Print 46 comment(s) - last by Holly.. on Jun 30 at 12:13 PM

The man who journalists and experts expect to be the candidate for the cyber czar position has a sketchy past

President Barack Obama's lead candidate to become the country's first ever cyber security czar has some skeletons in his closet that will likely alarm security advocates, recent media reports indicate.

Former Republican Congressman Tom Davis, who is the former head of the Government Reform Committee, has been listed at the leading candidate, and is well known for being tech savvy.  However, he has voted to expand the federal government's ability to wiretap and monitor Internet activity, along with helping draft the REAL ID Act.

"Given his role in REAL ID, Tom Davis would not be a good choice for privacy, which is something that President Obama specifically promised to protect in his remarks on the cyber security strategy,” according to Cato Institute director Jim Harper.  "Many cyber security planners refer obliquely to ‘authentication’ and ‘identity management’ programs that would devastate privacy, anonymity and civil liberties. Davis would probably work to roll past these issues rather than solve them.”

Davis also helped author the Federal Information Security Management Act in 2002, while also serving as a co-chair on the Congress Information Technology Working Group.

It was unsure for quite some time if the president would select a tech guru, a politician, or a politician with an understanding of technology.  It's obviously crucial for the cybersecurity czar to understand tech issues, and the cybersecurity issues facing the country today, but a bureaucrat who understands how to get something done in Washington also is important.

If Davis is selected, it's more likely he'll face difficult administrative problems -- not necessarily tech-related issues -- as military and government network defense remains fractured and confusing.  The cybersecurity czar would spearhead government defense, and help create new security guidelines on how to protect the country's infrastructure from foreign-based attacks originating in China and Eastern Europe.

Along with Davis, Melissa Hathaway, cyber advisor for President George W. Bush, and Paul Kurtz, Obama adviser and member of the National Security Council, also are two other possible candidates to the job.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Oh hell....
By rudolphna on 6/25/2009 2:07:36 PM , Rating: 4
Give a break! Why is it so hard to get somebody who will give people the privacy they deserve, and pay for? I don't want some FBI spook sitting watching what I do on the internet. It isn't any of their goddamn business what I do. The only exceptions to this are, well, child porn. That is the only thing that should be monitored for. Beyond that, leave us alone!

RE: Oh hell....
By Golgatha on 6/25/2009 2:11:27 PM , Rating: 5
I say no exceptions. Giving into a single exception will be the excuse for the need to monitor everything.

RE: Oh hell....
By invidious on 6/25/2009 3:52:32 PM , Rating: 5
Good point, how do you know who is hiding child porn unless you check to see what everyone is hiding? Privacy is not an issue that lends itself to exceptions or caveats.

RE: Oh hell....
By knutjb on 6/25/2009 4:56:48 PM , Rating: 4
Those kind of investigations require a warrant if any legal action is to be taken. We know the net is nowhere near private.

The bigger, but hardly mentioned issue, is Obama appointing another Czar. Czars are performing cabinet level functions without Senate approval or oversight. This avoids necessary public scrutiny of those in charge of these programs.

I don't have a problem with the president picking someone to resolve an issue in a predetermined time frame, then, once completed, disbanding it. This, like all of his other Czars, will be around for a very long time unless reigned in by the Congress. The Dems in Congress hold majority power and are directly responsible for oversight of the president and his minions. They are failing in their constitutional obligations under the separations of power requirement.

We don't need more unregulated big brother.

RE: Oh hell....
By mindless1 on 6/27/2009 1:47:41 AM , Rating: 3
The net is in fact private, your first sentence not only contradicts the second, it leaves out the detail that the warrant is needed even without legal action.

ISP customers expect the ISP not to hand out surfing records without a court order, nor can anyone attain them without an order, nor monitor you without one in a more active fashion.

The only thing non-private about the net is what one actively chooses to publish in a public forum, a small minority of net usage for most people unless they are addicted to twitter or similar.

RE: Oh hell....
By spuddyt on 6/25/2009 4:40:14 PM , Rating: 1
Give the man a 6

better yet, give him a number over 9.

RE: Oh hell....
By TSS on 6/25/2009 2:20:25 PM , Rating: 2
this all probably started with the arguement of "child porn" somewhere. but that's a discussion for another time.

"Given his role in REAL ID, Tom Davis would not be a good choice for privacy, which is something that President Obama specifically promised to protect in his remarks on the cyber security strategy,”

this is just failing to see the bigger picture. if obama promises to protect privacy, who is he talking about? the privacy of USA citizens or the privacy of the USA government? the latter ofcourse involves more wiretapping because, you don't know how much privacy you have unless you know what the other side already know about you.

RE: Oh hell....
By Lastfreethinker on 6/25/2009 2:21:56 PM , Rating: 4
It is an all or nothing deal. You make an exception you can then find reasons for others. No exceptions!

RE: Oh hell....
By MatthiasF on 6/25/09, Rating: -1
RE: Oh hell....
By kellehair on 6/25/09, Rating: -1
RE: Oh hell....
By ClownPuncher on 6/25/2009 3:03:41 PM , Rating: 5
To protect themselves from witch hunts, McCarthyist tactics, Maoist persecution, and Stalinist totalitarianism.

People fear being profilied, then legislation coming down and labeling them an enemy of the state. Things like this happen all over the world, arrogance is the only reason why you would think something like that can't happen to you.

People WILL be profiled if the government has total control and can watch your every move, just hope the bureaucrat on the other side of the screen doesn't find your ideals to be un-American.

RE: Oh hell....
By Bateluer on 6/25/2009 3:44:01 PM , Rating: 1
Well said. Rated you up.

RE: Oh hell....
By rdeegvainl on 6/25/2009 4:56:19 PM , Rating: 3
No you didn't.
Another lesson in the DT rating system.
If you post, you cannot rate comments.
If you rate a comment and then post, your rating goes away.

RE: Oh hell....
By Technomage on 6/26/2009 2:08:55 PM , Rating: 2
I thought Lord Obama would bring peace and unity to the force. Why would anyone be worried about Maoist persecution or Stalinist totalitarianism, unless they read the paper or internet news. Don't forget the Mussolini-esque fascism destroying private enterprise, either.

With BO at the helm, how can anyone think in such heavy handed terms? Please, just have another helping of the tasty Kool-Aid. It's sooooo refreshing.

RE: Oh hell....
By Flail on 6/27/2009 10:47:39 AM , Rating: 2
Lord Obama would bring peace and unity to the force.

They said the same thing about Anakin

RE: Oh hell....
By invidious on 6/25/2009 3:54:33 PM , Rating: 5
Because our ancestors faught tyrany for our rights. Did you seriously just ask that question?

RE: Oh hell....
By kellehair on 6/26/2009 9:33:40 AM , Rating: 2
I ask simply because I consider the Internet to be a public space. Is it not?

RE: Oh hell....
By mindless1 on 6/27/2009 1:50:44 AM , Rating: 3
No, it is not designed to be a place where the public knows anything except what you specifically decide to post as publicly accessible content, not what sites you visit, not what (legal) software you download, not your email contents, when you surf, what you read, etc.

RE: Oh hell....
By AEvangel on 6/27/2009 10:48:13 AM , Rating: 2
I don't care if you read my comments posted on a public website, but when you start tracking my surfing habits and tracing back my ISP to my provider and then make them give you my home address to see where I live well then I have an issue.

RE: Oh hell....
By Cerin218 on 6/25/2009 3:56:44 PM , Rating: 2
If you aren't doing anything illegal there's nothing to fear right? Wait, I used the word right. I shouldn't have, it's a word idiots like you would like to see go away. Ever stop to think the reason that there are laws that govern things like wiretapping are to keep you safe? There are checks and balances so that someone doesn't end up with enough power to do however they see fit? As far as your car analogy, there's something called probable cause. This means the Police can't search you just because you are there. He needs a reason. Just because you are somewhere public doesn't mean that you don't deserve privacy. Well, maybe you don't. Your intelligence is epic fail and contributing to the future idiocracy of this country.

RE: Oh hell....
By Cerin218 on 6/25/2009 4:04:52 PM , Rating: 2
By the way, surveillance and search without warrant was only invented as of the Patriot Act to allow the government to do what they want without the messiness of someone figuring out if what they wanted to do was legal and telling them no. Under the guise of "National Security". Otherwise there has always been the laws governing warrants of searches and surveillance. Unless a qualified government representative, i.e. Police officer has Probable Cause, then they are allow to act. There are lots of rules governing Probable Cause. Reading is fundamental.

RE: Oh hell....
By invidious on 6/25/2009 4:06:34 PM , Rating: 2
The streets are a public place, that doesn't mean the goverment is allowed to stand outside a church and make lists with pictures of everyone who goes to the church without a warrant. Why should it be any different for webpages or chatrooms.

RE: Oh hell....
By InfantryRocks on 6/25/2009 9:58:35 PM , Rating: 2
Yet, I can't climb into your car and search through anything I want at any time.

Anyway, this is just a blinding flash of the obvious. Leftists abhor privacy. You can't collectively control people if privacy is allowed.

I'll be rated down for saying that, no doubt, but it's true. And even if leftists on this forum decry my saying it, they'll be the first to defend violations of privacy when they occur--especially by this administration.

RE: Oh hell....
By HrilL on 6/25/2009 6:05:29 PM , Rating: 1
If they are deep packet inspecting in order to find child porn, then wouldn't they be seeing all of our traffic anyway? Because if they are a aloud to look for just one thing then the only way for the government to do that would be to inspect all packets.

If they only set a red fag for searching for child porn then that is different and this could be done without being able to see our search history so this would be the only acceptable way but this would also be pointless as a proxy can get around this with easy.

RE: Oh hell....
By Donovan on 6/26/2009 4:08:50 PM , Rating: 1
If they only set a red fag for searching for child porn then that is different and this could be done without being able to see our search history so this would be the only acceptable way

There are no acceptable ways to spy on your own citizens. Not even if you are looking for gay communist pedophiles.

RE: Oh hell....
By lewislink on 6/26/2009 1:40:50 AM , Rating: 2
My view is simple, those who want privacy have something to hide. Those who have nothing to hide will respect the authority and allow them to effectively protect us all by not trying to maintain privacy.

In other words, if you don't do wrong, you have nothing to fear. But people who complain about a lack of privacy are the ones who usually are trying to hide something.

RE: Oh hell....
By Cerin218 on 6/26/2009 10:20:08 AM , Rating: 1
WOW!! I want to be a dictator in a nation full of people who think like you. Here, I will give you what you want. We will start out small. Most clothing stores are public places, most stores have fitting rooms. The fitting rooms are private. Not anymore. If you want to try on clothing you will need to do so where the clothing is displayed. Oh wait, maybe now the privacy would be nice. To bad, no privacy for you. Why do you think there are LAWS that permit your privacy? Because they are IMPORTANT personal freedoms.

Or here's one just for me, please PM me your bank login information. You seem to not need or want that privacy.

Dumb ass.

RE: Oh hell....
By lewislink on 6/26/2009 11:33:56 PM , Rating: 2
Take another look at what I said. "The AUTHORITIES" are the ones who say you can't commit murder, steel or break the laws of society. THE AUTHORITIES have privileges that are needed to accomplish effective citizen protection.

And keep the hate speech going. My president will pass laws allowing people like me to bring up charges against people like you. And just as soon as I get the chance, what you own will belong to me and you will also pay fines.

I keep records of all the things people like you say online. Hehe

RE: Oh hell....
By mindless1 on 6/27/2009 2:01:01 AM , Rating: 2
You are overlooking that "the authorities" are mere mortals, who make errors both accidentally and deliberately for various reasons or motives.

It is not effective citizen protection to decide for the citizens that one thing in their lives is protected but that their freedom, their right to a reasonable level of privacy is not.

Further, if you really believe you have nothing to hide I beg to differ, even good lawyers and judges accidentally run afoul of the law every once in a while without realizing it.

Please understand, I don't want protection from one thing that someone else thinks is more important at the cost of my freedoms to get there, nor do the majority as this is one of the main principles the country is founded upon and cherishes.

Lastly, your record-keeping is a pathetic delusion, if even true, are you on drugs?

RE: Oh hell....
By lewislink on 6/27/2009 2:18:42 AM , Rating: 2
You need to rethink your privacy concerns. There are a number of privacy issues you are overlooking. Your medical records, financial records and just about anything else you allow other people to monitor are all far from private...even though the public normally doesn't see them.

As I said before, I say again....those who have something to hide will make an issue of the internet privacy concerns...usually the porn indulging kind.

My records are none of your business. But I dare you to speak abusively to me. You seem to want to solve your issues with abuse...if someone doesn't agree with you, they are evil and deserve punishment. That's a child's mentality, to resort to abuse. It shows immaturity in the user of abusive words. It shows that they aren't wise or intelligent enough to debate effectively or find a rational means of banter. To resort to insult shows ignorance.

By SuckRaven on 6/25/2009 2:22:44 PM , Rating: 5
Being on the internet is like reading a newspaper, or a magazine. Once I purchase the paper or magazine subscription, (i.e. an internet plan from whatever provider), it is subsequently nobody's business what I do there. Just like the place that sold me the newspaper is not going to come after me, into my house, and check up on which particular section of the paper I'm currently reading. The same type of privacy should be maintained on the internet.

RE: Internet
By MatthiasF on 6/25/09, Rating: -1
RE: Internet
By mcmilljb on 6/25/2009 3:25:35 PM , Rating: 5
Yes it is illegal to go through my mail period. Stay out of my mailbox. The USPS are the only ones who should see what is in my mailbox. It's in a box because it's PRIVATE.

It's been settled before. No one has the right to view information traveling through computer networks except for ISP's to do their job. It's been settled in legislation and in the courts.

If you can't get a warrant, why do need to see what someone is doing? The 10 day exception is stupid and plays into some "24" crap. The stuff in "24" is NOT REAL. It's called drama. There is no real life or death situations like the ones presented on that show.

If the Internet was public, why do I pay private companies for access to it? It is not some public service provided by the government. Private companies make up most of the Internet. Internet users deserve some privacy! Just like I do for my credit and my property.

RE: Internet
By Ticholo on 6/25/2009 4:13:04 PM , Rating: 2
Are you kidding?!
I literally had 2 seconds left on the timer before I hit reply just now!
If I didn't reply to you the TERRORISTS WOULD WIN!!!
You don't want that, do you?

More seriously, though, your last paragraph is really good. Guess who else is connected to the "public Internet"? Governments! I demand to know what they are doing on it!

RE: Internet
By Cerin218 on 6/26/2009 10:26:48 AM , Rating: 1
Brain dead idiot,

I think a more accurate metaphor would be packages. If they know you're receiving a package from a known source of something illegal, containing something illegal and they can verify you received it, they will have no problem getting a search warrant for your house to find it .

DUH! That is why you get a warrant, so a judge can assess the legality and merit of the search. Someone that has been appointed to interpret the laws written by the legislative branch. This is to protect you from the government being able to do whatever they want i.e. Hitler and the Jews. The framers of the constitution wrote this specifically because the king of England had nothing stopping him from doing whatever he wanted to persecute anyone. Maybe you should book a vacation to Iran and see what life is like NOT having these freedoms. I'm surprised you can walk without falling down more.

and what?
By Holly on 6/25/09, Rating: 0
RE: and what?
By 91TTZ on 6/25/2009 4:23:39 PM , Rating: 2
This is a horrible and shortsighted idea. If you allow them that opening to spy on you, they'll increase their spying powers using those excuses.

We are innocent until proven guilty and protected against unlawful search and seizure. It's not the burden of the people to prove their innocence to the watchful eye of the government; it's up to the government to prove the guilt of suspected criminals.

RE: and what?
By Cerin218 on 6/26/2009 10:36:50 AM , Rating: 2
Those Who Trade Freedom For Security, Deserve Neither.

-Benjamin Franklin

Read it several times, very carefully. Sleep on it. Really try to comprehend it before you so blithely give up the freedoms that people have DIED to grant you all in the name of "Won't someone think of the children!". Catching pedophiles, terrorists, and criminals can all be done today with existing laws. Why don't we just pull the plug on the whole internet and have done with it?

RE: and what?
By Holly on 6/30/2009 12:13:41 PM , Rating: 2
I see the point here, but believe me, it's all the matter of point of view.

I bet Benjamin Franklin wouldn't claim this if his relative was kidnaped and butchered like a pig to provide replacement body part for some monster who ordered this using internet.

And yes, I would happily give up every last bit of my freedom to keep that kidnaped person alive.

This entire discussion is BS
By MrBungle123 on 6/25/2009 2:57:11 PM , Rating: 5
To begin with we shouldn't be debating the qualifications of these "Czars" we should be debating the constitutionality of the "Czars". The authority for The President's cabinet comes from Article 2 Section 2 of the constitution which states:

he [The President] may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the Executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices

The secretaries of each department are approved by a majority vote in the senate after being appointed by The President. This means that all cabinet and higher positions are elected officials and are in some way accountable to the people that voted to put them in office...

This is not true with these "Czars" they are simply chosen by The President and only accountable to The President. They do not represent any executive departments; they simply create policy on issues and sections of the private sector that The President wants to have more power over. This is not what the founders intended and it should be stopped.

New Political Party Please
By Shig on 6/25/2009 10:30:05 PM , Rating: 2
The Democrats are the new Republicans with Socialism. The Republicans aren't even a political party anymore, they are just corporations.

I voted for Obama, but seriously what the hell man. These Czars may end up making Bush look good.

RE: New Political Party Please
By MrBungle123 on 6/26/2009 4:50:30 PM , Rating: 2
I voted for Obama, but seriously what the hell man.

You should have payed attention BEFORE the election, he had been saying what he wanted to do for the 2 years leading up to the vote.

By NullSubroutine on 6/25/2009 4:51:41 PM , Rating: 2
I would really appreciate if the President would stop expanding the powers of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, of which it has no authority or power to do under the US Constitution.

Tom Davis, DLA and Real ID Act
By coredneck on 6/25/2009 11:28:38 PM , Rating: 2
Mr. Davis should not get the position !

Mr. Davis started this push for the Real ID Act along with Francis James Sensenbrenner. One of the central items was the requirement that states sign the Driver License Agreement (DLA) which requires states to share their databases not only with other states but also Canada and Mexico as a start !

An interesting thing, the American association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) has their headquarters in Tom Davis's congressional district and is the author of the DLA. The DLA was created WITHOUT input from the various states and they tried to use Congress to shove it down states throats. The DLA has no due process rights when an interstate matter comes up with a given driver. The DLA is suppose to replace two interstate agreements - Driver License Compact (DLC) and Non-Resident Violator Compact (NRVC) which states were given the ability to put in with the compact laws some due process protection for their residents. The DLA does not allow such things. Sign the DLA and the signatory state is not allowed to make some changes in the legilation that local residents may desire. Some states choose not to assign points for minor out of state offenses for example. The NRVC has protection such as another state cannot enforce non-residents to comply on equipment violations and the little parking ticket. On equipment violations, some states are lenient about things like tinted windows such as Arizona and others have a hard nose attitude such as Virginia. Under the DLC/NRVC regime, the AZ driver doesn't have to comply with VA law on tint once he leaves where as under the DLA, he will even though he left VA. This is enforce through a court order to get the windows to comply with VA law.

Yea! Change we can believe in!!
By Cerin218 on 6/25/09, Rating: 0
Think about it
By icanhascpu on 6/26/09, Rating: -1
"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki