Obama's Cybersecurity Speech: Why Bother?
From TIME national security/intel correspondent Bobby Ghosh
It was a case of cyber-hooey and cyber... who? After a 60-day review of the nation's cybersecurity policies, followed by a six-week turf war over which department should guard the nation in cyberspace, President Obama's speech today was disappointingly long on generalities by short on specifics. Revealing Washington's worst-kept secret, the President announced that he was creating the position of a “Cybersecurity Coordinator” in the White House. But he didn't name his choice for the job, and didn't offer a timeline on when a choice would be made.
It's been known for months that Obama would appoint a cyberczar; speculation in recent weeks has centered on Melissa Hathaway, who conducted the 60-day review and was President Bush's go-to person on cyberstuff. Obama acknowledged her work, but went no further. Much of Obama's speech was taken up in stating the obvious: that cybersecurity is vitally important, that responsibility is currently distribute diffusely across too many government departments, that there needs to be better government-business collaboration. But it's unclear how the new cyberczar will help cut through the bureaucracy when they will themselves be answering to two masters: the National Security Council and the National Economic Council. Obama promised his pick would have “regular access to me,” but the fact that the czar won't report directly to the President will greatly undermine their ability to do battle with the DHS, the NSA and any number of other departments that have a finger in the cyberpie.
It's worth remembering here that the Bush administration had a cyberczar, too: Silicon Valley entrepreneur Rod Beckstrom. But Beckstrom quit as Director of the National Cybersecurity Center in March, citing interdepartmental politics. Meantime, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) have introduced legislation to create a national cybersecurity adviser who WOULD report directly to the President.
What we need here is some cyberclarity.
-
1
Can we speculate that something came up during the vetting process of Obama's pick and rather than cancel the speech, he decided to proceed with what he had so far?
.
Of course I'll be satified with the current level of cybersecurity if it simply assures us that the White House won't be routinely losing official e-mails. -
2
"From TIME naitonal security" Naitonal?? Geez, people.
-
3
What we need here is some cyberclarity.
.
Ghosh, that's clever. -
4
As a programmer and systems administrator I can say I am happy he didn't offer more specifics at this point.
.
These are important issues, and I'd rather him take his time, focus on the more immediate issues of jobs, health care and war. Computer security needs an overhaul, but it's not immediate and rushing it would not fix the problems. Rushed, half-assed approaches to these problems that tried to just throw some money at some "experts" is why we have the security problems we have. Systemic change needs to be thoughtful. -
5
[...] Obama’s Cybersecurity Speech: Why Bother? - Swampland – TIME.com It was a case of cyber-hooey and cyber… who? After a 60-day review of the nation’s cybersecurity policies, followed by a six-week turf war over which department should guard the nation in cyberspace, President Obama’s speech today was disappointingly long on generalities by short on specifics. var addthis_pub = "";Print this article [...]
-
6
[...] Obama’s Cybersecurity Speech: Why Bother? - Swampland – TIME.com It was a case of cyber-hooey and cyber… who? After a 60-day review of the nation’s cybersecurity policies, followed by a six-week turf war over which department should guard the nation in cyberspace, President Obama’s speech today was disappointingly long on generalities by short on specifics. var addthis_pub = "";Print this article [...]
-
7
[...] ho già detto, tutti meritano di essere letti. E qui ci sono ancora ulteriori [...]
-
8
[...] Obama’s Cybersecurity Speech: Why Bother? – Bobby Ghosh, Time [...]
Most Popular »
- NBC: There Was Never a Conan O'Brien
- Undercover Boss Is Phony and Manipulative. But Don't Hold That Against It.
- NH Poll: Dems Face A Thumpin'
- Barack Obama: Then vs. Now
- Gibbs Mocks Palin, Tea Party Convention
- Irony of the Day
- Paul Ryan Won't Run For Prez In 2012
- Love At First Byte: Your Nerdy Valentine's Day Guide
- Today's Health Care Checkup - GOP Plans Under the Spotlight
- Do You Spend Less than $2,000 Annually on Internet, TV, Cell Phone Service, and Video Games?
- Asian Carp Battle: Foreign Fish Threaten Great Lakes
- Is the Bible Fact or Fiction? Archaeology's Discoveries
- Spain's Troubled Economy: Fears Over Euro Zone Outlook
- Kennewick Man, Archaeology Find: Who Discovered America?
- Tea-Party Convention: Lessons on Palin and the Movement
- Al-Qaeda, Yemen, Wedding: Unlucky Name, Celebration
- Jim Frederick, Black Hearts in Iraq's Triangle of Death
- Venezuela: Chavez Protests at Ball Game Over Electricity
- Marja: Operation Moshtarak Tests Obama's Afghan War Plan
- California Tree Carving Hints at Early Chumash Astronomy













RSS