Obama Signs Cybersecurity Executive Order 74
An anonymous reader writes "Last night before the State of the Union speech, President Obama signed an executive order for improving cybersecurity of critical infrastructure (PDF). The highlights of the order are: 'information sharing programs' for the government to provide threat reports to industry; an overarching cybersecurity framework developed by NIST to figure out best practices for securing critical infrastructure; and reviews of existing regulations to make sure they're effective. The ACLU supports the Order, as does the EFF. '"A lot of what this shows is that the president can do a lot without cybersecurity legislation," said Mark Jaycox, policy analyst and legislative assistant for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who points out that the executive order satisfies the need for information sharing without the privacy problems that existed under legislative proposals where loopholes would have allowed companies to dump large amounts of data on the government in an effort to obtain legal immunities. Without those immunities, companies will by nature be more circumspect about what they provide the government, thus limiting what they hand over, Jaycox said.'"
Here's a start... (Score:3, Insightful)
Stop putting every computer on the same network. Stop using Windows for everything.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The US government already has several separate secure networks, and utilizes non-Windows OSes where appropriate.
Do you want the gubbermint telling you how to run *your* networks and computers? I'm sure that NSA patch is really just a clever way to let them spy on you.
Seriously, that's not a start, that's just a silly aside with no meaning.
Re: (Score:2)
The US government already has several separate secure networks, and utilizes non-Windows OSes where appropriate.
Do you want the gubbermint telling you how to run *your* networks and computers? I'm sure that NSA patch is really just a clever way to let them spy on you.
Seriously, that's not a start, that's just a silly aside with no meaning.
People overestimate the planning and intelligence of government technology infrastructured. So much of it is left up to contracters who know how to write a MOU which sounds good, but then they execute the implementation with a load of cheap tech monkeys. Believe me, I work with this stuff constantly. Fragile systems, systems with competing heads, ignorance run amok. I have talked with some people in positions in the government and they are very frustrated, but every contract goes to the bidder who knows
Re: (Score:2)
Stop putting every computer on the same network. Stop using Windows for everything.
Excellent idea! Why don't you disconnect from the Internet and then...oh. You don't want to follow your own advice?
You *think* Windows can't be secured? (Score:1)
See subject-line, & answer honestly... (doesn't matter IF you say it can't be - I know better -> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000/XP%22&btnG=Submit&gbv=1&sei=3AAcUbOuFPS90QH7poCoAg [google.com] )
* :)
(Heck - I practically "wrote the book" on how it's done, via those links above, & yes, it really DOES work!)
APK
P.S.=> Anyhow/anyways - Bottom-Line: Any OS out there has 'security issues' or just weak initial setup
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Goodbye Free Internet (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Perhaps he's master of his own domain?
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously. Unless I'm utterly failing at reading comprehension (considering I'm late for something, I might be) this is exactly the opposite of what you're saying. This sounds like a move to prevent CISPA/SOPA from rising from the grave. The ACLU and EFF are in favor of it and were opposed to CISPA/SOPA.
COnsidering there were reports from "sources" that Obama would enact CISPA, I'm a little hesitant to jump for joy. And again, I was only skimming.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xo5hqn_snl-banned-episode-media-controlled-conspiracy-theory-rock_fun [dailymotion.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Awesome. I can't believe it's there for anyone to see :) Where is it "banned" and by whose authority?
Re: (Score:2)
From NBC, by NBC. I suppose.
I just don't see why. With their hubris, you expect that they'd make it compulsory viewing - and then laugh at our squirming helplessness.
Re: (Score:2)
This has already started. with in the DoD. (Score:2)
You can google DCISE for yourself, or take your chances following an embedded link on slashdot...
http://www.dc3.mil/dcise/dciseAbout.php [dc3.mil]
Cybersecurity Executive Order (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
That's what Bill Clinton signed...
Re: (Score:2)
That's what Bill Clinton signed...
That's what Bill Clinton stained...
Checks and Balances My Ass (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome to the new American Paradigm.
President: Legislator, executive, judge, jury, and executioner.
Drone warfare. (Score:3)
I think we're past the days of judges, juries and executioners.
Now after government bureaucrat #2,987,103 puts your name on a watch list, expect to suddenly explode at any time.
The age of judgment by drone has begun.
Re:Checks and Balances My Ass (Score:5, Interesting)
Unlike the previous one who was only a jury and executioner thats actually a step up!
Uhhh, no.
Obama's gone above and beyond [newyorker.com] ANYTHING the most rabid BOOOSH IS TEH EVIL!!!! foaming-at-the-mouth twit ever dreamed up BOOOSH! might do.
Seriously.
Summary execution of US citizens.
Can you IMAGINE the uproar from the /sheep had BOOOSH!!! done that?
Yet, Obama's been doing it for YEARS.
Re:Checks and Balances My Ass (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole Bush Obama thing has made me wonder if the true danger to our country will be some kind of civil war between the GOP and the DNC. Their policies are essentially the same (aside from edge issues like abortion and gay marriage(*)). On critical issues like the right not to be randomly jailed or murdered, on war, on domestic surveillance -- they're completely identical.
Yet GOPers loathe Obama and Democrats Loathe Bush. It's personal though -- it can't be about policies, it is only a personal hate based on the person's tribal identity (party). There is no logical basis for the two groups to hate each other because they do the identical shit. What you have is the pickup truck driving GOPer sneering at the iPad toting DNCer -- not because of an actual difference in policy, but merely because of mutual hatred. And that's dangerous because there is no reason or logic -- it's pure tribalism.
(*) I'm not saying these are unimportant, I'm saying that they don't matter if you are dead or in a gulag. There is a hierarchy of importance and there are more fundamental issues at the top of it.
Re: (Score:2)
President: Legislator, executive, judge, jury, and executioner.
Does this carry any (real) legal power? I can't image why would ACLU support that...
Hypothetically, can Obama just write an executive order saying that Congress is to be disbanded immediately (or be handpicked by him instead of being elected) and that next presidential election happens in 2020?
A lot of what this shows is that the president can do a lot without cybersecurity legislation," said Mark Jaycox, policy analyst and legislative assistant for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who points out that the executive order satisfies the need for information sharing...
Re: (Score:1)
Does this carry any (real) legal power? I can't image why would ACLU support that...
An executive order is an order from the President to the Executive branch and has the force of legislation. The power behind the order is generally granted from existing legislation that grants the president specific powers. Other times the power behind the order comes from general hand waving, constitution rattling and the sincere belief that no one is going to have the stones and political skills to do anything serious against the order.
So, in a nutshell, the president can order all kinds of crazy, but
Re: (Score:2)
Hypothetically, can Obama just write an executive order saying that Congress is to be disbanded immediately (or be handpicked by him instead of being elected) and that next presidential election happens in 2020?
I don't know if the US President can, but the US Emperor tried it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Norton#Declares_himself_.22Emperor.22 [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Meh.. the way I see it, if the EFF *and* ACLU isn't bitching about it, that's pretty rare. mod parent "-1 Resentful Conservative"
Re: (Score:2)
No. I'm a liberal and I'm more than a little resentful about the New GOP (aka Democrats -- with the emphasis on "rats").
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Welcome to the new American Paradigm.
President: Legislator, executive, judge, jury, and executioner.
You're confusing laws for administration policies. Reviewing existing infrastructure doesn't require legislation. Telling the various departments of the government to share information with each other doesn't require legislation. Learn the difference between a law and a policy.
Re: (Score:2)
A body of Federal laws so vast and vague that it is unknowable and any random person commits a federal crime unwittingly probably every day.
President tells his minions to go after "X" group.
Prosecutors find random law and prosecute the person.
Result: unlimited presidential power.
Re:Checks and Balances My Ass (Score:5, Insightful)
President: Legislator, executive, judge, jury, and executioner.
You know, he wouldn't need to be the first if the Republicans in the House wouldn't make their number one objective "non-cooperation". And, as for the last three (for which there seems to be relatively broad bipartisan support for in the corridors of power), I'm pretty sure that's limited to the occasional drone strike or declaration of someone as a terrorist. As far as executive orders concerning agencies other than DHS and other non-terrorist-related issues goes, I've seen many people drag this administration to court, so that rules out (again with caveats) the last three. So stop the hyperbole. It doesn't move discussion forward.
Re: (Score:1)
President: Legislator, executive, judge, jury, and executioner.
You know, he wouldn't need to be the first if the Republicans in the House wouldn't make their number one objective "non-cooperation".
He wouldn't need to, regardless, if he were fit for the duties of President.
Two wrongs never, ever make a right.
Re: (Score:2)
The house? They're the only ones with blame here? Then how come congress refuses to pass (or even discuss) any of the budgets passed by the house?
It's BOTH side's fault, and it's not new. They've been doing it for years.
Re: (Score:2)
The house? They're the only ones with blame here? Then how come congress refuses to pass (or even discuss) any of the budgets passed by the house?
It's BOTH side's fault, and it's not new. They've been doing it for years.
Correct me of I'm wrong but I recall budgets and other spending bills need to originate from the House. Nothing from the House means nothing for anyone else to do.
Re: (Score:2)
The house? They're the only ones with blame here?
Oh yeah. Sorry. The Republicans in the Senate are just as bad (if not worse), using the filibuster to block anything worthwhile. Again, my apologies for not remembering them as well.
Re: (Score:1)
Unbelievably myopic DNC apologists like you are just setting us up for ruin. Your hero won't be president forever, and the next time a Dick Cheney type is in office, do you think that precedents like due process free execution, or starting a war without congressional authorization (Libya) will go unnoticed? Obama has made the future a whole lot worse. When GWB was acting like a fuckhead, people thought at least the Democrats would work to reign in the abuse. Now that the DNC has simply embraced and exte
Re: (Score:1)
Non-cooperation, animosity, gridlock, whatever you wish to call it, is the ideal state for congress and the president to reside in. After all, there is literally nothing that a politician does these days that benefits the average Joe. Every bill and resolution is designed from the ground-up by lobbyists and foreign PACs in order to enrich the people sponsoring the bill (and sponsoring the people who introduce it).
Just because Obama doesn't like being cock-blocked, this does not give him the right to assum
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have they apointed a Czar? (Score:2)
Because, if memory serves, those are the sure signs the US government have no more ideas and have given up.
"Cyber" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's 2013, can we please stop using "cyber" now?
I always liked "information superhighway" myself.
Oink Oink (Score:2)
Can we report without being sued or arrested?! (Score:3)
While there are lots of problems with the way things have been and are being handled, among these are the ridiculous reactions of business, education and even government has when someone says "hey, I found a problem." It's time "cyber" whistle-blowers get traditional whistle-blower protections.
I, for one (Score:1)
... welcome our new... oh hell.
Never mind.
CYBER (Score:2)
Hopefully with this additional security this will keep all the "Cyber" out of Ahmerica!
I almost choked when.. (Score:2)
I almost chocked when that pusbag Panetta started the histrionically absurd oral flatulence, bleating about "cyber Pearl Harbors" and the "destruction of our infrastructure"!
It's all just one more example of this government trying desperately to frighten it's citizenry as it has found that a terrified population will accept ANY abrogation of basic liberty and constitutional rights to "keep them safe"!
Instead of asking the right question (Score:2)