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

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.

"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM

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