• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Set to Create 'Cyber Czar' Position

The moves come amid growing evidence that sophisticated overseas hackers are waging a widening assault on important U.S. networks. The Defense Department detected 360 million attempts to penetrate its networks last year, up from six million in 2006. The Pentagon alone has spent $100 million in the past six months repairing damage from cyberattacks.

U.S. officials acknowledge that the hackers, believed to be mainly from Russia and China, are having some success. The Wall Street Journal reported this spring that cyberspies breached both the nation's electricity grid and the Pentagon's biggest weapons program, the $300 billion Joint Strike Fighters.

Thats some really, really serious stuff. I think Obama is making a very good future investment for Americas security. I dont get why you think its so bad? Or are you just throwing childish Obama insults again? It wont effect you. The whole point of this is to protect and coordinate the governments own networks not yours.
 
All in the name of security right???!!! Whats next? Master Control Program? HAL?

Obama Set to Create 'Cyber Czar' Position - WSJ.com

Uhh what's wrong with that? Are you denying that our computer networks are a major vulnerability, and need to be protected? Are you denying that this will become an even BIGGER aspect of national security in the near future? Or are you just upset because you think the name "cyber czar" sounds scary? :confused:

This sounds like a good idea to me. Our networks are extremely vulnerable. I don't see what's so horrible about having someone overseeing their protection.
 
Last edited:
Holy crap. Stop with the Czars. Is there a single one that has every done anything useful?
 
This sounds like a good idea to me. Our networks are extremely vulnerable. I don't see what's so horrible about having someone overseeing their protection.


I never like anything that gives more power to our government not to mention a new power that only answers to one person.
 
I never like anything that gives more power to our government

And how exactly does this give more power to the government? :confused:

Baralis said:
not to mention a new power that only answers to one person.

This guy answers to the National Security Agency which answers to the president. Having people in the executive branch who answer to only one person is nothing new...the buck stops with the president, and always has.
 
I never like anything that gives more power to our government not to mention a new power that only answers to one person.

Actually the Czar will report to the NSC as well as the White House Senior Economic Advisor. Not too much power in a single person. Also, it will not apply to businesses, only government agencies.
 
And how exactly does this give more power to the government? :confused:


It will essentially give them the power to shut down the entire network in the US if they feel it is being threatened beyond a controlable point.
 
I never like anything that gives more power to our government not to mention a new power that only answers to one person.

More power to the government by allowing them to deploy better security measures over there own networks?? :confused:

It will essentially give them the power to shut down the entire network in the US if they feel it is being threatened beyond a controlable point.

No it wont. Like it would take a "Cyber Czar" to have to shut down the entire US network. Its been attacked many times before, they would have done it then, and nobody has the Cyber capabilities outside of the government, not even China, to bombard it beyond the point that intelligence services cannot control it. And even in that scenario, if the security forces didnt have the ability to shut down the entire network, do you propose we just leave it online for the hackers to take all the information at will?
 
Last edited:
More power to the government by allowing them to deploy better security measures over there own networks?? :confused:



No it wont. Like it would take a "Cyber Czar" to have to shut down the entire US network. Its been attacked many times before, they would have done it then, and nobody has the Cyber capabilities outside of the government, not even China, to bombard it beyond the point that intelligence services cannot control it. And even in that scenario, if the security forces didnt have the ability to shut down the entire network, do you propose we just leave it online for the hackers to take all the information at will?

It will give them the power to do so if they feel national security is at risk. While it may not take a "Cyber Czar" to shut down the entire network no one office has had the authority untill now, at least that I am aware of.
 
Our nation has a staggeringly huge amount invested in internet infrastructure, and zero national policy for protecting those resources. A professionally organized attack could be apocolyptic at this point. Bush took some half-assed action during his term, but he did recognize that cybersecurity is a national issue and Obama is thankfully expanding the efforts. The preface to the report that recommended creating this position puts it well

Source [Whitehouse.gov | Cyberspace Policy Review] (PDF)

Cyberspace touches practically everything and everyone. It provides a platform for innovation and prosperity and the means to improve general welfare around the globe. But with the broad reach of a loose and lightly regulated digital infrastructure, great risks threaten nations, private enterprises, and individual rights. The government has a responsibility to address these strategic vulnerabilities to ensure that the United States and its citizens, together with the larger community of nations, can realize the full potential of the information technology revolution.

The architecture of the Nation’s digital infrastructure, based largely upon the Internet, is not secure or resilient. Without major advances in the security of these systems or significant change in how they are constructed or operated, it is doubtful that the United States can protect itself from the growing threat of cybercrime and state-sponsored intrusions and operations. Our digital infrastructure has already suffered intrusions that have allowed criminals to steal hundreds of millions of dollars and nation-states and other entities to steal intellectual property and sensitive military information. Other intrusions threaten to damage portions of our critical infrastructure. These and other risks have the potential to undermine the Nation’s confidence in the information systems that underlie our economic and national security interests.
The Federal government is not organized to address this growing problem effectively now or in the future. Responsibilities for cybersecurity are distributed across a wide array of federal departments and agencies, many with overlapping authorities, and none with sufficient decision authority to direct actions that deal with often conflicting issues in a consistent way. The government needs to integrate competing interests to derive a holistic vision and plan to address the cybersecurityrelated issues confronting the United States. The Nation needs to develop the policies, processes, people, and technology required to mitigate cybersecurity-related risks.

Information and communications networks are largely owned and operated by the private sector, both nationally and internationally. Thus, addressing network security issues requires a public-private partnership as well as international cooperation and norms. The United States needs a comprehensive framework to ensure coordinated response and recovery by the government, the private sector, and our allies to a significant incident or threat.

The United States needs to conduct a national dialogue on cybersecurity to develop more public awareness of the threat and risks and to ensure an integrated approach toward the Nation’s need for security and the national commitment to privacy rights and civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and law.

Research on new approaches to achieving security and resiliency in information and communications infrastructures is insufficient. The government needs to increase investment in research that will help address cybersecurity vulnerabilities while also meeting our economic needs and national security requirements.

The only reason that our networks stay up and that every service from phone communications to the stock market doesn't grind to a halt is that nobody is trying to take it down. If something were to happen, what would we do about it and who would be in charge of doing it? These very fundamental questions have no answer, currently. I'm glad the government seems to finally be recognizing how vulnerable we are. Still, it's one thing to make another czar (I hate that title btw) and another to carry out the sweeping reform that any competent person filling that post will recommend. I'll reserve my judgement until I see what form the position takes
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom