Cybersecurity Czar Job Is Useless, Says Spafford 104
Trailrunner7 writes "It's been about seven months since Obama announced his plan to hire a cybersecurity coordinator, and the job is still vacant. Several prominent security experts have turned the position down, and in an interview on Threatpost, Purdue professor Gene Spafford says that the position is pointless. 'It won't have any statutory authority. It won't have any budgetary authority. That does not give it much authority of any kind. So when I hear that there are supposedly people who have been interviewed for this cyber coordinator job and didn't take it, I'm not surprised. It's not a winning position. I'm not at all surprised by the fact that it's empty. That position is a blame-taking position,' Spafford said."
Re:I vote (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder if the draconian disclosure requirements imposed on people seeking to work for the administration have contributed to the difficulty in filling it? I looked at some of what they wanted to know on their job application during the transition. Among other things they want to know every single handle that you've ever used online, every single website that you've posted on, whether or not you own firearms, whether or not you've ever been involved in an automobile accident, what political advocacy organizations you belong to, etc, etc, etc.
Now I understand the desire to protect the President from embarrassment (wouldn't want to wind up with a treasury secretary that can't properly compute his own taxes....) but it seems to me that they've gone a bit overboard. I would never apply for a job that wanted to know that much about me. It's simply none of their business. I'm sure many others feel the same way. Why put up with that bullshit, particularly when you can make more money in the private sector and not have to worry (as much) about politics or being someone's scapegoat?
Hey, being a fall guy isn't always so bad (Score:3, Interesting)
Tom Ridge [wikipedia.org] was nothing but the designated fall guy at the Dept. of Homeland Security, but he managed to parlay it into a book deal and a ton of great press. Not bad for a guy who had formerly been an almost completely unknown governor of a minor state. You think anyone would have given a rat's ass about his memoirs if he had turned that job down?
If you can be a fall guy who manages to get out BEFORE the fall, there is real money and fame in it.
'blame taking position' -- nailed it (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyone else (unemployed and looking like me) feel like a disturbing portion of the job market is constituted of 'blame taking positions'?
It's probably paranoia, but I feel like the businessworld is composed of corrupt people who will lie and bullshit, and then the poor saps that get stuck with the 'blame taking positions'.
In my youth, I had naive libertarian beliefs about talented and competent people winning out in the free market against those types. Now that I've witnessed the naked annihilation of even the illusion of capitalism, via the bank bailouts... I just have no real hope that there is any way to make a living without either being one of those bullshitters, or poor blame taking saps. I guess the honorable thing is to just accept a sequence of blame taking jobs, and survive and get fed until we see a better age.
Re:I vote (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, the media is just dying to know about the Slashdot posting history of the future Cybersecurity Czar. That also doesn't explain some of the other questions they ask -- like the gun ownership one.
Anyway, you missed my point, which was simply that these types of disclosure requirements can't help but have a chilling effect on recruitment. You've already got one strike against you in that you probably can't compete with the private sector in regards to salary. Add another strike for the crazy hours and possibility of having to fall on your sword to protect your political bosses. I'm sure having to tell your potential future employers about your jilted ex-lovers and /. username qualifies as a strike three.
Spoken like a true CEO (Score:5, Interesting)
The assertion that this is a 'blame taking' job is unfounded, that it doesn't have statutory or budget authority is peripheral to what the role should be, and frankly somewhat insulting that the umbrage taken with it by 'the experts' is that it's a role that has no teeth.
It's a job where the President consults you for your opinion and takes action based on your advice. Boo hoo you don't have any authority or a budget. Any consultant that is hired on to a tech firm is in the same boat.
Also, yeah, I can understand why many security people have turned this job down. Because they're more interested in money than civil service -- how the hell is that a surprise?
I'm tellin' ya... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I vote (Score:3, Interesting)
When you have a high profile job in the public sector, you can expect that people are going to find out a lot about you. The media will want to know, and if you have any skeletons in your closet, they could well be revealed, one day.
However, if you did want that high profile position, holding a very public auction of the (above-mentioned) McAfee 1 Ferrari and donating the proceeds to Kids with Cancer would pretty much guarantee you one. It would be the right thing to do, a nice thing to do, with the added bonus of cementing your image of incorruptability in the public eye. A smokescreen, yes, but one that'll get you high. At least until the McAfee "security enforcers" find you near a dark alley.
On second thought, it does sound rather risky.
Re:Spoken like a true CEO (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a job where the President consults you for your opinion and takes action based on your advice.
I suspect only the first part of that statement is really true, which is why this isn't a good job for those who want to actually solve the problems, not just pontificate on how one could solve the problems. I say this because:
1. Fundamentally cyber is not a Presidential priority at this time. Jobs, health care, global warming, education - those are the things the President will be judged on, and thus what he is going to prioritize. Your advice will likely be heard, but it is unlikely the power of the presidency will be used to fight for the difficult decisions you will ask for. The political capital is simply needed elsewhere.
2. Because you don't get massive government bureaucracies to change course easily. You certainly don't get it to happen if you can't control anyone's budget allocations and lack any statutory authority over those involved. If your recommendations are inconvenient (say they involve contested turf between two agencies) the bureaucracies involved can just stall until you're gone. Yet an appropriate response to cyber requires close coordination among those very agencies.
Re:I vote (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: gun ownership. Most states require that firearms be registered
No they don't. You must be living in New Jersey or Illinois if you think that's the norm. In the vast majority of this country you can buy a firearm simply by completing the required background check at point of sale. No registration, no permit to own, no classes to attend, no waiting period, nothing. You just buy it and walk out with it.