This story in The Washington Post highlights proposals, currently in Senate legislation, that are meant to increase U.S. defense against cyberattacks. These would include a number of regulations, not only on military networks, but also private (such as water and electricity) networks, in addition to “regulatory teeth to ensure industry compliance,” and a White House cybersecurity “czar,” someone who would have the power to shut down various private networks.
Jim Dempsey, vice president for public policy at the Center for Democracy and Technology did not like the idea of companies all having the same approach, and though cybersecurity/cyberattacks are not areas I am too familiar with, I sort of agree with him. After reading this article, I immediately thought of people’s privacy, and how so much information would be available to just one agency. But Dennis C. Blair, Director of National Intelligence, felt the opposite, saying that one group should be in charge of both government and private sector cybersecurity. Blair did address the privacy issue, stating that the design of this centralized cybersecurity program would leave Americans worry-free, knowing that their private information was not being collected.
I guess we’ll have to see how this all plays out, but something about this one big agency having all that access just doesn’t seem right. And the whole idea of a cybersecurity czar worries me – giving one person the ability to shut down entire networks if they even suspect an attack – I would assume (hope?) that they have people alongside them, helping them make "informed" decisions. Then again, the Pentagon and NSA are already monitoring military networks, and the Department of Homeland Security watching the private. So all that they’re proposing is putting someone in charge of both. Would that just simplify things, or is that giving one group/person too much power?
3 comments:
1. I always get the creepy feeling that they use the term "czar" because they LIKE the ideals entailed in the the word: power, maleness, hierarchy, arbitrariness, etc.
2. Totally applies to this case, too, don't you think? I agree that is this turkey is a politician and not an expert, we are in danger.
There are so many security breaches already I cannot imagine anyone being so cavalier in suggesting that we have nothing to worry about - that the proposed system will be immune to the attacks, incompetence, and negligence that have plagued other systems. Aargh!
Post a Comment