit on clothing import from any one country, including China
 
Even if you bought your shirt in Walmart - the traditional "made in China supermarket" - the shirts most probably have "Made in Bangladesh" or "Made in Pakistan" or even "Made in Romania" / "Made in Ethiopia" labels on them, because the unskilled labor in Bangladesh and Pakistan are much cheaper than those from China
 

Re:How about some basic guidelines? (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 2 years ago | (#41277283)

Manufacturing in general is losing jobs. Not only in the US but in third world countries like China and Mexico because of efficiency increases.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aRI4bAft7Xw4 [bloomberg.com]

It's a reprise of what happened 50 years earlier when farms became mechanized. It is an inexorable inevitable trend that machines will replace humans in routine tasks.

The fact is that manufacturing as an economic sector in the US is doing fine. To paraphrase Mark Twain, rumors of demise are much exaggerated.

The US is easily the world's most productive manufacturing nation in terms of output value per hour, and also has the largest manufacturing economy in the world.

http://www.nam.org/Statistics-And-Data/Facts-About-Manufacturing/Landing.aspx [nam.org]
http://www.seeitmarket.com/u-s-still-in-the-business-of-making-things/ [seeitmarket.com]
http://business.time.com/2011/03/10/can-china-compete-with-american-manufacturing/ [time.com]

Output Value Per Hour (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 2 years ago | (#41278051)

Manufacturing in general is losing jobs. Not only in the US but in third world countries like China and Mexico because of efficiency increases.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aRI4bAft7Xw4 [bloomberg.com]

It's a reprise of what happened 50 years earlier when farms became mechanized. It is an inexorable inevitable trend that machines will replace humans in routine tasks.

The fact is that manufacturing as an economic sector in the US is doing fine. To paraphrase Mark Twain, rumors of demise are much exaggerated.

The US is easily the world's most productive manufacturing nation in terms of output value per hour, and also has the largest manufacturing economy in the world.

http://www.nam.org/Statistics-And-Data/Facts-About-Manufacturing/Landing.aspx [nam.org]
http://www.seeitmarket.com/u-s-still-in-the-business-of-making-things/ [seeitmarket.com]
http://business.time.com/2011/03/10/can-china-compete-with-american-manufacturing/ [time.com]

The United States of America achieved the highest Output Value Per Hour of all countries in the world by doing one thing - making super high valued items - like Stealth Fighter planes, Nuclear Submarines, Super-computers, and CPUs.

Except for the last item, which is produced by the millions, the rest of those super-high-valued items are not mass-produced - at least not mass produced to achieve the economy of scale.

That lies the problem.

The USA may be the biggest exporters of the world because there is still a great demand for those super-high-valued items - especially the weapons

And others are catching up.

Take the CPUs - Intel has been raking in truckloads of $$$ by producing CPUs that are worth much more than their weight in gold, since the 1980's.

Nowadays, however, Intel is increasing feeling the heat - competition is heating up. No, not from AMD, but from other companies which made ARM chips, and there are a lot of them - From TI of USA to Samsung of Korea to Nvidia of Taiwan to Allwinner of China

There _are_ competitors to other super-high-value items produced by USA, but fortunately, for the time being, the competitors aren't very well financed or don't have the required technology yet.

But that doesn't mean the competitors don't play catch up. They do, and they are catching up, fast.

Nowadays USA is not the only one capable of producing stealth fighters. Russia, Japan, Europe and China all have their own versions of stealth fighters.

What does that leave USA, then?

To innovate? Or to destroy their competitors, before they can play catch up?

If USA were to be run by those who is running Apple, Inc., no doubt the choice would be the latter.

Fortunately, the USA government hasn't yet completely relinquished its sovereignty to Cupertino.
 

Re:How about some basic guidelines? (1)

ljw1004 (764174) | about 2 years ago | (#41276773)

Alternatively,
[National] Rule 1: put it on the internet, with suitable security, if doing so will save money
[Business] Rule 1: let media travel so long as it's encrypted

Hey presto, I get a country with lower expenses (lower tax rate), and a business where workers work more effectively at home. Up until the time I get attacked, then I've outcompeted you economically. Maybe you didn't even survive long enough to see the attack.

Re:How about some basic guidelines? (1)

Malf.me (2697131) | about 2 years ago | (#41278141)

Alternatively, [National] Rule 1: put it on the internet, with suitable security, if doing so will save money

This.

In many ways the air gap is antithetical to the interests of both the government and any related organizations responsible for said infrastructure. The air gap is nearly impossible to manage in a sane and worthwhile fashion. You can read about the myth of the air gap here [tofinosecurity.com] .

Re:How about some basic guidelines? (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | about 2 years ago | (#41277421)

Now for big business:

You fogot rule 0

Rule 0: consider you have already been compromised

Re:How about some basic guidelines? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41277485)

When it really matters, stuff like this gets done. In fact, the paranoia gets turned up pretty high, like 6. Don't tell people who you work for. The trouble is figuring out what really matters, convincing people it matters, then deciding how much expensive paranoia you really need. That brings its own set of problems, like putting people through clearance processes and making sure that the mere existance of secrecy can't be used as a cover by people doing things that are illegal (e.g., excuse me an important 3-letter agency is on my phone I have to leave--for a party at the 4 seasons funded with money embezzled from our accounts). Yep, seen it happen.

Re:How about some basic guidelines? (2)

jroysdon (201893) | about 2 years ago | (#41277793)

Too many things make this not possible to not have connected (air gapped). One is OATI [oati.com] and in California there is the CA ISO [caiso.com] . Both use the Internet for the agencies to connect to them and both are essential for the Energy Sector to function in an inter-connected grid. Agencies have to get SCADA information into billing/historical systems and conversely schedules have to get into SCADA systems. Both of these intermediate business networks need Internet access to OATI and CAISO. So while SCADA systems are not directly connected to the Internet, through the right amount of vulnerabilities/compromises, they can in theory be remotely accessed. Yes, there are dozens of protections that can and should be in place, but it's not the same as a true air gap.

Can you name one router or switch vendor with which you can get 100% made in the USA. It's impossible these days.

Hate! Hate! Hate! (2)

Oh Gawwd Peak Oil (1000227) | about 2 years ago | (#41276357)

Obama administration has been circulating a draft of an executive order

What? Obama is going to force us to do something? Hate! Hate! Hate!

participation would be voluntary

What? How is that going to be effective, then? Obama can't get anything done! Hate! Hate! Hate!

Re:Hate! Hate! Hate! (0, Troll)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about 2 years ago | (#41276447)

Yes, you are right. We hate him not because he is the most radical liberal president we have ever had (yes, counting Carter), or because he socialized our healthcare system through a procedural loophole against the wishes of majority of Americans, or because he increased our debt from 10 to 16 trillion in 3 years with no end in sight, or because he went back on most of his election promises including bringing about a more transparent government, or because the highest percentage of Americans in history are now government dependent, or because he is doing nothing about the reality of SS and medicare becoming insolvent in the next decade, or because our country got worse in every imaginable way since he got elected . We hate him because he is half black. Happy now?

Re:Hate! Hate! Hate! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41276485)

Holy crap . . . pretty much everything you said is a lie. Do you even know the difference between a lie and the truth? Does it even matter to you?

Obama is hardly liberal, in any case. Certainly not in comparison with the rest of the world. And not in comparison with a significant minority of U.S. citizens.

Re:Hate! Hate! Hate! (0)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about 2 years ago | (#41276781)

Hate to reply to a coward, anonymous or not, but what exactly did I say that is not correct except that I meant to say decades, as SS and madicare are not quite scheduled go bust in the next 10 years but even as it stands it is not much of an exaggeration.

Re:Hate! Hate! Hate! (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 2 years ago | (#41277477)

Well, for one thing you posit that Obama 'socialized our healthcare system'. By that statement, you make it abundantly clear that you have no earthly idea what you are talking about.

Oh, now that I see your sig 'Socialism is slavery' I begin to understand. But you clearly, don't.

Re:Hate! Hate! Hate! (0)

sumdumass (711423) | about 2 years ago | (#41277903)

You don't think that "the government" forcing everyone to get insurance because it makes it cheaper in the long run for those already with insurance isn't socializing it? You don't think that increasing taxes and taking money from medicare in order to provide insurance for the poor isn't socializing it?

It may not be your ideal utopia of socialism but it isn't exactly not socialism either.

Re:Hate! Hate! Hate! (1)

coinreturn (617535) | about 2 years ago | (#41286539)

You don't think that "the government" forcing everyone to get insurance because it makes it cheaper in the long run for those already with insurance isn't socializing it? You don't think that increasing taxes and taking money from medicare in order to provide insurance for the poor isn't socializing it?

It may not be your ideal utopia of socialism but it isn't exactly not socialism either.

Wake up call! Medicare is socialized medicine. Obamacare is not.

Re:Hate! Hate! Hate! (0)

sumdumass (711423) | about 2 years ago | (#41290585)

They both are socialist programs- Neither is socialized medicine per se more rightly socialized health care. The only difference is whether you pay a middle man first or not, but the government control and forced participation is there. The government is still in control of the treatment options.

Re:Hate! Hate! Hate! (1)

coinreturn (617535) | about 2 years ago | (#41291283)

They both are socialist programs- Neither is socialized medicine per se more rightly socialized health care. The only difference is whether you pay a middle man first or not, but the government control and forced participation is there. The government is still in control of the treatment options.

You need to look up socialism.

Re:Hate! Hate! Hate! (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 2 years ago | (#41303913)

You should look up democratic socialism and Leninism.

Re:Hate! Hate! Hate! (1)

coinreturn (617535) | about 2 years ago | (#41304087)

You should look up democratic socialism and Leninism.

Post the link to the Glenn Beck video for me.

Re:Hate! Hate! Hate! (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 2 years ago | (#41311179)

What is a glenn beck video?

Google will work for you, I've already checked those terms out and they are gold.

Obama is a LIBERAL?? (4, Insightful)

Oh Gawwd Peak Oil (1000227) | about 2 years ago | (#41276659)

Obama is a liberal? Are you nuts?

Obama is the best Republican president we've had since . . . Bill Clinton.

Re:Obama is a LIBERAL?? (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about 2 years ago | (#41276763)

It all depends on your point of view. I agree that the mainstream Democrats have had some success is keeping their lunatic left wing quiet by pretending to be more liberal than they are, kind of like the Republicans pander to their religious nuts with words more than with actions. From my personal libertarian vantage point Obama certainly seems very liberal.

Re:Obama is a LIBERAL?? (2)

Mashiki (184564) | about 2 years ago | (#41277133)

Hah. I'm from Canada and a conservative that makes me on average more "liberal" than most democrats. In truth I'm more libertarian than anything else. But Obama is a liberal, even by Canadian's leftwing standards.

Re:Obama is a LIBERAL?? (1)

Zenin (266666) | about 2 years ago | (#41278403)

Obama is unquestionably far, far to the right of Ronald Reagan. That is simply reality. Name practically any policy, Obama is farther to the right on the issue then Reagan was.

Although I realize when the "center line" has been pulled so far to the right practically everything appears "left"...

I'd like what you're smoking (5, Informative)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 2 years ago | (#41277527)

You do realize that most of the "socialized healthcare" law came straight out of the Republican recommendations of less than 10 years ago and, with the exception of providing vouchers(!) for those who are lower income to buy commercial insurance, is nearly identical to the right's plan as a counter to the Democrats call for a single payer system?

You obviously have never heard of Keyens, either, or remember that in 1929, Herbert Hoover actually implemented many of the Tea Party recommendations in an attempt to prevent the national debt from growing as the federal government's income revenue shrank. Not only did it spiral the unemployment rate to 20%, but even when FDR implemented (effectively) Keyensian economics by leveraging the US governnment to create jobs it took 6 more years for the economy to stabilize. In 80 years we haven't had as wild a bubble burst, and yet the current presidents approach to stopping the hemmoraging - which worked almost immediately - is considered a failure? You do realize that the previous 6 years of growth was based solely on margin spending of consumers based on inflated values of their homes - and now that the market has corrected there is no more real estate to leverage in the same way, and nobody else in the world has any consumer money to spend either?

Did you miss the part about BHO getting rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Did you miss how he promised health care reform and - even though you clearly don't need it - actually passed it? Did you miss how he promised to re-regulate the Financial industry, and put forth and passed legislation to do so, only to have the Republican held congress refuse to enact, fund, or appoint people to run it? Did you miss the part where he planned to pull us out of Iraq, and to draw down the surge in Afghanistan.

Has is been so long - 3-1/2 years - that you forget that the rest of the world hated us so fucking much that they gave him the Nobel prize for simply not being GW Bush? No, of course he didn't deserve it, but the whole rest of the world hated Bush and Cheney so much they gave hi a medal and a million dollars just for not being them. Let me repeat that - our allies don't hate our guts any more. Even the neutral states think we're okay now. Did you notice that, when Egypt and Libya went apeshit we didn't have to mobilize ground troops. Hell, we were barely involve. Our allies took that over and we didn't have to put on our cowboy boots and lead the charge.

As for corporate value, I'm not sure where you've been hiding where the Dow Jones doesn't get reported, but from when GWB took office in 2001 to when the bubble burst in 2008 - the peak!- the market went up by 32%, and then fell crashing down for a NET LOSS OF VALUE UNDER G W BUSH of nearly 23%, start to finish. That was my God damned 401k retirement fund. Holy shit that sucks. Since Obama took office, the market is up...sit down for this...62%. That's right, and that doesn't count the low spot - that's from the day they swore him in. In 3.5 years he did DOUBLE for the value of the market what GW Bush did right before the bubble burst. We just had the worst market crash in 80 years, and in 40 months the market is back to within spitting distance (5%, if you're counting) of the all time high.

Are you worried about gas prices? Ever wonder when gas has been the most expensive? Yup G W Bush - mid 2008. Even higher than right now. And do you know why gas is so high? It's not because we're dependent on foreign oil - our dependence has gone DOWN under Obama. It's because we're EXPORTING most of our gas to other countries who are willing to pay more! Gasoline was the #1 (total, top, more than anything else) US EXPORT last year. We're making money hand over fist on it. Are you going to fault Obama for not restricting exports to keep gas prices down, because that would do it. And you know that pipeline through PA Romney is going to build the day he gets into office? It's not for keeping domestic oil in the US, it's to get oil to the gulf where is can be refined and exported to other countries.

No, if you think we're actually worse off, you have a very odd definition of worse. Is every person better off than they were in January of 2009? Of course not, but very few are actually in a worse position today because even if they're out of work, they're not staring at the gaping maw of 2 million jobs a month being lost and the entire economy in a tail spin.

Is here unemployment? Yes. Is it too high? Yes. Is there anything more a president can do to fix it without hiring more workers directly? No! So get off his fucking back and go hire some people if you're so worried about the economy, cause here's the thing: If you, personally, have hired people in the last 3 years it means that your business is growing and you've got no room to complain; if you didn't personally hire anyone in the last three years then IT'S YOUR FUCKING FAULT that the unemployment rate is high and the economy is in the shitter - or did you expect the government to hire all those people who are out of work? If you want to go complain about Obama saying "you didn't build that," I expect you to go bust your ass and go BUILD IT, not sit around and be lazy all day and complain that the government hasn't magically fixed every one of your personal problems.

Re:I'd like what you're smoking (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41277811)

in 1929, Herbert Hoover actually implemented many of the Tea Party recommendations in an attempt to prevent the national debt from growing as the federal government's income revenue shrank.

That's absolutely false. Hoover never cut taxes (which is Keynesian incidentally), spending, or the deficit. He increased all three. In 1932, he proposed increases in spending. Roosevelt mocked him and ran on a balanced budget platform. In 1932, Roosevelt was the Tea Party candidate. Once elected, Roosevelt rebranded Hoover's programs as the New Deal and implemented them, abandoning his campaign promises of a balanced budget.

It's true that the economy showed some signs of recovery at that time. It is not clearly established that the New Deal programs were helping rather than hurting. Another thing that Roosevelt did at the same time was to drop the gold standard. This helped compensate for the Fed's massive decrease in the money supply in the 1929-33 period, which caused deflation and unemployment. Our understanding of economics is not advanced enough to clearly say what the effects of each were. There are wildly differing estimates of how each change affected the economy. Some economists believe that the Hoover/Roosevelt fiscal policy helped and some that it hurt. Same thing for dropping the gold standard.

Personally, I believe that it was the monetary policy change that was positive. Roosevelt continued Hoover's fiscal policies. It was in monetary policy that he made changes. Therefore, I think that it makes more sense to credit positive results to the monetary policy changes than to the ongoing fiscal policy.

Re:I'd like what you're smoking (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 2 years ago | (#41277925)

You do realize that most of the "socialized healthcare" law came straight out of the Republican recommendations of less than 10 years ago and, with the exception of providing vouchers(!) for those who are lower income to buy commercial insurance, is nearly identical to the right's plan as a counter to the Democrats call for a single payer system?

You do realize that rejected and failed plans from the past does not all the sudden mean universal support in the present right? There is a reason why it was just a plan and never a law. Even if all the elected politicians would have signed onto it (which they wouldn't have), they would have been replaced come next election (which is why they didn't).

Every time I see this brought up, I wonder how dense someone has to be to insist it is somehow valid as if no one is allowed to learn from their mistakes.

Re:I'd like what you're smoking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41278247)

Wow, someone can cut and paste made up information from other web-sites. As they say on inter-web forums, never bring your facts to a fantasy fight, because the blindly committed can make BETTER facts to trump you, every time.

Bush was not a good president. Obama was worse. Let's keep shopping...

No DHS (4, Insightful)

Penurious Penguin (2687307) | about 2 years ago | (#41276393)

led by the Department of Homeland Security

Anything led by the DHS is bound to go from "voluntary" to mandatory (or hyper peculiar) too quickly. I can't imagine the same band of brigands doing such things as this [techdirt.com] , this [techdirt.com] , this [slashdot.org] , or that [epic.org] , and so on [boilingfrogspost.com] and so forth [youtube.com] could offer anything constructive to the interweb or anything else.

Voluntary - Mandatory (4, Insightful)

gavron (1300111) | about 2 years ago | (#41276717)

First it's purely voluntary.

Then it's voluntary... but if you want to be a supplier to the US Government, you must implement it.

Then if you want to continue being a supplier, you MUST implement it AND your own suppliers must do it, or you can't be a supplier.

By this point since "almost everyone is doing it anyway" and "those who aren't are clearly a threat to security" it will be mandatory.

E

Re:Voluntary - Mandatory (1)

Penurious Penguin (2687307) | about 2 years ago | (#41276881)

Yeah, you crammed it pretty much in nutshell. Also, the DoD being involved would only compound this gargantuan shit-sandwich. I think it may be wise to think long and hard before trusting an unaccountable [oregonlive.com] department that has likely spent more than 2/3 [fas.org] of the national-debt (10+ of 16 trillion) and essentially needs conflict to survive. And when their ghouls start wailing about Digital Blackwaters [rawstory.com] , thinking should yield to shunning altogether. It seems the Pentagon would be all too satisfied having a nation of under-educated poverty-stricken dunces quivering behind the World's greatest military force. I don't think we should put any more power in the hands of those who are eager to declare war over "cyber attacks" [guardian.co.uk] until they can learn to distinguish "war" from "crime" and "crime" from bogus-copyright and free-speech and "terrorism" from honest journalism.

Re:Voluntary - Mandatory (2)

supremebob (574732) | about 2 years ago | (#41277445)

It will get even more interesting once you get lobbyists from the various hardware and software manufacturers involved. I could easily see this getting into a situation where companies need to switch from Vendor X to Vendor Y for their antivirus or firewall software to get that government contract, because only the latest version of Vendor Y's product is on the "Homeland CyberSecurity Approved" list.

Companies like Microsoft and Oracle will love this, because it's one more way they can lock out smaller open source competitors that can't afford whatever fees Homeland Security might charge to certify their products.

Failure of Congress again... (1)

noobermin (1950642) | about 2 years ago | (#41276415)

May be I'm just looking through my tainted glasses, but here's another example of failure of congress to do it's daily job that the Obama has to step in and issue another executive order. The spirit of Checks and Balances is being broken again because the government as a whole isn't doing its job.

Well, if the right (or Reid for that matter) keep this up, may be a Romney presidency will see at least some legislation passed since they at least have convinced themselves to like him--and may be there will finally be compromise. Who knows.

Re:Failure of Congress again... (1)

russotto (537200) | about 2 years ago | (#41284151)

May be I'm just looking through my tainted glasses, but here's another example of failure of congress to do it's daily job that the Obama has to step in and issue another executive order.

Yep, your glasses are tainted. If doing something is a power delegated to Congress and Congress doesn't do it, it just shouldn't get done. It's not up to the executive to decide what Congress should do and then do it for them.

God damned socialists!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41276561)

Mitt told me he was a socialist, and Mitt is a very handsome and successful guy. He would never lie to gain an advantage, so this must be some kind of back-door, super-secret plan to take away my internet at the highest levels. I'll turn on Rush just to make sure I'm right, but I'm pretty sure that's what this is all about.

You know what they want? Obedient workers (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41276643)

Memorable quotes for
Looker (1981)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082677/quotes [imdb.com]

"John Reston: Television can control public opinion more effectively than armies of secret police, because television is entirely voluntary. The American government forces our children to attend school, but nobody forces them to watch T.V. Americans of all ages *submit* to television. Television is the American ideal. Persuasion without coercion. Nobody makes us watch. Who could have predicted that a *free* people would voluntarily spend one fifth of their lives sitting in front of a *box* with pictures? Fifteen years sitting in prison is punishment. But 15 years sitting in front of a television set is entertainment. And the average American now spends more than one and a half years of his life just watching television commercials. Fifty minutes, every day of his life, watching commercials. Now, that's power."

##

"The United States has it's own propaganda, but it's very effective because people don't realize that it's propaganda. And it's subtle, but it's actually a much stronger propaganda machine than the Nazis had but it's funded in a different way. With the Nazis it was funded by the government, but in the United States, it's funded by corporations and corporations they only want things to happen that will make people want to buy stuff. So whatever that is, then that is considered okay and good, but that doesn't necessarily mean it really serves people's thinking - it can stupify and make not very good things happen."
- Crispin Glover: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000417/bio [imdb.com]

##

"It's only logical to assume that conspiracies are everywhere, because that's what people do. They conspire. If you can't get the message, get the man." - Mel Gibson (from an interview)

##

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." - William Casey, CIA Director

##

"The real reason for the official secrecy, in most instances, is not to keep the opposition (the CIA's euphemistic term for the enemy) from knowing what is going on; the enemy usually does know. The basic reason for governmental secrecy is to keep you, the American public, from knowing - for you, too, are considered the opposition, or enemy - so that you cannot interfere. When the public does not know what the government or the CIA is doing, it cannot voice its approval or disapproval of their actions. In fact, they can even lie to your about what they are doing or have done, and you will not know it. As for the second advantage, despite frequent suggestion that the CIA is a rogue elephant, the truth is that the agency functions at the direction of and in response to the office of the president. All of its major clandestine operations are carried out with the direct approval of or on direct orders from the White House. The CIA is a secret tool of the president - every president. And every president since Truman has lied to the American people in order to protect the agency. When lies have failed, it has been the duty of the CIA to take the blame for the president, thus protecting him. This is known in the business as "plausible denial." The CIA, functioning as a secret instrument of the U.S. government and the presidency, has long misused and abused history and continues to do so."
- Victor Marchetti, Propaganda and Disinformation: How the CIA Manufactures History

##

George Carlin:

"The real owners are the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians, they're an irrelevancy. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They've long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the statehouses, the city halls. They've got the judges in their back pockets. And they own all the big media companies, so that they control just about all of the news and information you hear. They've got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want; they want more for themselves and less for everybody else.

But I'll tell you what they don't want. They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that. That doesn't help them. That's against their interests. They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around the kitchen table and figure out how badly they're getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago.

You know what they want? Obedient workers people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork but just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, reduced benefits, the end of overtime and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it. And, now, they're coming for your Social Security. They want your fucking retirement money. They want it back, so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They'll get it. They'll get it all, sooner or later, because they own this fucking place. It's a big club, and you ain't in it. You and I are not in the big club.

This country is finished."

##

We now return you Americans to your media: Corporate, Government sponsored and controlled (rigged) elections..

Most of you are all so asleep it's time you woke up!

you're worried anout imternet? more at stake! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41276685)

I predict an attempt to use executive orders to solve the whole problem of voter / house / senate participation altogether.

Of course, it will be interesting to see how the people react when the president declares himself leader for life and demands that everyone give up their guns and property. Note there is already an executive order tying just about every government agency into a machine for confiscating rural property not used in a manner agreed to by the government.

Watch for new executive orders that might tip the world into chaos in (wait for it) December of 2012.

"Cybersecurity?" (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | about 2 years ago | (#41277057)

Isn't cybersecurity just another way of telling people how to talk on the internet?

Maybe some First Amendment concerns?

Executive Order Should Be Illegal (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41277073)

The abuse of the 'privilege of Executive Order' has been the crowning achievement of Barak Hussein Obama II.

No other President in the history of the United States of America ever gave himself the 'rights' of:

Rendition.

Torture.

Murder.

Absolution from all laws of the United States of America and all International laws.

Barak Hussein Obama II IS the clear and present danger to the United States of America
and ALL of its citizens (even his supplicants within the government ... i.e. the Unelected
Government of the U.S.A.).

Barak Hussein Obama II must be removed from the Executive Office and White House by
U.S.A. military force since he and J. Biden will ignore the November Vote if not in their
favor and the Electoral Collage decision if not in their favor.

Let Their Be Blood.

Mandatory already for electric power (2)

grandpa-geek (981017) | about 2 years ago | (#41277139)

For the high voltage part of the electric grid there are already mandatory standards, They are part of the reliability standards mandated by a 2005 law and are produced by an industry consensus standards organization. However, upon acceptance by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) they become mandatory with maximum penalties of a million dollars a day per violation.

The early versions of the standards mainly required asset owners to attend to cybersecurity by identifying critical assets and making and following plans to protect them. The early violations were not having the plans and not updating them. Some asset owners tried to say they didn't have any critical assets. Over the years provisions have tightened (like defining what kinds of assets are critical and requiring that the plans not only be prepared but actually followed).

The asset owners have some legitimate concerns. For example, if the standards give discretion to auditors in reviewing the quality of their cybersecurity protections, they are worried about auditors who don't really understand the technology, see an actually inapplicable "best practice" somewhere and downrate the cybersecurity protections if the practice isn't followed. For example, the general practice in IT is to routinely install vendor patches. However, the proper practice in electric grid control systems is to individually test the patches to ensure that they don't cause system instability or equipment misoperation. You don't routinely install vendor patches if your job is to keep the lights on.

Mandating of cybersecurity has to be done carefully with sensitivity and attention to details in the application domain. But it does need to be done.

Re:Mandatory already for electric power (1)

jroysdon (201893) | about 2 years ago | (#41277767)

Agreed. The Whitehouse needs to keep their hands off of the Electrical sector and let us continue to do what we're doing.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Jon Wellinghoff [thehill.com] is pandering to Congress and the Whitehouse with untrue statements such as:
“No. 1, I don’t have an effective way to confidentially communicate [cyber threats] to the utilities,” Wellinghoff said. “And No. 2, I have no effective enforcement authority, and I’ve said this for six years now. And I’ve also said I don’t care who has the authority, but Congress should give someone the authority.”

#1 is untrue in regards to the Electrical sector. FERC can communicate confidentially via NERC Cyber Alerts. Additionally NERC has the ES-ISAC [esisac.com] private alerts that can be issued for lower-priority items. I received a draft alert from the ES-ISAC just yesterday which will be released in a matter of days
#2 is untrue in regards to the Electrical sector. FERC via the 2005 legislation received the ability to fine $1MM/incident/day and has delegated this to NERC which enforces the FERC Orders 693 (Electrical) and 706 (Cyber CIP) via NERC standards.

There is the Water ISAC [waterisac.org] which my Irrigation District also has alerts from. I'm not in the Oil or Gas industries, but I imagine FERC should have the same authority over them and they have the Energy ISAC [energyisac.com] for communications.

Re:Mandatory already for electric power (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41278557)

ES-ISAC is a joke.

Energy ISAC doesn't exist.

NERC is useless.

that is all.

Re:Mandatory already for electric power (1)

grandpa-geek (981017) | about 2 years ago | (#41279727)

Some problems do remain. FERC and NERC only control the Bulk Electric System. The state PUC's regulate the distribution system, and few PUCs have the capability for overseeing cybersecurity. Second, there is huge pushback on NERC when they try to tighten the CIP standards. The prime example is the continued existence of the scope exclusion for non-routable protocols. They are just as vulnerable as routable protocols, but if they were made in scope asset owners would have more work to do to protect them or might actually need to replace their legacy equipment. So, the exclusion hangs on revision after revision. Finally, even if the asset owner is serious about cybersecurity, their vendor might not be willing to get serious and might prefer to peddle half-vast capabilities.

King Obama? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41278033)

I don't understand. The legislature declined to pass the legislation, so Obama is just going to dictate it? I guess Obama fancies himself a king?

Isn't this just like modern America? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41278221)

Bill fails to pass Congress, so president says "screw that, I'll just make it an executive order."

Re:Isn't this just like modern America? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41278433)

He did the same with the "Dream Act" for illegal immigrants. Couldn't get it through the House and Senate so he issued an executive order for it. Of course, he has a vested interest in illegal immigrants since he cannot prove his own citizenship and has several illegal immigrant family members to protect.

You're not likely to see the military step up against him as they've likely been forced to swear loyalty to the office rather than the country but the insurrection from 50 or 60 million registered long gun owners plus the handgun owners and whatever the average libertarian on the street can come up with would be something to see. Another term of Obama in office will either see the rebirth of more freedom in the country after his impeachment or its breakup into smaller independent countries as he tries to declare martial law.

From the actual memo (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 years ago | (#41279905)

The memo starts:

In these modern times, much of our business is dependent on The Internets, which is a series of tubes through which flow unregulated and untaxed information.

Too little. Too late. And too much.

The standards already exist (3, Insightful)

TVmisGuided (151197) | about 2 years ago | (#41280897)

...in the NIST SP-800 series of publications. Federal (US) agencies are already expected to abide by the standards described in that series, as well as other NIST/FIPS publications, e.g.FIPS 140-2 for cryptographic modules,or FIPS 200 for establishing minimum security requirements for specific systems.

Having had to study several of those publications for work-related tasks, I don't see where there should be any level of pushback from the corporate IT world, since a great many of them already have security measures in place that meet or exceed the requirements described in the NIST and FIPS publications. Individuals' systems, or SOHO systems and networks, would be a bit more problematic; a retailer throwing together an office network of four or five off-the-shelf boxes from (picking a name at random) Dell would likely have no idea where to start in trying to meet all the various technical specifications described just in NIST 800-59, if they even know that publication exists.

Bottom line...there's a great deal of education that will be required, not only with individuals and small-shop operators, but with network designers and custom-system builders. The days of ordering up a laundry list of parts from (again, grabbing names out of midair) NewEgg, throwing them together and delivering a completed machine to a customer with a pat on the back and a "have fun" are gone. Especially if the customer falls into one of the more ticklish areas of electronic security, such as a doctor's office or a law firm.

Just my 2p worth.

Re:The standards already exist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41281683)

you're right that the standards to exist. And NIST has a huge number of publications that are great and everyone worth their salt in infosec should know them. Though This here is mostly a question of the government sticking its nose in business... The government is saying that people aren't doing a good enough job, but in America that's not the government's right. So what if they're not doing enough. Freedom includes the freedom to fail.
Now if this is somehow affecting the public's saftey, then the government has some more sway.
And that's what they're trying to say. Whether that's true or now, is to be debated.

In the end all it will do is create alot of new business for auditing firms. Then you're run into "security by compliance checkbox" where companies aren't trying to actually be secure, just trying to make the audit go away.

It will be big business for infosec consulting too, I suppose. That's my field, so I suppose I should be happy. I just don't like how it seems to have been shoved down our throats. There are a TON of lobbiests out there pushing for this right now... it's no coincidence that the highest number of infosec consultants in the US are in the DC area.

Hey, what ever it takes (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about 2 years ago | (#41286277)

to abbrogate the rule of law and the rights of the people.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>