backtop


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

RE: Oh hell....
By MatthiasF on 6/25/2009 2:26:50 PM , Rating: -1
The Internet is not a private place, it literally is a public realm. Just like cars on public streets, there are good reasons why surveillance and search is allowed without warrant.


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
quote:
Lord Obama would bring peace and unity to the force.


They said the same thing about Anakin
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
FFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU


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.


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki