Obama is Cyber Czar

[behaviour???]

Washington, May 26 (ANI): Reports indicate that US President Barrack Obama is planning to create a "cyber czar," a senior White House official who will have broad authority to develop strategy to protect the nation's government-run and private computer networks.

According to a report in the Washington Post, the adviser will have the most comprehensive mandate granted to such an official to date and will probably be a member of the National Security Council.

Read more...

Thanks

B???

[InHuman]

Good?

Cyber warfare is the new nuke.

[KRS-One]

This is a good thing.

When it was shown that the Russians and Chinese had infiltrated the electric grid of major cities and had software in place to disrupt service should it ever be needed, it's important to have a task team that can respond quickly and efficiently brief top officials on such matters.

I had read an article on Friday, but have unfortunately lost it, that stated the office and task force would have no influence or control over public sector networks, only maintaining and increasing the security of high priority government networks and potential high priority attack targets like power and communications company infrastructure.

[acidhead]

Fri May 29, 2009 12:03pm EDT http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2943836920090529

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Friday he would name a top cybersecurity official to the White House as he released a report that recommended how to safeguard the nation's cyber network.

"Cyberspace is real and so are the risks that come with it," said Obama in remarks at the White House.

Obama also said that his administration would not dictate cybersecurity standards for private companies.

The tech industry had pushed for a cybersecurity official to be in the White House to assure access to the president.

The cybersecurity review, headed by Melissa Hathaway, had urged the president to name a White House coordinator to oversee cybersecurity. It also said that the private sector must be involved.

"Now our virtual world is going viral," said Obama. "We have only begun to explore the next generation of technologies that will transform our lives in ways we can't even begin imagine. So a new world awaits, a world of greater security and greater potential prosperity if we reach for it, if we leap."

Holes in U.S. cybersecurity defenses have allowed major incidents of thefts of personal identity, money, intellectual property and corporate secrets.

(Reporting by Diane Bartz, editing by Gerald E. McCormick)

********

So what does the bolded parts mean? Looks like double-speak. "we will not dictate"....but..."the private sector must be involved"..

This latest speech by puppet, pitchman Obama is NWO talk...."a new world awaits" "a world of greater security and greater potential prosperity if we reach for it, if we leap"

-d-o-u-b-l-e--t-h-i-n-k-

********

http://obama.wsj.com/quote/0a0Jg3b1Yme8l?q=Barack+Obama

********

The above quote has been erased from the reuters LINK even though it originally was said and included in the reuters article on May 29 2009 --- 12:30 EST

....weird.....I know it sounds crazy but do a quick search of the entire quote and you will find that many people have noticed the quote in newspapers or blogs...

yet, even though ALL reference the Reuters article and Link to it... it is no where to be found on Reuters any more. The link is fine but NO QUOTE... just disappeared. <poof>

Edited May 31, 2009 by acidhead

[Tiggs]

So what does the bolded parts mean? Looks like double-speak. "we will not dictate"....but..."the private sector must be involved"..

This latest speech by puppet, pitchman Obama is NWO talk...."a new world awaits" "a world of greater security and greater potential prosperity if we reach for it, if we leap"

-d-o-u-b-l-e--t-h-i-n-k-

The bolded parts means that they will not enact legislation to enforce security standards within private companies. The Government will require help from private companies (such as Microsoft, Apple, Nortons, McAfee etc.) to put security standards in place for governmental systems.

Not exactly NWO-style stuff.

[acidhead]

The bolded parts means that they will not enact legislation to enforce security standards within private companies. The Government will require help from private companies (such as Microsoft, Apple, Nortons, McAfee etc.) to put security standards in place for governmental systems.

Not exactly NWO-style stuff.

...."a new world awaits" "a world of greater security and greater potential prosperity if we reach for it, if we leap"

That is NWO talk.... why say something so global "if" the NEW cyber-security is ONLY to protect classified Government files?

[Tiggs]

...."a new world awaits" "a world of greater security and greater potential prosperity if we reach for it, if we leap"

That is NWO talk.... why say something so global "if" the NEW cyber-security is ONLY to protect classified Government files?

The Internet is pretty global, last time I checked.

Any benefits from security research will recycle back into the public sector, making the internet safer for everyone. That would be the "Next generation of technology" bit that immediately preceded the part that got your NWO radar flashing.

Edited May 31, 2009 by Tiggs

[KRS-One]

...."a new world awaits" "a world of greater security and greater potential prosperity if we reach for it, if we leap"

That is NWO talk.... why say something so global "if" the NEW cyber-security is ONLY to protect classified Government files?

Just because someone uses the word "world" does not mean they are secretly advancing some kind of new world order doctrine.

The internet is a globally accessible medium. Using the term "world" in conjunction with it isn't surprising or uncalled for in any way.

You are projecting your NWO global cabal conspiracy fantasy onto things that have no relation.

edit: www stands for "WORLD Wide Web"...dear god it's been part of the NWO's agenda since its conception! *dun dun DUNN!*

Edited May 31, 2009 by KRS-One

[acidhead]

The Internet is pretty global, last time I checked.

Any benefits from security research will recycle back into the public sector, making the internet safer for everyone. That would be the "Next generation of technology" bit that immediately preceded the part that got your NWO radar flashing.

Tiggs, I looked at your bio... You are a computer tech guy.. correct? I'm sure you are very computer savy and an intelligent person as well, yet, I think that you may be talking a little naive..

What does the average guy, like myself, need to worry about safety on the internet that isn't already being taken care of by the private sector?

The federal government worries about --"Holes in U.S. cybersecurity defenses have allowed major incidents of thefts of personal identity, money, intellectual property and corporate secrets."

I don't know anybody who has had any of the above listed 'safety incidents' affect them personally.

What I generally am saying is: What the hell is a cyber-czar anyways? ....it sounds like a New King of the Internet... to over-see the Web population and to make sure they all 'act' accordantly.

It totally sounds like the Federal Government choosing to yet again dictate to everybody how to live their lives.... using 'exchange of safety for liberty' reasons again.

"We" pretend we are FREE yet 'we' allow the Federal government to 'dictate' to us how to live using the FEAR card as the reason... like we are children who 'need' guidance.

Again, this is another example of 51% dictating to the other 49% how to live their lives when there is already laws in place to deal with such criminal activity.

What happened to 99% cannot dictate to the other 1% on how to live their lives, according to the Constitutional Republic laws.... AND that means BIG Government too... no exceptions.

If the federal government needs better security for their government networks... I say GREAT!... than do it!... but just to their computer systems... not ours!

... for the government to say that the Private sector must be involved surely means more control for the federal Government.... it could only mean this at the end of the day.

Edited May 31, 2009 by acidhead

[KRS-One]

What does the average guy, like myself, need to worry about safety on the internet that isn't already being taken care of by the private sector?

The federal government worries about --"Holes in U.S. cybersecurity defenses have allowed major incidents of thefts of personal identity, money, intellectual property and corporate secrets."

I don't know anybody who has had any of the above listed 'safety incidents' affect them personally.

As an average guy, you personally aren't the one being targeted. Companies and data centers that retain information ABOUT you, Mr. Average, are who are being attacked, and who would fall under the scrutiny of this new department head.

Also note that just because you don't know someone personally that this happened to does not mean it has not happened to many millions of others.

What I generally am saying is: What the hell is a cyber-czar anyways? ....it sounds like a New King of the Internet... to over-see the Web population and to make sure they all 'act' accordantly.

If you read the article and look at other sources, you would see that the new cyber csar's responsibility is simply to report to the office of the president on national security threats, and oversee the strengthening of federal and related private sector network infrastructure.

It totally sounds like the Federal Government choosing to yet again dictate to everybody how to live their lives.... using 'exchange of safety for liberty' reasons again.

"We" pretend we are FREE yet 'we' allow the Federal government to 'dictate' to us how to live using the FEAR card as the reason... like we are children who 'need' guidance.

Again, this is another example of 51% dictating to the other 49% how to live their lives when there is already laws in place to deal with such criminal activity.

What happened to 99% cannot dictate to the other 1% on how to live their lives, according to the Constitutional Republic laws.... AND that means BIG Government too... no exceptions.

If the federal government needs better security for their government networks... I say GREAT!... than do it!... but just to their computer systems... not ours!

... for the government to say that the Private sector must be involved surely means more control for the federal Government.... it could only mean this at the end of the day.

And this giant, rambling rant with no point or reasoning is pretty much completely off topic, as well as being built entirely on your ignorance of what's going on. You've presumed that this is some kind of totalitarian action without having the basic understanding of what's ACTUALLY happening. Again pushing your weirdo fantasies onto a topic because you are unable to understand and reason. Please take some time to look over additional material before jumping to these ridiculous conclusions.

Your whole argument is that the government is pushing these things onto us, or that it will affect how we use the internet. Neither of them are true. This:

If the federal government needs better security for their government networks... I say GREAT!... than do it!... but just to their computer systems... not ours!

Is exactly what they're doing. So stop complaining.

edit to add the following thought:

It is important also to realize that the internet is not a right, nor is it some resource to which access is protected by any particular freedom. Internet access is provided by privately owned communications companies that are generally quite benevolent and open handed about allowing you to connect to the network. It is well within their powers to restrict any and all access to any and all portions of it, or to affect your online experience in any way at all. The fact that it is not more highly monitored and restricted is something that honestly surprises me.

Edited May 31, 2009 by KRS-One

[acidhead]

Is exactly what they're doing. So stop complaining.

edit to add the following thought:

It is important also to realize that the internet is not a right, nor is it some resource to which access is protected by any particular freedom. Internet access is provided by privately owned communications companies that are generally quite benevolent and open handed about allowing you to connect to the network. It is well within their powers to restrict any and all access to any and all portions of it, or to affect your online experience in any way at all. The fact that it is not more highly monitored and restricted is something that honestly surprises me.

Where does Linux fit into your above thought?

Edited May 31, 2009 by acidhead

[Tiggs]

Tiggs, I looked at your bio... You are a computer tech guy.. correct? I'm sure you are very computer savy and an intelligent person as well, yet, I think that you may be talking a little naive..

What does the average guy, like myself, need to worry about safety on the internet that isn't already being taken care of by the private sector?

The federal government worries about --"Holes in U.S. cybersecurity defenses have allowed major incidents of thefts of personal identity, money, intellectual property and corporate secrets."

I don't know anybody who has had any of the above listed 'safety incidents' affect them personally.

You've never met anyone that's had a computer virus or been the victim of electronic identity theft?

Pretty much gone are the days when hackers used to gain access to computer systems just for the challenge. These days, there's a whole criminal underworld who will hack sites to either steal personal information or hold corporations to ransom.

To do that, they create Bot Nets - thousands upon thousands of personal PC's that have been attacked with a virus that allows them to create a flood of traffic to the website in question, in order to overwhelm the server and bring it down.

What I generally am saying is: What the hell is a cyber-czar anyways? ....it sounds like a New King of the Internet... to over-see the Web population and to make sure they all 'act' accordantly.

A cyber-czar is like a drugs-czar. It's a centralised function to make sure that goverment policy towards the Internet is co-ordinated - rather than the various branches of government persuing their own policies and spending taxpayer's money in order to replicate the same work many times over.

[KRS-One]

Where does Linux fit into your above thought?

Linux is an open source operating system. It's software provided by individuals or organizations at no cost.

It is not the internet, nor does it affect your access of it, which still depends on subscriptions to communications companies to access.

[acidhead]

Where does H.R.6123 fit in to the plan to "safeguard the nation's cyber network" by appointing a cyber-czar, in the White House, who reports directly to the President ?

or does it fit in at all?

5/22/2008--Introduced.

Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act - Amends the federal criminal code to impose criminal penalties on anyone who transmits in interstate or foreign commerce a communication intended to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to another person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior.

HR6123 may just be the back door to shutting down Independent news and blog sites who 'contradict' the 'official' MSM news reports.

******

thoughts?....

Edited May 31, 2009 by acidhead

[KRS-One]

Where does H.R.6123 fit in to the plan to "safeguard the nation's cyber network" by appointing a cyber-czar, in the White House, who reports directly to the President ?

or does it fit in at all?

5/22/2008--Introduced.

Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act - Amends the federal criminal code to impose criminal penalties on anyone who transmits in interstate or foreign commerce a communication intended to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to another person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior.

HR6123 may just be the back door to shutting down Independent news and blog sites who 'contradict' the 'official' MSM news reports.

******

thoughts?....

This act isn't related in any way to the responsibilities of the office of cyber csar [what a stupid freaking name, btw. 'Cyber Csar', possibly they could call him NET MAN or Digital Don].

This is an entirely separate piece of legislation and one that any sitting cyber csar would be entirely and completely irrelevant to, as that office does not enforce or enact laws such as this.

[acidhead]

This act isn't related in any way to the responsibilities of the office of cyber csar [what a stupid freaking name, btw. 'Cyber Csar', possibly they could call him NET MAN or Digital Don].

This is an entirely separate piece of legislation and one that any sitting cyber csar would be entirely and completely irrelevant to, as that office does not enforce or enact laws such as this.

Would you bet your house and kid's college tuition on it?

BTW, KRS-One, did you know that another person(a guy) was first offered the job, by the White House, as the new Czar of the Internet but turned down the offer?

He cited infringement of privacy and freedom of speech violations as his reasons.... he said that the cyber-czar is unconstitutional.

I'lll do a search for his name... ive heard it but cannot recall....

Edited May 31, 2009 by acidhead

[Tiggs]

Where does H.R.6123 fit in to the plan to "safeguard the nation's cyber network" by appointing a cyber-czar, in the White House, who reports directly to the President ?

or does it fit in at all?

5/22/2008--Introduced.

Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act - Amends the federal criminal code to impose criminal penalties on anyone who transmits in interstate or foreign commerce a communication intended to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to another person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior.

HR6123 may just be the back door to shutting down Independent news and blog sites who 'contradict' the 'official' MSM news reports.

******

thoughts?....

From the summary you've given, I see your concern. The full text of HR 6123 can be found here.

The amendment (in full) is:

[a] Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

As used in this section--

(1) the term `communication' means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received; and

(2) the term `electronic means' means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.'.

The important term is 'communication'. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm unsure as to whether it would be interpreted this way, but from my intepretation, it could be argued that given the above definition, anything published on the Internet is a communication.

"support severe, repeated and hostile behaviour" however - Unless you're referring to sites dedicated to being "Anti" one person - such as Anti-Bush, Anti-Obama etc - then I don't see how blogs or Indy Media would fall into those categories.

Legislation won't fall under a cyber-czar's remit - only the President and both houses of Congress can make laws, though he may be asked to give his opinion on the legislation, or co-ordinate studies on it whilst it is in committee.

[KRS-One]

From the summary you've given, I see your concern. The full text of HR 6123 can be found here.

I also see his concern, but the laws put into place by this aren't likely to be upheld by any court, and they don't have anything to do with the position of the cyber csar being created.

[acidhead]

Barack Obama’s announcement of the new cybersecurity grid dovetails with a recently introduced Senate bill, the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, that would hand the president the power to shut down the entire Internet in the event of a “cybersecurity” crisis.

“The bill’s draft states that “the president may order a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic” and would give the government ongoing access to “all relevant data concerning (critical infrastructure) networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access.”

The legislation would allow the government to tap into any digital aspect of every citizen’s information without a warrant. Banking, business and medical records would be wide open to inspection, as well as personal instant message and e mail communications.--by Paul Joseph Watson & Kurt Nimmo Prison Planet.com http://www.infowars.com/cybersecurity-is-f...l-of-our-lives/

This is President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program on steroids:

Text of S.773 as Introduced in Senate

Sponsor

Sen. John Rockefeller [D, WV]

and 3 Co-Sponsors

Introduced

April 01, 2009

Cybersecurity Act of 2009

A bill to ensure the continued free flow of commerce within the United States and with its global trading partners through secure cyber communications, to provide for the continued development and exploitation of the Internet and intranet communications for such purposes, to provide for the development of a cadre of information technology specialists to improve and maintain effective cybersecurity defenses against disruption, and for other purposes.

SEC. 18. CYBERSECURITY RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITY.

The President--

[skip down to (2) ]

(2) may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network;

SEC. 23. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

[skip down to 3(b.) ]

(3)The term ‘Federal Government and United States critical infrastructure information systems and networks’ includes--

(b.) State, local, and nongovernmental information systems and networks in the United States designated by the President as critical infrastructure information systems and networks.

Full text version of Bill: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s773/text

--------------------------

thoughts?...

Edited June 1, 2009 by acidhead

[acidhead]

BTW, did you know that another person(a guy) was first offered the job, by the White House, as the new Czar of the Internet but turned down the offer?

He cited infringement of privacy and freedom of speech violations as his reasons.... he said that the cyber-czar is unconstitutional.

I'lll do a search for his name... ive heard it but cannot recall....

US cybersecurity chief quits over NSA power grab

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/09/cy...ty_chief_quits/

9th March 2009

The US government's cybersecurity chief abruptly quit last week amid allegations his office was woefully underfunded and unduly controlled by the country's ultra-secretive National Security Agency.

Rod Beckstrom was named last year to head the NCSC, or National Cybersecurity Center, an office within the Department of Homeland Security that's responsible for coordinating the defense of civilian, military and intelligence networks. In a widely circulated resignation letter (PDF) dated last Thursday, the former Silicon Valley entrepreneur warned that a power grab by the NSA threatened the success of the office's mission. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/doc...Resignation.pdf

"While acknowledging the critical importance of the NSA to our intelligence efforts, I believe this is a bad strategy on multiple grounds," he wrote.

"The intelligence culture is very different than a network operations of security culture. In addition, the threat to our democratic processes are significant if all top government network security and monitoring are handled by any one organization (either directly or indirectly). During my term as Director we have been unwilling to subjugate the NCSC underneath the NSA."

Beckstrom also let loose the rather jaw-dropping accusation that since his office was formed last March, it has received funding for just five weeks and had only five people working there.

The power struggle ought to come as a wake-up call to the Obama administration, which on its first full day in office unfurled its master plan for securing the country's national infrastructure.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/22/ob..._security_plan/

While the NCSC is currently under the control of the DHS, there have been calls for the Department of Defense's NSA to oversee national cybersecurity. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/03/nsa_cyber_defense/

Resolving the struggle needs to be a top priority. Until then, it's unclear who's steering the boat. ®

********

[aquatus1]

Can't say I blame him. God only knows how many perfectly good systems I've seen ruined by suits who don't know the first thing about networks.