Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Tech Lobbyist Named to DHS Top Security Post

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Tue Sep 19, 2006 12:27 AM
from the cyber-czar dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Greg Garcia, a lobbyist for the high-tech industry, has been appointed to fill the new assistant secretary post for cyber security and telecommunications at the Department of Homeland Security. Garcia, a VP with the Information Technology Association of America, will try to resuscitate DHS's flagging efforts to formulate a response plan should the nation's key digital assets come under concerted attack or crumble due to some catastrophic failure. DHS is a little late in filling this post: Congress created it 14 months ago after getting fed up with the agency's lack of progress on cyber issues."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] DHS Publishes Report on Operation Cyberstorm 64 comments
uniquebydegrees writes "InfoWorld reports that the Department of Homeland Security has released the findings of Operation Cyber Storm, a large-scale simulation of combined cyber-physical attacks on U.S. critical infrastructure. From the article: 'According to DHS, "observers noted that players had difficulty ascertaining what organizations and whom within those organizations to contact when there was no previously established relationship or pre-determined plans for response coordination and risk assessments/mitigation. There was a general recognition of the difficulties organizations faced when attempting to establish trust with unfamiliar organizations during time of crisis."'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by macadamia_harold (947445) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @12:29AM (#16135990) Homepage
    Garcia, a VP with the Information Technology Association of America, will try to resuscitate DHS's flagging efforts to formulate a response plan should the nation's key digital assets come under concerted attack or crumble due to some catastrophic failure.

    But what will he do if the tubes become clogged?
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I would guess the tubes have already become clogged with money.

      Generally government is swiftest to act when this dangerous situation occurs, and the key words "private-sector participants" imply a problem that could best be solved by giving the excess money to the first insider who takes it.

      As a lobbyist, Garcia has the connections and experience to remove this money from the tubes as efficiently as possible, while simultaneously routing future congestion to his selfless corporate backers -- who will willin
    • by eyeye (653962) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @01:06AM (#16136096) Homepage Journal
      He will get laws passed that make fantastic profits for the companies he lobbies for.

      US politics 101
      • by hcob$ (766699)
        He will get laws passed that make fantastic profits for the companies he lobbies for.

        US politics 101
        Last I learned in US Politics 101 is that CONGRESS passed the laws, the President signs them, and the Judiciary reviews them. Yes, his opinion will have large sway with the President, but you gotta ram crap through Congress first.
        • He will get laws passed that make fantastic profits for the companies he lobbies for. US politics 101

          Last I learned in US Politics 101 is that CONGRESS passed the laws

          Last I learned in English class, "he will get laws passed" means he will to things to make them be passed, not that he himself will pass them.

          You don't think that this money man will be in a position of influence?

          The whole system is about money. War on drugs? Money. War in the middle east? Money. It's not about ideology;

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            a President who has never vetoed anything..

            He has vetoed one thing. H.R. 810 [whitehouse.gov], which is also known as the "Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005."
    • Simple, he'll just shoot a lottery ball through it...
      • by ericspinder (146776) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @09:38AM (#16137652) Journal
        what are you talking about? what tubes are there to get clogged?
        Series of Tubes is becoming a meme. Senator Ted Stephens [wikipedia.org] gave a speech where for the benefit of his audience (well, presumably) he created an analogy for the Internet as a Series of Tubes [wikipedia.org]
        They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the Internet. And again, the Internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a big truck.

        It's a series of tubes.

        And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.
        Personally I believe it the "Tim Taylor trap", where someone who has a conversation with someone who presents a good analogy, or complicated explanation of fact. Then completely bungles an attempt to retell the story to another audience. The TV show "Home Improvement" had it as a running gag where 'Tim Taylor' would embarrass himself every time he tried to retell his neighbor's sagely advice.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          > Series of Tubes is becoming a meme.

          I believe you mean to say "Series of Tubes is a popular expression." Meme is not a "cool" way of saying "idea." Please quit misusing this term.

          From dictionary.com:
          meme
          n : a cultural unit (an idea or value or pattern of behavior) that is passed from one generation to another by nongenetic means (as by imitation); "memes are the cultrual counterpart of genes"

          jfs

  • Gibson (Score:3, Funny)

    by SuperBanana (662181) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @12:32AM (#16136001)
    Greg Garcia, a lobbyist for the high-tech industry, has been appointed to fill the new assistant secretary post for cyber security and telecommunications at the Department of Homeland Security. Garcia, a VP with the Information Technology Association of America, will try to resuscitate DHS's flagging efforts to formulate a response plan should the nation's key digital assets come under concerted attack or crumble due to some catastrophic failure.

    Dude. Just put a level 10 firewall around the Gibson, keep a file on all Vanilla Ice wannabees, and have a watchlist for Powerbook Duo owners.

    • I am a Powerbook Duo 270c owner, you insensative clod!
    • Personally, I would support this move. While there are certainly matters of personal freedom involved, I would pay any price, bear any burden, undertake any action possible to save a new generation from "Ice Ice Baby". Secret prison camps with sound-proofed walls filled with upper-middle class white kids with bad hair and the mistaken impression they're hip? It's not just something I'd accept, it's something I'd encourage!

      Please, DHS, please! Think of the children! Think of the children who, 15+ years
      • "I would pay any price, bear any burden, undertake any action possible to save a new generation from "Ice Ice Baby"....15+ years later still have to hear this crap on early 90's compilation CDs!"

        Well, whenever Ice Ice Baby comes on...just promptly get up, and throw on Queen/Bowie's "Under Pressure", from whence the 'hook' was stolen.

        You'll get a much more pleasing and original musical experience. No cringing required.

        :-)

  • by BadAnalogyGuy (945258) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Tuesday September 19 2006, @12:35AM (#16136010)
    Look at how badly DHS and the TSA are handling air travel. Now think about how royally they can screw up our information infrastructure.

    These are unelected officials making law by fiat. And like anything made by fiat, it's crappy and doesn't run very long until you have to take it to Tony to fix it again.
    • by ScentCone (795499) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @08:52AM (#16137366)
      These are unelected officials making law by fiat.

      So. You think we should actually include positions like "Deputy Undersecretary Of Transportation for Ice Cream Truck Regulation" part of the general federal election? How about his boss? And his boss's boss? And above him? Oh, right, we already do that. Was the Secretary Of Transportation under Bill Clinton acting according some idyllic democratic principle, but the same role under a different administration is suddenly Junior Ceasar?

      Wake up. We elect an executive administration specifically to get things done, and they appoint people into thousands of roles as part of that job. Every administration has different priorities and policies, but if they had to try to get anything done while dealing with - what, thousands of departmental bureaucrats all of whom had to run campaigns to get their office? - you'd have absolutely no ability to focus on anything.

      Every four years you get to vote for the person who appoints such people, and every 4 or 6 years, you get to vote for the legislators that fund what they do (or not).

      So, what's your problem? Don't like the reality of the structure of the executive branch of government, or just don't like it when you don't like who happens to head it at certain times? Or maybe, as is more likely, you know all of this and you're just trolling in hopes of scoring some lame political points with whatever percentage of this audience actually does not know how it works, and wants to hear you paint some Emperor image of the presidency. Just remember, if you ever to get together enough votes for someone you do like better, whatever FUD you spread about the nature of the office and its interaction with other agencies is going to impact that person, too.
      • Wake up. We elect an executive administration specifically to get things done, and they appoint people into thousands of roles as part of that job.

        [. . .]

        Every four years you get to vote for the person who appoints such people, and every 4 or 6 years, you get to vote for the legislators that fund what they do (or not).


        I agree entirely, and wish more voters would stop voting for the candidate they'd most like to have a beer with, and start voting for people who are competent and will make responsible decisi
  • by JanneM (7445) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @12:41AM (#16136030) Homepage
    Well, as a tech industry veteran, he has the protocol all set:

    "Calm down, sir, calm down. Now, a disaster you say? How so? Uh-uh.. Uh-uh... Uh-uh.. Hmm, yes, it sounds like your country is infected with a virus alright, and a nasty one too. Here's what you do: You shut down the country, reinstall the government and then you restart the whole thing from the beginning. That should take care of it. Have a nice day now!"

    • by k2r (255754)
      > you restart the whole thing from the beginning.

      Just minutes ago a customer who is an engineer and surveyor for very special stuff told me that he was offered a good job in the US but his insurance specifically excluded coverage in the US. He wouldn't want to risk to be detained somewhere or to be ruined for the rest of his life because of some stupid lawsuit. So he'd prefer working in China.

      He concluded that the US political and judicial system was a probable case of "the dog ate my homework" and that
      • by tbone1 (309237)
        Ah yes, better to stay out of the US, where lawyers are amoking a bit, than in China, where the worse that can happen is being run over by an armored personnel carrier.

        I am no fan of lawyers, but criminy, ...

  • by RyanFenton (230700) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @12:41AM (#16136032)
    I wonder how many of these 'former' lobbyists in positions as leadership in governmental agencies get their taxes audited? It would be fascinating to see what kinds of offshore accounts they have, and how their balance changes once they are in a position to 'regulate' the industry they used to represent?

    But really - I'm sure this is all done in the purest of intentions. After all, the best people to run agencies are those really familiar with the issue at hand, and cagey enough to know what tricks people out to trick the government are, right? The weight of responsibility of protecting American's safety and well being is best secured when it is in the hands of people who used to press the government to look the other way when industries wanted to maximize... certain negative and positive externalies, shall we say.

    Ryan Fenton
    • Ryan, someone seems to have moderated your post "Funny". Someone's strange sense of humor finds the idea that a former sleazebag (lobbyist) for corporate interests will now have free reign with fat government contracts for cyber security. Sounds suspiciously like another croney named Brown that was in charge of FEMA during Katrina. Some freaking joke.

      A news story came out yesterday that these positions under the current administration are given out based on ideological "purity" and agreement with their ex
  • by glomph (2644) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @12:43AM (#16136038) Homepage Journal
    Wow, we are really peeling back the foreskin of quality here. You could probably do better shopping for bureaucrats at Wal-Mart.
    • Wow, we are really peeling back the foreskin of quality here

      That is without a doubt the most disgusting metaphor I've seen in some time! Well done!

  • by geoff lane (93738) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @12:43AM (#16136041)
    Network security needs widespread attention to detail. Some guy in a Washington office won't make one jot of difference unless he starts investigating why most government computer services are based on a product that is insecure by design.
  • by stox (131684) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @12:52AM (#16136065) Homepage
    The Department of Homeland Security was originally created using an alloy of Bureaucratritum and Administrontium. Sadly, the amount of alloy used exceeded the critical mass, resulting in a Black Hole of un-imagined proportions. Our only hope now is to collide the DHS with another Black Hole of unimagined proportions such as the SSA.
  • by Mantrid42 (972953) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @02:01AM (#16136211)
    He'd be here commenting on this story. The fact that I haven't seen this guy comment on a story about himself on Slashdot makes me wonder just how tech savvy he really is.
    • Speaking as someone who has been involved in the IT-SCC [it-scc.org] that was created as part of HSPD-7 [whitehouse.gov], I've had several occasions to talk and meet with Greg. This doesn't mean that we always agree, that is natural, but he does "get it" with things in this space. There are significant challenges when any department is charged with protecting infrastructure that is privately owned. Who "owns" the internet? Well, nobody, there are large networks that are operated by various companies/carriers that put things together
      • "Garcia" is an extremely common name. In many countries it's the equivalent of being named "Smith" or "Jones."
  • by LuYu (519260) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @02:29AM (#16136253) Homepage Journal

    Perhaps he could be convinced that information replication is the only way to protect our information environment and that DRM would aid "terrorists" or whatever our Eurasia/East Asia is called nowadays. Then he could prosecute the *AAs for treason.

    It seems that a DRM system would be a rather powerful weapon in the hands of an attacker. The ability to revoke or alter all instances of a document worldwide and trusted systems in general would be quite useful to someone wanting attack a country's communications, especially if users and administrators were barred from preventing it at the hardware level.

  • Duh! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by misleb (129952) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @02:48AM (#16136290)
    If my boss came to me and asked me to formulate a plan on "cyber issues," I probably wouldn't accomplish much either.

    Here's a thought, maybe there isn't a damn thing DHS can do about a concerted attack on key points of the internet. Maybe it just isn't possible for one government agency, no matter how disgustingly bloated or invasive, to "protect" a largely private, distrubuted, decentralized, global internet. What are they going to do, mandate that all ISPs and carriers around the world stock up on duct tape? I can't describe the kind of warm fuzzies this whole thing sends down my spine.

    I say fsck DHS and the Chimp it rode in on.

    Hold on a second, someone is knocking on my doorNO CARRIER
    • by jotok (728554)
      Well, you could do a basic requirements analysis and figure out where the "key points" are, what they are, what could happen if they were degraded or taken offline, and then what you could do to compensate. Basically, the country needs our "cyber" infrastructure in both the short term (disaster response communications) and long term (Wall Street). So you ask yourself what contingency plans we might have if a biological attack occurred at the same time as a power plant failure, or you might look at financi
  • by 99luftballon (838486) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @04:17AM (#16136490)
    With around 85 per cent of the US critical infrastructure in private hands the post does need someone who can get private companies on board. The chief problem though is that it isn't in shareholder interests to actively help in this program if it cuts shareholder dividends or hurts profits. The only way to rectify this would be for legislation fining companies for insecure critical networks.

    Given that this guy is an industry lobbyist and the stance of the Republicans on holding any industry to account I'd expect to see a porcine acrobatic team (the Pink Devils perhaps?) performing over Washington than any real progress being made.

    But all this ignores the basic fact; cyber terrorism has yet to materialise beyond a few disgruntled virus writers. As Bruce Schneier has pointed out repeatedly strapping on a suicide belt is far more effective than any form of online attack. If my email goes down I'm inconvenienced, not terrorised.
    • by planetmn (724378) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @06:45AM (#16136820)
      Yes, if your email goes down your only inconvenienced, but that's not the "doomsday scenario" envisioned to combat against. There are many areas of our economy and society that now rely on the internet in some way, shape or form. Imagine if all of a sudden all ATMs stopped working, bank tellers couldn't access accounts and credit cards stopped working. On a small scale, it's no big deal really. But on a nationwide scale, it causes panic. Remember, people don't react rationally (hell, I yell at the TV set, and I know that's not rational).

      More and more of our telecommunications infrastructure is potenetially vulnerable. And without the ability to check up on friends and family, a physical attack would be magnified by the psychological impact of not being able to see if somebody is ok and the worrying involved.

      So an attack on our network infrastucture could be very bad for the US. Do I think it's likely? No. But in 2000 if you asked me if I thought terrorists would be able to hijack four airplanes simultaneously and crash them into buildings, I'd have probably said no. It's not the body count that hurts us most, it's the psychological effects. We were attacked here on our soil by a foreign enemy, and that was something new to us.

      I don't think that this lobbyist is going to help us, but then again, I've become more and more cynical about our government being able to accomplish anything (whether it be in regards to rights, terrorism, foreign affairs, or even the tax code) so I'm not exactly unbiased. It's easy to say that cyber terrorism hasn't really caused any problems, and never will. And you'll probably be right for a while. But eventually, there is a good chance that statement will be proven false.

      -dave
  • How delightful to know that the job is going to someone who won't actually know what needs to be done to solve any problems but will be able to instantly name the companies from whom we need to buy a lot of very expensive goods and services.
  • A lobbyist??? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sm62704 (957197) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @06:17AM (#16136747) Journal
    Good job, Brownie. Would it be too much to ask that we get someone who knows something about security to run homeland security? I guess it would...

    While 3500 people died in terrorist attacks on US soil in your lifetime, 40,000 people die on the highways every single year.

    Homeland Security is about keeping you terrified so you'll continue to let the corporate-owned US government keep taking your rights away.
  • I'm still stuck on "flagging". What exactly is a "flagging effort"? Didn't know flag could be used as an adjective. I guess it's an effort that just blows around in the breeze at the whim of the administration.

    From Oxford English Dictionary:

    flag

    noun
    1 a piece of cloth or similar material, typically oblong or square, attachable by one edge to a pole or rope and used as the symbol or emblem of a country or institution or as a decoration during public festivities : the American flag. used in refer
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      That's because you're using the wrong dictionary.

      Miriam-Webster [m-w.com] says:

      Main Entry: flagging
      Function: adjective
      1 : LANGUID, WEAK
      2 : becoming progressively less : DWINDLING
      - flaggingly adverb

      and American Heritage [bartleby.com] says:

      SYLLABICATION: flagging
      PRONUNCIATION: flgng
      ADJECTIVE: 1. Declining; weakening: flagging strength. 2. Languid; drooping.
      OTHER FORMS: flaggingly --ADVERB

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by lostboy2 (194153)
        Hmmm... FWIW, the online Oxford English Dictionary [oed.com] also has this definition:

        flag, v.
        1. To hang down; to flap about loosely.
        2. To become limp or flaccid. Now only of plants: To droop, fade
        3. Of wings: To move feebly or ineffectually in attempting to fly. Of a bird: To move its wings feebly (in early use also trans. with wings as obj.); to fly unsteadily or near the ground. Obs.
        4. To become feeble or unsteady in flight. Hence in wider sense (in early use perh. consciously transf.): To be unable to maintain on
  • Can you run Linux on him?
  • As it happens, I discovered that this happened before. I typed into the very cool and soon to take over the world intelligent search engine Hakia [hakia.com] "Is it legal for a lobbyist to run DHS?" and Hakia showed me that in January 2006 Bush nominated a lobbyist (Nicole Nason) to take over the NHTSA [consumeraffairs.com]. As head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, she would apparently be in the position of implementing measures that she had opposed as a lobbyist for DOT. In delicious coincidence, Nason would be taking
  • by Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @10:54AM (#16138229) Homepage Journal
    If you think a lobbyist is a good choice for a homeland security position, consider what his group has lobbied for.

    In a conference call with voting machine makers, the ITAA proposed conducting a campaign on their behalf, in exchange for $100,000 to $200,000 per company, depending on the services provided. [wired.com]

    The ITAA president told Computerworld that criticism of voting machines was just a "religious war" [computerworld.com].
    • by nido (102070) <nido56&yahoo,com> on Tuesday September 19 2006, @01:25AM (#16136141) Homepage
      Just part of the cycle of power. See The Rise and Fall of Great Powers [bitsofnews.com], a 1987 book about said cycle (summary is last 7 paragraphs). Economic power fosters military power; military power creates special interests, who use their newfound power to accumulate more.

      to more directly answer your question:

      When exactly did corporate lobbyists BECOME our government?

      Post-WWII, certainly, but perhaps earlier. Before then "lobbyists" had to be more secretive... A lot of companies became rich on the second world war trade, and the U.S. has been at war ever since - Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Gulf War I, Yugoslavia, Gulf War II (probably forgetting a couple).

      There's also that perpetual "War on (certain) Drugs", which benefits some corporations greatly.

      Isn't there a saying about a country with a standing army always needing an enemy to fight?
      • You're getting a tad selective in your choices. When you throw in places like Grenada and Panama, I can point at similar conflicts that the US has been involved in since the country was founded.

        I'll go further and make this bet with you: You name a country and a period of history when it was a major player on the world political stage, and I'll /guarantee/ you'll find that country was involved in military conflicts more or less continuously throughout that period. In fact, I'll bet that except for the oc
        • by nido (102070)
          I needed examples of military actions to fill in the timeline between Vietnam and Gulf War I. I'm just an armchair historian, so there probably are better choices.

          You name a country and a period of history when it was a major player on the world political stage, and I'll /guarantee/ you'll find that country was involved in military conflicts more or less continuously throughout that period.

          I believe this is the contention of The Rise and Fall of Great Powers. Economic power leads to the use of the militar
      • by tbone1 (309237) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @09:39AM (#16137664) Homepage
        This really took off with The New Deal, actually. Back then, the lobbyists were professional do-gooders and charity-beggars who were eager for their place at the trough and saw a government pension as preferable to having to deal with the expectations and egos of the less intelligent children of the wealthy (who, often, were the financial backers of charities back then). I suspect this had always been around, even Lincoln had to deal with it, but FDR allowed it to go from cottage industry to major economic factor practically overnight.

        H.L. Mencken, always a good voice for dissent, wrote some profiles of the people that became major power players under The New Deal. Mencken was many things, not all of them comfortable to modern sensibilities, but empiricist was one of them. Check some of his writings on it, such as the collection compiled by Alistair Cook, for some things they don't teach you in history class.

        • by nido (102070)
          Grenada and Panama? War? Hardly.

          Military actions. I'm sure there are better examples, but those are what I remembered.

          Yugoslavia? Wasn't the US criticized roundly for NOT getting involved until too late, and only then half-heartedly?

          I don't think we'll ever know the full story on Yugoslavia. I'm inclined to believe the reports that Slobodan Milosevi was going to win his war crimes trial, and was executed to prevent him from calling Bill Clinton as a witness. Wikipedia has a good summary of people who defen [wikipedia.org]