backtop

Internet President Obama Finally Picks Cyber Czar
Michael Barkoviak - December 23, 2009 12:00 PM
Print 55 comment(s) - last by fox12789.. on Dec 30 at 9:39 AM
The United States is able to finally move forward in its cyber defense efforts

After months of delays and speculation, President Obama has chosen Howard Schmidt, a corporate cyber security expert who also worked at Microsoft and eBay, to enhance the country's cyber infrastructure.

Schmidt, who also was an administration adviser for former President George W. Bush, will be responsible for coordinating military and civilian resources.  Furthermore, the latest member of Obama's cabinet will communicate regularly with Obama, and will also work with the president's economic group.

President Obama first announced the creation of the cyber czar position in late May, but said there wouldn't be a rush to appoint someone.  Schmidt will work with the National Security Council, not the National Economic Council, as this is the first time a person has been appointed as cybersecurity adviser.

In the previous administration, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the National Security Agency (NSA) were involved in a power struggle that led to ineffective cyber security.

The problem was so serious, in fact, Rod Beckstrom, former National Cybersecurity Center head, resigned due to the power struggle between the DHS and NSA.

Cybersecurity has been a pressing matter for Obama's administration, as the threat of foreign-based cyber attacks has grown significantly.  There have been numerous candidates considered for the job -- ranging from former Silicon Valley executives to a candidate who reportedly wasn't a fan of privacy -- with wide speculation among journalists.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
No Authority
By Ristogod on 12/23/2009 12:26:23 PM , Rating: 5
The government has no authority over the internet constitutionally. They know it, yet they simply assume control and everyone lets them. Czars? There is right given that allows them to make these types of positions. Doesn't anyone else see a very disturbing and scary outcome from these "Czars"?




RE: No Authority
By Ristogod on 12/23/2009 12:27:53 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
There is right given that allows them to make these types of positions.


That should read:

There is no right given that allows them to make these types of positions.


RE: No Authority
By WoWCow on 12/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: No Authority
By MrBungle123 on 12/23/2009 1:20:16 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
There are many, many things the constitution does not cover.


not really...

The 10th Ammendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That means EVERYTHING not explictily covered by the constituion as a federal government responsibility is reserved for state governments or the people in general. This includes unconstitutional health care bills, the internet, auto companies, banks, and just about everything else our completely out of control govenrment has decided to get its fingers into lately.


RE: No Authority
By Ard on 12/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: No Authority
By MrBungle123 on 12/23/2009 6:45:55 PM , Rating: 5
Thats only because the meaning of "welfare" has changed in the last 230 odd years... IF they used the word in the context in which it was meant by the authors of the constitution they would not be able to do these things.

General Welfare according to the founders meant not screw up your life and stand in the way of you exercising your rights, welfare according to the leftists running our government now means redistribute wealth.


RE: No Authority
By Jimbo on 12/23/2009 2:09:59 PM , Rating: 3
Last I checked, the 13th Amendment prohibited slavery.


RE: No Authority
By NeoConned08 on 12/26/2009 2:56:39 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
There are many, many things the constitution does not cover. The US constitution does not include education, universal health care, and stupidity. If you follow the wordings by itself, women are not included as well. Neither is slavery or lobbying mentioned. I don't mean to bash nor reinterpret the US constitution that was written over 200 years ago, but I would like to point out many many things have changed since then. What congress has done to "fix" or add to the constitution is through amendments.


Hmmmmm where is the amendment giving the Federal government the authority to usurp the 10th amendment? There is none. That was the whole POINT of the 10th amendment. Any of the things not outlined in Article 1 Section 8 the Federal government has NO authority over. The general welfare clause has been totally misconstrued along with the commerce clause.

http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm

http://constitutionalawareness.org/genwelf.html

quote:
The US constitution does not include education, universal health care, and stupidity.


Again, not having a top down, one size fits all centralized form of government was the whole POINT of the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't give you your rights, it's not even aimed at YOU. It's aimed squarely at the GOVERNMENT and was an attempt to bind down the growth/expansion of government.

Perhaps you might take a look at The Anatomy of the State by Rothbard. It's a real eye opener and there are mountains of evidence that proves what he said to be pretty much on the money.

http://www.la-articles.org.uk/roth.htm


RE: No Authority
By MrX8503 on 12/23/2009 12:48:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Doesn't anyone else see a very disturbing and scary outcome from these "Czars"?


What do you know about "Czars"?


RE: No Authority
By nafhan on 12/23/2009 2:08:01 PM , Rating: 1
Overview of the term:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czar_(political_term)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executiv...

In short:
The czar term and positions largely (although there was precedent) came into being with FDR and gained momentum during Nixon's presidency. They technically have no legal authority, but they do have political clout. Interestingly, most of the "Czars" under Obama are in positions that already existed, and some of the positions are confirmed by the Senate. FYI: I'm certainly not a political scientist, so I may be wrong on some or all of this.


RE: No Authority
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 12/23/2009 2:37:03 PM , Rating: 3
"most of the "Czars" under Obama are in positions that already existed"

I have to say, No that's not true. I never heard of Auto Czar before Obama. Never heard of the Bank Czar before Obama... we of the Economics field called the head of our US Banking world the Chairman of the Federal Reserves... I guess Obama wanted someone else to do this job. I never heard of a Climate Czar before Obama.... the list goes on. Now if you had said, only a few president had one or maybe high of two Czar therefore almost all Obama Czar are new position... Well I'd have to agree with you. He has more Czar under him then the grand total of Czar in all of US history.... Think about that... It's impossible to say "position already existed.." Unless he has 3 or 4 Czar working under the same title? Like 3 or 4 Car Czar, 5 banking Czars.. Remember Wikipedia is a horrible source for reliable information.


RE: No Authority
By tdawg on 12/23/2009 3:46:00 PM , Rating: 2
RE: No Authority
By ClownPuncher on 12/23/2009 3:55:43 PM , Rating: 3
Bleh, why would I want to fact check when I'm too busy worrying about the sky falling?


RE: No Authority
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 12/23/2009 6:14:05 PM , Rating: 3
Sky is not falling, but our government is showing true signs of weakness and falling apart. Review your history notes, start with Rome.
Facts are important and why I'm trying to get you to open your eyes and check them out for real instead of believing what is feed to you by the media, your friends, co-workers, and whomever else.
Of course, since most people like to think they know better, but never really look into the matter we are doomed to repeat history over and over and over again. This is not a one president thing... I booing the general public for becoming soft, letting the government get to big, and expecting others to do the work for them - instead of doing themselves.
I just hate seeing society turn away from the individual person and turn towards the pigeon hole society of socialist and communist countries. The more the government controls the less of an individual I can be... so I say, leave me alone to the Government and say I'll be amongst the first to defend my country and fellow country men.


RE: No Authority
By ClownPuncher on 12/23/2009 7:04:23 PM , Rating: 1
Blerp, uhh.

Ok, I am a Libertarian so part of that barfed out wall of text is just preaching to the choir. The rest is babbling and incoherent talking points.

Second, what is fed to me by the media? Which media? Oh, you're assuming I have watched any TV in the last 5 years, which I have not. I get my news from a wide variety of inbternet sites, I filter the BS and draw my own conclusions.

Third, history is very much a strong area for me. Rome is not a good comparison nor is it relevant. Republic vs. Empire.

Fourth, while some of what you say about big government is true, it does not relate to my post in any way. This is about fact vs. fiction. As much as I disagree with Obama, there is no reason to spread lies or "marginally" correct information about the man. I think we can disagree with him on his policies/actions/lack of actions without the need for spin.


RE: No Authority
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 12/23/2009 5:54:04 PM , Rating: 3
This article:
"President Obama first announced the creation of the cyber czar position in late May, but said there wouldn't be a rush to appoint someone."
Your link article:
"The Bush administration, for instance, created the "faith-based czar" and the "cybersecurity czar.""

So which article is not tell the truth? Only one president can create a Cyber Czar. So is the article written by daily tech or the one written by Obama public relations Czar and Webmaster Czar? Yes, I do forgive for mistakes and bad data... but one of these two statements above is a lie or very poor information. You take your pick...

Do mis-understand, I not saying Czar are bad, good or no other president used them.... I am just point out he is using more, and putting heavier weight on them... Press is only saying Czar because Obama was saying Czar so much. Any way you want to roll with it, it is not a good image that comes from all this talk from him about his Czars.


RE: No Authority
By Etsp on 12/23/2009 4:05:05 PM , Rating: 2
"Czar" is not an official position... it's a term being used by the media to describe various roles in Obama's Government.

I can assure you, their job title is not "Noun Czar". (replace Noun with Healthcare, Auto, Internet, etc.)


RE: No Authority
By captainentropy on 12/27/2009 4:59:01 PM , Rating: 2
many of them were there from the last administration. But yes, there isn't a "Rubber Czar" anymore which FDR created to oversee the rubber production for WWII. In case you didn't know, rubber was kinda important in that conflict. So all you knuckleheads chattering disapprovingly about Obama's czars as some thinly veiled attack to support claims of his "un-Americanism" you should just take a deep breath.

The czars are a great idea. It's a smart way of delegating responsibility to discrete units of people to address problems of some significance. I'm sure there are "czars" wherever you work. If you work at Fox "News" then they might be called "Freedom Chiefs" or some other inanity.


RE: No Authority
By rcc on 12/23/2009 2:44:05 PM , Rating: 4
Perhaps Commissar would be a better title.


RE: No Authority
By amanojaku on 12/23/2009 3:52:08 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
What do you know about "Czars"?
I know they can be cured with Campbell's chicken noodle soup, DayQuil, and Sprite.


RE: No Authority
By chagrinnin on 12/24/2009 1:21:50 AM , Rating: 2
And "if you don't stop pickin' a czar, it'll never get better."


RE: No Authority
By Ard on 12/23/2009 1:34:54 PM , Rating: 2
The argument will be that regulation of the internet falls under the Commerce Clause since information runs through and across multiple state lines.


RE: No Authority
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 12/23/2009 2:25:15 PM , Rating: 1
First thing I'd point out is this in not government action this is Obama action. He has done many things that other President would have be told, "No, you can not do that.." So, yes, I'm scared as H*ll crap every time he creates a new Czars. Most presidents had 0 to 1 czars.... he has what 30 now? Just not right.


RE: No Authority
By Armassault on 12/23/2009 6:44:42 PM , Rating: 1
You've GOT to be kidding. Did the teabaggers tell you this?
There's ALOT of scaremongering going on to try to discredit Obama and his administration, but this one takes the cake.
What "things" has he done that no other president couldn't have done?

Do you realize Bush had more "czars" than Obama has?
Yet it was never an issue before Obama took office, and the rightwingers suddenly had to scramble everything they could to make something up they could criticize him for.
The things we criticised Bush for were not ALWAYS fair. But the criticism wasn't based on lies and fearmongering to the same extent as the current criticism.

Find something real to criticize Obama for. There's GOT to be something...


RE: No Authority
By Reforger88 on 12/23/2009 7:19:20 PM , Rating: 3
"The things we criticised Bush for were not ALWAYS fair. "

Who is 'we'? Your talking points clearly indicate that you are regurgitating what someone else has thought out for you, but still, I am curious what the 'WE' refers to.


RE: No Authority
By Armassault on 12/23/2009 8:38:41 PM , Rating: 1
With "we" i meant the world community (who generally hated Bush), and i guess the 75%+ of americans who disapproved of Bush at the end of his term.
Hope that cleared it up for you.

Talking points?
What in my post do you see as a "talking point" exactly?


RE: No Authority
By Reforger88 on 12/23/2009 7:30:14 PM , Rating: 2
Incidentallly, 'teabaggers' is a pejorative reference to a crude sexual act primarily practiced by gay men, and has no place in intelligent debate.

Of course, if you are gay (which is certainly not a criticism) and partake in this particular act on a regular basis, it would explain why you would use it...no doubt it's 'on the tip of your tongue'.


RE: No Authority
By Armassault on 12/23/2009 8:47:15 PM , Rating: 1
Oh, your first thought was of a homosexual act?
I was using a term which has become pretty much mainstream, and is increasingly being used by the teabaggers themselves...

What you guys do in bed doesn't concern me. But stop trying to hog that term for yourselves. A teabag isn't derogatory unless you want it to be.


RE: No Authority
By Jimbo on 12/24/2009 2:04:55 AM , Rating: 2
Great point Armassault!
I now wish to "teabag" your mother.

Because, you know, a teabag isn't derogatory unless you want it to be.


RE: No Authority
By UncleRufus on 12/24/2009 9:47:33 AM , Rating: 3
I was under the impression that teabagging was something frat boys did to each other when one of them passed out after too much partying. It's a humiliation thing, right? I've never heard any gay folks talking about how much they wanted to 'teabag' somebody.


RE: No Authority
By Kurz on 12/23/2009 9:26:20 PM , Rating: 1
Obama... Has not fulfilled not one of his Campaign promises.
He wants to pile on more Debt in his first four years in the white house than Bush did in his 8.

He believes the Government should intrude in everyones lives and the bills he so pushes for may put people in jail for not having health insurance.

I could go on, but if you actually Actually followed what hes done I wouldn't be happy with him.


RE: No Authority
By Armassault on 12/23/2009 9:57:17 PM , Rating: 1
Well, you could argue that if the Bush administration hadn't mismanaged the economy, Obama wouldn't have had to instate those bailouts. The bailouts were actually proposed by Bush himself late 2008, if his term hadn't conveniently ended HE would be incurring that massive deficit.

During his two terms, the budget went from a small surplus to ever increasing deficits. He was responsible for tax cuts to the wealthy, cuts that were "unfinancied", meaning the tax cuts added to the growing deficits.
You really should be angry at him. For not balancing his budgets, and for largely being responsible for a global financial crisis.
But back when his deficits grew, no one uttered a word.
Not until "the next guy" took office.

Put people in jail? Are you serious? Turn off Fox "News". ASAP.


RE: No Authority
By Kurz on 12/25/2009 3:25:15 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/281758

There are many more News Articles out there.


RE: No Authority
By Armassault on 12/25/2009 9:04:26 AM , Rating: 2
"In the Senate, the Finance Committee’s health care bill was amended to nullify the possibility of jail time for not paying the penalty tax. It stipulates that in the case of nonpayment, "such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure."

Source: http://factcheck.org/2009/11/imprisoned-for-not-ha...

The "possible jail time" was for not paying your taxes.
There's nothing new about the (unlikely) possibility you could go to jail for not paying your taxes.


RE: No Authority
By Kurz on 12/25/2009 3:28:48 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graph...

Well... I know a lot people who voiced their opinions about Bush overspending. Though once a person is in power he can do anything he feels like.

I never watch the news (I read it).


RE: No Authority
By captainentropy on 12/27/2009 7:54:53 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly.

There is no truer saying than IOKIYAR (It's OK If You're A Republican).


RE: No Authority
By UncleRufus on 12/24/2009 9:43:32 AM , Rating: 2
Just wait until that Obama has MORE czars than Bush, then folks will really be mad!


RE: No Authority
By Armassault on 12/25/2009 8:46:22 AM , Rating: 1
Did anyone ever raise an eyebrow over the shitload of "czars" Bush used?
Why is this suddenly an issue?


RE: No Authority
By Yawgm0th on 12/23/2009 4:07:09 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The government has no authority over the internet constitutionally.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 and Clause 3.

Also, the Internet was created for and by the government. It was, for a time, run by the government, too. IANA was run by people contracted by the DoD and ICANN by the United States Department of Commerce.

You should go back to law school and go back to Internet school.


RE: No Authority
By captainentropy on 12/27/2009 4:44:53 PM , Rating: 2
are you one of those Glenn Beck supporting morons who think "czars" are some attempt to bring Russian/Soviet autocracy to the US?

If so you should educate yourself. Czars are just a way of shortening a long, boring title such as "U.S. attorney and Special Representative for the Southwest Border, Department of Justice" (Border Czar) or "United States Chief Performance Officer and Deputy Director for Management at the Office of Management and Budget" (Performance Czar). Etc, etc.


RE: No Authority
By fox12789 on 12/30/2009 9:39:34 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.brand-bar.com
sneaker: airmax 90, 95 etc $35-42 free shiping.
boots: UGG etc $60 free shiping.
Jeans : polo etc $35-49 free shipping
T-shirts : A&f etc $12-18 free shipping.
hoodies: 5ive etc $28-40 free shipping
handbags: Ed hardy etc $35-68 free shipping
Sunglasses: LV etc $17 free shipping
Belts: BOSS etc $15 free shipping
Caps: red bull etc $12-15 free shipping
Watches:rolex etc $80 free shipping
http://www.brand-bar.com


Qualified? Holy crap!
By Yawgm0th on 12/23/2009 4:03:14 PM , Rating: 2
Stolen from Wikipedia:
quote:
Schmidt holds a bachelor's degree in business administration (BSBA) and a master’s degree in organizational management (MAOM) from the University of Phoenix. He also holds an honorary doctorate degree in humane letters. Schmidt’s certifications include CISSP and CISM.[10] He is a professor of practice at the Georgia Institute of Technology's GTISC, professor of research at Idaho State University, adjunct distinguished fellow with Carnegie Mellon's CyLab, and a distinguished fellow with the Ponemon Institute. [11]


A CISSP is pretty much perfect for this position. You don't want a CISSP doing your firewall configuration or penetration testing (unless the person actually has low-level technical knowledge), but there isn't another set of letters I'd rather see in a position like this. Someone with broad, high-level security knowledge is exactly what this position needed. I'm glad he didn't pick some MBA-type management tool with no technical knowledge or someone from the DoD who knows nothing about computer security.




RE: Qualified? Holy crap!
By hiscross on 12/23/2009 4:25:17 PM , Rating: 3
I got interested in studying and taking the CISSP test a few years ago. This is what I leaned, CISSP is an inch deep in practically, and a mile wide in information. It does not qualify you or make you a security expert. Only practical real world experience will do that for you.


RE: Qualified? Holy crap!
By Yawgm0th on 12/23/2009 8:14:20 PM , Rating: 2
That's pretty much exactly what I just said. CISSP holders generally have broad, high-level technical information, but generally not in-depth, low-level technical information. The person in this position needs the former, but not the latter.

This person isn't going to be doing any technical work. Rather, he will be selecting some of the people that do and making some of the larger decisions. I think his qualifications line up with what his job will be.


RE: Qualified? Holy crap!
By chagrinnin on 12/24/2009 1:49:46 AM , Rating: 2
Besides that,...he went to the Pokemon Institute. How cool is that!


Czars are not Cabinet positions
By lightfoot on 12/23/2009 6:25:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...the latest member of Obama's cabinet...

Czars are not cabinet positions. Cabinet positions all must be confirmed by the US Senate. Czars appointed by Obama are at best personal advisors that have no legal power or authority.




RE: Czars are not Cabinet positions
By Armassault on 12/23/2009 6:33:11 PM , Rating: 1
Stop bringing facts onto the table. We're having another "blame Obama" party here...
*stupid liberals and their superior knowledge about stuff*


RE: Czars are not Cabinet positions
By Reforger88 on 12/23/2009 7:02:33 PM , Rating: 2
Armassault,

Your other posts seem to indicate that you are from some unspecified European country.

Since you exhibit nothing but contempt and hatred for the United States, and Americans in general, is it really appropriate for you to interfere in our political affairs or presume to know what's best for us?

Not only is your attitude condescending, but your opinions are ill informed and childlike.

I thought meddling in other peoples affairs was reserved for 'ugly' Americans.


RE: Czars are not Cabinet positions
By croc on 12/24/2009 12:48:14 AM , Rating: 2
And why should he not? You Yanks blithely grant citizenship to Rupert Murdoch (an Australian, last time I checked) and then let him run roughshod over any pollie he personally doesn't like. Similar behaviour got the Brits up in arms over his control-freak antics, so he kind of had to leave the UK. Australia had pretty much had it with Rupert, so coming back here wasn't a good option even in the Howard years. So where? The good old US of A. Where being somewhat to the right of Genghis Khan is viewed as a good thing....


RE: Czars are not Cabinet positions
By Jalek on 12/23/2009 8:48:14 PM , Rating: 2
I don't like the word czar, what is this, imperial Russia? Even Russia wouldn't use that word.

Call them Prime Ministers or something so we can at least pretend to have a remnant of a representative government.


Sounds about right...
By Suntan on 12/23/2009 12:28:50 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
President Obama first announced the creation of the cyber czar position in late May, but said there wouldn't be a rush to appoint someone.


When pressed for further comment, it was rumored that President Obama stated, “The important thing is that we continually increase the size of my government by adding these new appointments to the ever growing list of bureaucracy. The actual person I pick to fill the roll is really of little concern to me.”

At least that's what I heard.

-Suntan




RE: Sounds about right...
By Nimmist on 12/23/2009 4:35:10 PM , Rating: 2
I don’t always agree with posts on the internet, but when I do… I usually prefer Suntan


damn
By Chiisuchianu on 12/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: damn
By Jalek on 12/23/2009 9:59:36 PM , Rating: 2
As long as somebody gets paid (off), the system's working as intended.

They're worried about power control systems that've been pushed into modernizing and connecting to the internet for their "smart power" plans, when they were working reliably on their own lease lines, microwave stations, and 1200 baud simplex interconnections.

Now they're all on the internet and vulnerable, so now the government's got to do something about the liabilities they've created again.

No worries though, these guys are the same that had whitehouse.gov as an open relay throughout the 90's, which was pretty useful.


"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki