Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Security Government United States Politics

Homeland Security Adds Cybersecurity Position 153

Posted by Zonk from the sounds-futuristic dept.
Matimus writes "Information Week has a story about the new Cybersecurity position in the Department of Homeland Security. They have stated IT management is one of their six major concerns." From the article: "Homeland Security's decision to create an assistant secretary for cybersecurity and telecommunications is expected to be well received by Congress and IT advocates calling for better use of technology in securing the country's physical and virtual borders. In May, the House of Representatives passed a $34 billion budget for Homeland Security that called for elevating the nation's head cybersecurity official to assistant secretary status."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Homeland Security Adds Cybersecurity Position More

Homeland Security Adds Cybersecurity Position

Comments Filter:

  • Technical or Political? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lecithin ( 745575 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @02:21PM (#13076110)
    What are the qualifications?

    Will this be any type of technical position, or will it be political?

    • Well... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Nick Driver ( 238034 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @02:22PM (#13076124)
      Technically, it will be political, of course!

      • Today in computer security news, Homeland Secretary Michael Chertoff announced that the new Director of Cybersecurity will be Jeff McFadden, former president and CEO of the Claria Corporation. Citing Claria's extensive presence at the forefront of the cyber security wars raging across the Internet, Chertoff said he couldn't think of another candidate better suited to the job.

    • ??? You have to ask that? This is a political appointment, no position that high up or even several levels below would ever be considered technical.
    • Anyone with a bit of common sense will do. And anyone with a bit of common sense will get rid of that awful word "cyber"... So jumping to a conclusion: They're doomed. They will do all the wrong things for the wrong reasons. It will take a generation or 2 before there will be people in the governement that understand IT.

      • Re:Technical or Political? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by hoggoth ( 414195 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @02:35PM (#13076263) Journal
        > It will take a generation or 2 before there will be people in the governement that understand IT.

        There will NEVER be people in government that understand IT. The mindsets are mutually exclusive.

        One deals with hard facts which, when ignored, cause problems.

        The other deals with sound bites that appeal to emotions; facts are irrelevant.

        It has always been this way, and it always will... because in order to rise in politics you must win the approval of masses of people who don't understand the issues you are discussing, and you must currie favors with others in power and marginalize your opponents (whether or not they are "right" about any particular issue).

        • I agree with your assessment, but I think it might not have always been this way. I think there was a short period of time when the founding fathers of the US moved from being revolutionaries to government officials that they were able to get actual work done. (Such as Hamilton's construction of the Treasury Department or Jefferson's State Department). I know the lack of partisan bickering didn't last long and modern political BS soon found its way, but I'd at least like to think there were at least a fe

        • Re:Technical or Political? (Score:4, Funny)

          by Golias ( 176380 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @02:48PM (#13076381)
          There will NEVER be people in government that understand IT. The mindsets are mutually exclusive.

          What the hell are you talking about? The creator of the Internet served for eight years as Vice President!
          • What the hell are you talking about? The creator of the Internet served for eight years as Vice President!

            Yeah, it's funny and all - but Al Gore deserves some credit - as a young politician, he did recognize te power of the Internet, and did do significant work to see its development.

            Don't forget to give credt where it's actually due, eh?
        • Um, are you familar with the civil service?

          1. They don't get elected.

          2. They can be very technically skilled in their field of study.

          3. Only very top level positions in the government are political appointies. The ones who actually do the work are civil service.

          You are aware that NASA "deals in hard facts which, when ignored, cause problems" right? You are aware that NASA is a government agency, right?

          The CIA/FBI/DOE/etc. are much the same.
          • "2. They can be very technically skilled in their field of study."

            However, in so many cases....the tech work itself is now done by contractors, and the gov. is actively getting itself OUT of the technical end of most gov. projects.....and only allowing the govy's to provide oversite.

          • How much do you want to bet that an official at "assistant secretary" level is chosen for his political status and not his technical skills?

            The same is true for the upper level officials at CIA, FBI, DOE, and yes, even NASA.

    • Re:Technical or Political? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by adamplas ( 808919 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @02:26PM (#13076155)
      I imagine it would be a bit of both. However, as politics and technology never seem to work well together, it would end up being the appointee's job to explain technical issues such as virus protection or cyber-attacks to those who have the power and money. I'd have to lean towards mostly political, and I think most IT workers would agree - just think of trying to convince a manager that a new firewall or server is needed. So, technical in the nature of keeping up on the current technology, but political in trying to convince lawmakers that the new technology is needed.
      • I wonder how dependent upon contractors this will be...
        I think a lot of security is independent of lawmakers... The old quote that the president isn't the seat of power, he is there to draw attention away from power....
        If I didn't believe that somewhere out there there are people in charge who truly care about our security and not just politics and sound bites, I couldn't sleep at night.
        And yes, i do wear a tinfoil hat, but I think we can be pretty sure that a lot of this is already being conducted unde

    • Re:Technical or Political? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15, 2005 @02:27PM (#13076177)
      Seeing how a spyware company executive is appointed [com.com] to the Department of Homeland Security's privacy advisory board, I think you can guess the answer.

      • > Seeing how a spyware company executive is appointed [com.com] to the Department of Homeland Security's privacy advisory board, I think you can guess the answer.

        Yeah, but Gator's not spyware. Take it up with chick from Doubleclick [pcworld.com], who now serves as HomeSec's Chief Privacy Officer.

        Since we're now talking about a security position, can any of you Microsofties tell us if the guy who came up with Internet Explorer's zone-based security architecture is the same guy as the one who came up with the idea of

    • Well, as of about 12 Noon today, I heard that HP will be laying off some 10,000 to 25,000, purportedly according to the SJ Mercury News dated for today. I wonder if any poor layoffee of HP will be qualified for that job...

      OTOH, maybe some of that cyber security will go toward defending the infrastructure from attacks from within, especially if more and more people keep getting laid off. If a sizable chunk of this round of layoffs is bulk AND immediate, and if even 1/2 of them are in silly conjob alley, the
    • So, I wonder what this new person will be a fanboy of? Will it be Linux, BSD, Microsoft, Unix? Or will he be a fanboy of doing it the right way in the right situation?

      I have a funny feeling that he will be a unix or windows only fanboy who leads down one bastardized road. Trying to please corperate masters rather than do something that works. But, I pray he does a real good job.

  • nice (Score:2, Funny)

    by syncore ( 696717 )
    What a good way to spend taxpayers' money.

  • Isolationist? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JossiRossi ( 840900 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @02:21PM (#13076115) Homepage
    Somehow I feel that the US government will not be happy until we have "secured our borders" until the government is entirely isolated.

    Not the country mind you, just the government. I often seem to feel that the US government would be ALOT happier without citizens to get in the way too.

    • Re:Isolationist? (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      ...what would they control then? A whole shitload of land? A country's most important resource is its citizenry. If you think the government doesn't know that, you're a moron.

      The kind of moron who doesn't know "a" and "lot" are seperate words.

    • Re:Isolationist? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kainaw ( 676073 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @02:38PM (#13076290) Homepage Journal
      I often seem to feel that the US government would be ALOT happier without citizens to get in the way too.

      And what business is different? I worked at Burger King and everyone complained that it would be so much easier without the customers. I worked at AMC theater and everyone complained that it would be so much easier without the patrons. I worked for a film company and everyone complained that it would be so much easier if they didn't have to distribute and show the movies. I taught at a university and everyone complained that it would be so much easier without the students. I'm now doing research at a hospital and everyone complains that it would be so much easier without all the patients. Why wouldn't the government find it easier without all the bothersome citizens?
      • Like the Despair [thinkgeek.com] poster for Apathy [thinkgeek.com] says, "If We Don't Take Care of the Customer, Maybe They'll Stop Bugging Us."
      • We're CITIZENS, not customers! This is something that our current government seems to forget these days. Maybe that wouldn't be a bad thing, though, imagine the competition -- you don't like your vendor (Gov't), choose another one! Also, think about what service-level-agreements would be like -- imagine not having to pay taxes for this year, because your level of service wasn't up to snuff!

        That's what I'm talking about!
        • ou don't like your vendor (Gov't), choose another one!

          There's a thing called immigration. If you like another government more, it is YOUR responsibilty to move - that is unless you want to be the guy in Taco Bell complaining that the tacos don't taste like a Big Mac.
      • Well, it's just human nature. On the other hand though, it's a little different for government. They not only volunteered for the post, they spent a fair amount of time, money and effort convincing the very people they're now wishing weren't there that they were the right person for the job, that they'd represent their needs and the needs of the country as a whole better than anyone else going for the job.

        They stood up and said "pick me to represent you, I'll do a good job, I have your best interests at h
      • "Why wouldn't the government find it easier without all the bothersome citizens?"

        This statement brings several very interesting video clips from M.Moore's "Fahrenheit 9-11" documentary to mind:

        (1) a quick Dubya quip about "how much easier it would be to govern a dictatorship"

        (2) a Washington gala fundraiser, during which Dubya is quoted as saying "Some consider you the elite. I consider you my base."

        (3) two video clips, one of Condi Rice and the other of Colin Powell, each stating during the first 90 d
    • I often seem to feel that the US government would be ALOT happier without citizens to get in the way too.

      No, no, no. Shining city on the hill, remember -- home of the free, land of the brave -- a fine example for the democratically challenged rest of us.

      Oh, wait.
    • I'm not sure what you're trying to convey here. The US was, until the early 1900s, politically isolationist. It was the ever-increasing deviance from that doctrine that got it into more and more trouble, though history has shown isolationism today would be impossible and a stupid effort considering the rise of trans-nationalism and a globalized society. Remember the US denial of the communist Chinese government?

      If the U.S. hadn't of gotten involved in the Soviet/Afghan war against communism and THEN left

    • "Somehow I feel that the US government will not be happy until we have "secured our borders" until the government is entirely isolated."

      I think you misstated the situation. The Bush adminsration and homeland security are really only striving to secure our borders against people who are trying to get here legally and through legitimate channels. Its become incredibly hard to get a visa to live in the U.S. so people who have them now and are living law abiding productive lives here, and I know a few, are b

  • Difficulty filling position (Score:5, Insightful)

    by coflow ( 519578 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @02:21PM (#13076116)
    I wonder how they plan to compete with commercial interests that are willing to pay top dollar for individuals suitable to the task. I can't imagine DHS would pay what a Bank of America or Walmart would .
    • Are you kidding? This is a technician's dream. You'll work for a company that can't sell you, downsize you, or fire you. You'll make more than you are worth, plus never have to show any "real" results. Who wouldn't want to work for the government?
      • You can get fired at the level that this position is (although in the current administration it seems to be difficult to be fired). I don't think it's really a technician position. And I'll restate my claim that this position can't possibly pay what a bank or large retail operation would pay. I call on CIO's in both government and commercial settings, and the discrepancy in pay is amazing.
        • I call on CIO's in both government and commercial settings, and the discrepancy in pay is amazing.

          Does the competency of the CIO correlate to the pay?

          • I guess it depends on how you define competency. In the commercial world, in theory it should. But the reality is that many companies evaluate the CIO on how much they cut costs, not on the amount of value they drive. To me, that doesn't seem like it aligns pay with performance of the IT dept. And the CIO position is such a revolving door position. I think I read somewhere that the average tenure for a Fortune X00 CIO was on the order of 18 months.
            • And the CIO position is such a revolving door position. I think I read somewhere that the average tenure for a Fortune X00 CIO was on the order of 18 months.

              How can you get anything done (or screw anything up) in that short amount of time?

              • Screwing things up is easy to do in a short amount of time.

                Getting things done is harder, but sometimes, things can be improved simply by identifying who is screwing things up and firing them or promoting them into another department.

        • Well, there's always the substantial aftermarket for ex-government employees. Typically, they have a score of inside contacts, a government pedigree and difficult to obtain security clearances that all increase the earning power of any person on the consulting market.

          So there is some incentive to working in the government.

          I'd also suggest that there still exist a number of people in the federal government who are there to actually serve the country instead of simply being employed by it.
    • Cybersecurity eh? How about RoboFed! He's like RoboCop, but with incredible form filing powers...

      Human or otherwise, I expect this position will finally crack down on P2P terrorists and the like.
    • The problem is not competing on the basis of money. Anyone who takes that job will, upon leaving it, have the Platinum Lobby Parachute that our administration kindly provides all its personnel. The problem is that many of the people who would actually be good at the job would have too much integrity to take it, or -- to be fair -- if they did take it, probably have too much integrity to do very well at it. That is why so many of the previous cybersecurityczarwhatevers resigned.

      And the competition is NOT la
    • If you're really curious, the payscales are published here:

      http://www.opm.gov/oca/05tables/ [opm.gov]

      Also, while the actual work in securing the IT network of a company like Walmart may be more substantial in some ways, having a credential like DHS on your resume and the associated security clearance would greatly increase your marketability once you have left the organization for the private sector.

      If you're marketing yourself towards the security field, any security consulting company would salivate to have a
    • I would work this position for free for one year. Afterward I would have a resume worth much more than 1 year's salary of Bank of America's CSO.

  • We're doomed. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by BaronSprite ( 651436 )
    Another puppet official to tell us we need the death penalty for hackers?

    I wonder how much of the money will go towards research to blow "terrorists" computers up, then since the technology is already around, let's just finish off all the file sharers.

    • Re:We're doomed. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ScentCone ( 795499 )
      Another puppet official to tell us we need the death penalty for hackers?

      So, when a political party you like better happens to hold office, are the people they appoint to federal positions "puppets" too? Is anyone that's hired to do a particular job, including following the policy guidance of the people that hired them, a puppet?

      Have you ever had a job? Or better: have you ever hired anyone? If you did hire someone, would you only respect them if they did something other than what you asked them to do

      • Respect? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by phorm ( 591458 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @03:51PM (#13077027) Journal
        If you did hire someone, would you only respect them if they did something other than what you asked them to do? See, because then they wouldn't be a puppet, right

        Depends on presentation. If said person showed me I was doing something wrong, and offered a better way I'd be happy. Their job is more efficient, mine is easier... works great. The difference is in agenda. The current agenda of the government often seems contrary to the needs or well-being of its citizens, but the purpose of the government is to meet the needs of said citizens. Thus, when government creates a position which under the mystique works against the citizens, it is working against the purposet of the position.

        It is the fact that the government itself is corrupt to the point where they directly oppose the purpose of their own creation that puppets origate.

        • Re:Respect? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ScentCone ( 795499 )
          but the purpose of the government is to meet the needs of said citizens.

          But that's just not true! It's up to you, and to me, to meet our own needs. There are certain select things that are best met by using our taxes and working with an authority than can act on our behalf. National defense is probably the single most important and appropriate example of that. That our nation absolutely faces real threats - large and puny - from people taking advantage of our highly networked society means that it's tota
      • We absolutely need people focusing on how to unplug them as needed. At the very least.

        YES! YES! We ABSOLUTELY need COMPETENT people focusing on how to unplug assholes as needed. Not know-nothing morons, crownies, or yes-men. I am all in favor of nuking our current public employees, and starting from scratch. I don't care about conservatives, librals, or whatever other label that one can come up with, what's going on now is total bullshit.

        Either that, or get me off this planet, and I'll go help build i
    • The person who made the "Death penalty for hackers" comment was not a government official, and it was a joke.

  • Round 2 (Score:3, Funny)

    by esmokey ( 804380 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @02:25PM (#13076146) Homepage
    "That person also will be called upon to gather critical-infrastructure threat information and lead the national response to cyber and telecommunications attacks."

    They're trying to break up Microsoft again?!

  • Honestly... . (Score:5, Insightful)

    by guildsolutions ( 707603 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @02:27PM (#13076167)
    We would never in a million years read private, innocent citizens emails. Why on earth would you think we would even want to?

    Oh Btw, your under arrest for sharing Peter Pan on Kaaza

  • America doesn't have any virtual boarders (Score:3, Informative)

    by Weaselmancer ( 533834 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @02:27PM (#13076178)

    ...otherwise how in the world can we arrest an Australian [wikipedia.org] for software piracy???

  • Great Firewall of USA ?!?!? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by morcego ( 260031 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @02:29PM (#13076196)
    Securing the virtual border ?
    I'm not sure about you, but that smells like they are planning to firewall USA ?
    Whats next ? Content filtering ?
    • Securing the virtual border ? I'm not sure about you, but that smells like they are planning to firewall USA ? Whats next ? Content filtering ?

      I think that's being used more as a metaphor. The point is that there networked systems that are vital to our internal security and daily economic interests. They (those things we operate and use) are "inside" the conceptual border, and are domestic - and hence in DHS's mandate. Besides, everything that counts within our domestically internetworked world had bette

  • This actually is a BIG DEAL... (Score:5, Informative)

    by nweaver ( 113078 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @02:31PM (#13076218) Homepage
    The previous cybersecurity position in the DHS (where the directors had the job expectation of a Drummer in Spinal Tap) was several rungs lower on the totem pole.

    Making it an assistant secretary position is a big increase in authority, which should (hopefully) translate into some significant action.
  • And we're all going to take computer security advice from an organization that's known to not get it right itself? Why not just listen to the many people out there who have offered their advice for free? Most organizations' security situations are easily improved - it's more a matter of willingness than of knowledge.
  • The assistant secretary... will he have to do jobs like answer the phone and take messages?
    • "The assistant secretary... will he have to do jobs like answer the phone and take messages?"

      American government department bosses are called secretaries, which leads many non-Americans to wonder if all they do is sit and answer the phone. Non-American government department bosses are called ministers, which leads many Americans to wonder why foreign governments seem to all be run by clergy.

      • Yes the whole system is quite confusing. I suggest we adopt the following system.

        The assistant to the government boss can be called an Earl. His boss will be a duke. The leader of the nation shall be called King, who will be served by His Grand Viziers, drawn from the Dukes who have been most loyal, or who have helped keep the King in power.

        Naturally after some time, his son the Prince can take over when the King mucst step down - though there may be a short term of unpleasentness as the Regent governs fo
  • "I understand you want to be in charge of cyber security. This interview will be short. There is just one question. Which OS do you have on your home computer?"

  • Virtual borders? What about real interests? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by joelsanda ( 619660 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @02:34PM (#13076247) Homepage

    "Homeland Security's decision to create an assistant secretary for cybersecurity and telecommunications is expected to be well received by Congress and IT advocates calling for better use of technology in securing the country's physical and virtual borders.

    Why do people insist on seeing borders on the Internet? The word itself is composed of "inter" and "network". By applying the metaphor of "border" (either physical or (duck ... incoming cliche) "virtual") they're in essence calling the "internet" an "innerlan".

    I hope the DHS can move beyond that limited and sophmoric understanding and instead realize we have interests - not borders. There are no borders on the Internet (excusing the valiant if not wrong efforts of the Chineses).

    What if DHS instead focused on our interests: a secure platform for business and government and an accessible platform for communication? What they do afterwards is debatable from now until way past the end of time, but I think their metaphors are so misguided they jeopardize later efforts.

    In focusing on the concept of 'borders' on the Internet the leave the chute with shaky reasoning and risk all the problems always associated with a poor meta-understanding of their goals.

    • The Internet does have borders. You have LAN and WAN. Is a LAN part of the WAN? Not necessarily.

      Another exmple would be my home network and the network I have at work. Sometimes I can VPN to the office network. Other times My network is separate. That would be an amazing trick with your so called "borderless" internet.

      The machines that run the internet physically exist, as does the structures in place to relay the data. Sever these streams and the data reroutes itself to get to the desired destination. It t

    • Is that you have accepted the existence of the DHS at all.

  • When Microsoft goes through with their plans to buy Gator... uh, I mean Claria, there's bound to be layoffs. But not to worry: the Department of Homeland Security is always eager to hire spyware and adware company employees.

    Good to see the government looking out for the best interests of American citizens!

  • Why not Peter Weller?

    He was the original Robocop [imdb.com]

  • Gov and Technology (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Hategiants ( 826686 )
    I'm a firm believer that the DHS has no place in its present state dealing with 'technology.' They clearly have their hands full with remarkably menial tasks.

    Even so it is yet another powerless position that we as tax payers must foot the bill for, let the bloating continue!

  • This is a good thing... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by B11 ( 894359 )
    Maybe now it'll be easier to stop all this rampant cyber-terrorism. Or maybe it'll just make it easier for government to snoop on us. Or maybe it'll just make it easier to get rid of those pesky pirates, yarr.
  • He'll be really upset. I can hear him now:

    "SHAKA LAKA DERKA DERKA! JEHAD DARKA ALAH!

    He'll then see how much of the American people's tax dollars are being spent. His face will begin to brighten. Then to a small smile, until he is rolling on the floor laughing.

    Then he'll say "Oh, derka derka derka..."

  • One of these days you'll be telling your grandchildren what it was like to have an internet be as free and open as the frontier once was (though obviously with perils of its own just like the frontier had). If the kids ask which you prefered, chaotic but free, or secure but controlled, what will you say?

    • Re:What will you say? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Doctor O ( 549663 )
      Hey, these are my grandchildren. They were raised by one of my children who was raised by me and who, therefore, has been greatly exposed to my attitude towards many of those complex social and technological issues the net gives us. I doubt they'll ask me such a stupid question at all.

      Or so I hope, my children are both still quite young, and after all they're unique individuals anyway, so anything might happen. Maybe they even don't develop any interest for computers, and I sure won't be pressing them into
  • The assistant secretary will be responsible for identifying and assessing the vulnerability of critical telecommunications infrastructure and assets. That person also will be called upon to gather critical-infrastructure threat information and lead the national response to cyber and telecommunications attacks, according to information available on Homeland Security's Web site.

    So, how about the protection of our personal records? Maybe the DHS should hire an individual responsible for ensuring that the per
  • I can see it now:

    One of his first suggestions will be to switch all critical machines to a more secure, non-windows OS (I'll leave the /. crowd to debate which one). Microsoft will lobby against it. Lawmakers will notice that we have the rest of the world paying the Microsoft tax, which is in turn taxed by the US government, and decide to keep Microsoft around. Nothing will change except the occasional yellow or orange fear alert light.

  • I hope that whoever is appointed has the intelligence to realize that the biggest cyber-threat to the government is extremely exploitable evil software [microsoft.com]. Maybe they'll wise up and move government systems to something a bit more SECURE, for Homeland SECURITY'S sake?

  • Doh (Score:2, Insightful)

    by sickboy85 ( 734870 )
    Damnit. Now worms etc will become a matter of "national security" and they'll be able to prosecute the hell out of whoever crafts them.
  • I like how he was in this position, but now thinks dept homeland security can't hack it.

    http://appserv.gcn.com/22_20/news/22904-1.html [gcn.com]

    He thinks vendors need to come up with a standardizes vulnerability test bed. I'm not sure exactly how this would be done (hackers do non-standard testing), but it sounds interesting. At least it could be a baseline over companies whose policy is "we don't get hacked".

  • We're doomed (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Gothmolly ( 148874 )
    This person will be either a Gartner-reading FUD-gobbler, or some clueless government hack. Either way, real security will not be important. Appearances will be.
  • Sorry to think this is nothing more than a headline, and another piece of evidence that the "War on Terror" is more about headlines than anything else. What ACTUALLY does this guy intent to do? "Securing borders", it might be slightly more effective to concentrate on intelligence programmes and having more arabic speakers than spending millions on an office that can do bugger all.

    But then recruiting arabic speakers is hard, and never gets you the press coverage, its so much more important to be SEEN to b
    • You've got that part right. This whole War on Terror is nothing more than a rehash of the War on Drugs with a different target. They're not actually doing anything useful; they're just making it look like they are, while using it as an excuse to cut a few civil liberties.

  • Help Wanted -- MCP over the age of 9. (Score:3, Funny)

    by infonography ( 566403 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @02:57PM (#13076465) Homepage
    Apply Homeland Security Administration Dept of Buzzwording. Security Clearance not required.

  • Cyberfoo (Score:4, Informative)

    by GileadGreene ( 539584 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @03:19PM (#13076720) Homepage
    Can I just mention that I think the term "Cybersecurity" is stupid. Really, really stupid. really, really, really stupid. Actually, that goes for all the other Cyber- stuff [google.com] that seems to pervade the internet these days too.

    "Cyber" is derived from the Greek word for "pilot", or "controller". Norbert Wiener introduced the term into English when he started talking about "Cybernetics" - which was his term for complex feedback control systems (Cyber. Control systems. Kinda makes sense, huh?). How we morphed from Wiener's original usage to the current fad for prefixing "Cyber" onto some random word in order to make it seem computer-related (not even control-related!) is beyond me. Although I'm sure William Gibson deserves a pretty large portion of the blame.

    • I was going to say the same thing. "I hate the word cyber" So instead of starting my own thread I am commneting on this one, saying I concur.
  • Insert mandatory NetForce reference here.

    Of course, this is Homeland Security, and NetForce is supposed to be FBI and later DoD.
  • For a while, DHS actually had someone with a clue in that job. But Amit Yoran got fed up and quit, because he didn't have enough clout to do anything. He'd previously been the head of Riptech, a security company he sold to Symantec.

    The current head of cybersecurity is a lawyer and TV producer. But he's a placeholder.

    The new guy will probably be from Microsoft.

    The new head of DHS, Chertoff, actually has more of a clue than his predecessor, and he's getting flak for it. Chertoff has been saying that

  • DHS has had a "cybersecurity" chief for years. The first one, Richard Clarke (with years of counterterrorism experience in successive White Houses), quit in disgust after his work and warnings were ignored. His successor, Amit Yoran [computerworld.com] left Symantec's security division for DHS, then quit in disgust after his work and warnings were ignored. Every cybersecurity czar has quit in disgust, saying the job was impossible. Now we've got a new guy, in a newly "tweaked" position, to be the cybersecurity czar. Stewart Ba [zdnetasia.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

The 11 is for people with the pride of a 10 and the pocketbook of an 8. -- R.B. Greenberg [referring to PDPs?]

Close