DailyTech - President Obama Finally Picks Cyber Czar

Submit News

Internet President Obama Finally Picks Cyber Czar
Michael Barkoviak - December 23, 2009 12:00 PM

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

Username
Password
remember me

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

RE: No Authority

By WoWCow on 12/23/2009 12:40:01 PM , Rating: -1

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.

There is certainly nothing stopping congress nor the executive office (president/white house) from establishing a cyber-security czar through an amendment. At best as a US citizen, the best you can do is to call your congressman and hope for the best he isn't and won't be taking any kickbacks or concessions.

Parent

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.

Parent

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.

Parent

RE: No Authority

By Jimbo on 12/23/2009 2:09:59 PM , Rating: 3

Last I checked, the 13th Amendment prohibited slavery.

Parent

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

Parent

"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner