Protection or Intrusion?

[RayMich]

Found this in another forum...
______________________________

We are getting a “Cyber Czar”, BHO’s pick to be an un-elected ruler of the Internet, with nearly unlimited power to make rules and regulate the information superhighway.
______________________________

Obama Set to Create A Cybersecurity Czar With Broad Mandate
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/25/AR2009052502104.html

Shielding Public, Private Networks Is Goal

By Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 26, 2009

President Obama is expected to announce late this week that he will 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 people who have been briefed on the plan.

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 but will report to the national security adviser as well as the senior White House economic adviser, said the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the deliberations are not final.

Read more...
______________________________

Ostensibly this latest Czar, (15th as of the latest count), will use his powers to keep us safe from cyber crime and cyber terrorism, but like our government does such a good job keeping us safe from simple street criminals, I suspect they will do the same wonderful job for the Internet.

Like all government control, initially the Czar will start off with what appears to be little threat to our First Amendment, but as time goes on more infringements will be deemed “necessary” for our proper protection.

Our First Amendment will be quickly eroded away, as has been our Second Amendment.

 

[JiFaire]

Ray posted this fine story in P&R... the thread focus there is about the government using this as a potential means to intrude on first amendment rights, but I have a different question to raise in this forum...

Where do we draw the line between total freedom and anarchy, vs total control and submission?

That's a broad question... let me flesh it out a bit. In terms of computer security, let's look at a few different areas - say, air traffic control and the financial markets.

What would happen if we left the security of these networks up to somebody, and they didn't do the job? In this day and age, an outside agency or individual could conceivably crash planes and endanger countless lives, or perhaps wipe out the trading system (although unvarnished greed already did a fair job of that).

Whose job is it to secure those systems? I might be tempted to argue that it is a national security issue - if we left it up to a private contractor who did a substandard job so he could make more profit, we could fine or sue him, but the deed would still be done.

Not saying government could do it better, by any means, but like I said, I'm still not sure who to entrust with that job.

Given the thousands of lines of code involved in even the simplest of command/control systems, it is very possible to slip in 'Easter Eggs', subroutines set to sabotage things at a given signal or time... how much fun would we be having if the control systems on a 747 became unresponsive at a given time? In a fly-by-wire aircraft, that's game over. I can think of hundreds of other places where this could be an issue, and if I can, so can your enemies. Face it, the Japanese invented kamikaze tactics back in WWII, and everybody was still surprised when somebody tossed airplanes at buildings in 2001. Cyber-attack could very easily be much more devastating than that.

Network security is my thing, and it's a very twisty issue... the only way to be totally sure of security is to unplug everything from the network. Somebody could practice on my network, and then use what they learned to invade your network. If there was no group watching the whole thing, nobody would know that an invasion had already been going on for a year before D-Day happened in important networks.

China has already been doing lots of this in North American networks, and we (the private sector) don't even know if the intrusions are government-sponsored or individuals with an agenda.

The kinds of cyber-warfare you see in Bruce Willis movies or read about in Tom Clancy books are just not that far-fetched anymore, as we become increasingly connected.

I worry.

I don't have any good answers, and that bothers me... the constitution exists to protect individual rights and freedoms, but the constitution isn't a suicide pact, either - surely your founding fathers did not intend it to prevent your country from defending itself, nor could they imagine every new development brought about by technology, from 200+ yrs in the past.

Somehow there must be a way to protect your freedoms while still maintaining a credible defense and structuring the ability to protect critical assets. I just don't know what that is, and in network security, that is a valid cause for concern.

Losing your First Amendment rights is of great concern. So is losing a cyber-war against (unknown) aggressors, either foreign or domestic.

Thoughts?

 

[stacks04]

you make credible points, but until the givt proves they can do anything right i wont support another attack on our freedom. especially an unrestricted one at that. it is nothing more than to hunt down and halt communications of us guys, the "potential terrorist", the enemy of obama govt. remove the opposition is the easiest way to total victory.

if these people who think these ideals up were so concerned with security, they would not be ripping the bush admin apart for waterboarding, or closing gitmo. i think it is for securing there power base more than keeping the american people safe.

 

[SuperTuscan]

I'll agree that all systems are vunerable. However, I'm not sure I would want anyone from this administration anywhere near my networks, taking my freedoms in order to secure my systems. Let me do that because it's my job to seek the best person and pay him what he deserves.

We will never get back the freedoms we give up. Ever.

 

[Anubis]

kinda reminds me of the patriot act ........ not a big fan of that either.

 

[btfarm]

Well thought post Jim. Your Canadian perspective is usually good reading.
I see the need to protect electronic security and don't doubt it's a very important step for the feds.
However, I certainly don't trust this administration to use it as "advertised" and worry about the abuse I'm certain will follow.
It has occurred to me that for all the distrust us conservative people have, the liberals are just as distrusting of us. Maybe if the watchdogs are from both sides of the spectrum, it will balance but that won't happen if it's all "them"...

 

[Anubis]

Well thought post Jim. Your Canadian perspective is usually good reading.
I see the need to protect electronic security and don't doubt it's a very important step for the feds.
However, I certainly don't trust this administration to use it as "advertised" and worry about the abuse I'm certain will follow.
It has occurred to me that for all the distrust us conservative people have, the liberals are just as distrusting of us. Maybe if the watchdogs are from both sides of the spectrum, it will balance but that won't happen if it's all "them"...

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.