backtop


Print 39 comment(s) - last by MarthaGray22.. on Feb 17 at 9:30 PM

Order has been anticipated for some time now

President Barack Obama (D) has been widely criticized by conservatives for his use of executive orders to push the federal actions he wants when Congress is unwilling to go along with him.  The tactic isn't exactly new (FDR signed nearly 4,500 executive orders) and President Obama hasn't used it all that often (he's signed 144) [source].  But his critics contend his executive orders are more sweeping and loaded with action than past ones, so the small count is misleading.

I. Some Critics Say the Order Goes Too Far...

That criticism may be revived this week if President Obama drops his long-awaited cyberwarfare executive order.

Reuters spoke with government officials who had seen the order and said it is expected for a Wednesday drop.  The order is expected to expand the role the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) plays in policing the homeland online from both internal and external threats.
 
Obama speaking
President Obama wants to expand the federal gov't to "solve" the cybersecurity "crisis".
[Image Source: U.S. Aid]

 
The expansion of DHS authority alone is enough to make many a bit queasy.  Under President Bush, the new intelligence agency was a key point of controversy from his Democratic and third party critics.

Some Republicans even opposed the DHS under both Bush and Obama, although they're a drastic minority in Congress.  Perhaps most notable is Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) who has suggested that the Department of Homeland Security is poor in talent, offensive to civil liberties, and redundant, commenting [source]:

Before 9/11, we were spending $40 billion a year, and the FBI was producing numerous information about people being trained on airplanes, to fly them but not land them. And they totally ignored them. So it’s the inefficiency of the bureaucracy that is the problem. So, increasing this with the Department of Homeland Security and spending more money doesn’t absolve us of the problem. Yes, we have every right in the world to know something about intelligence gathering. But we have to have intelligent people interpreting this information.

But like it or not, Ron Paul and his supporters on the left and right may be unable to stop President Obama from pushing through the plan.

II. ...Others Complain It's Too Weak

One thing that will make it difficult to rally Congressional opposition to the order is that the order itself is actually relatively similar to the bills put forth by bipartisan committees in both the House and Senate last year.

In reality, most Congressional Democrats and Republicans agreed that some sort of increase in cyberdefense spending and more codified framework for public-private sharing of information on threats was necessary.  Both plans involved incorporating the DHS into those roles.  So on the surface at least the pending executive order does not sound all that different from what either the House or Senate had agreed upon.

Ultimately, neither bill passed last year, thanks largely to partisan bickering.  While the House bill and Senate bill were remarkably similar, the Republican controlled house insisted on its version being passed, while the Democratic controlled Senate demanded its bill be the final version.  Ultimately that gridlock sunk both bills, when a series of small changes would likely have been enough to reconcile the differences between the two bills.
 
Congress Buillding wide
Despite drafting nearly identical bills last year, the House and Senate were not able to reach agreement, due largely to partisan bickering. [Image Source: U.S. Congress]
 
The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is among the cyberdefense agencies frustrated by that bureaucratic train wreck.  But officials to acknowledge that it won't be easy convincing the private sector to trust federal security.

Comments FBI Executive Assistant Director Richard McFeely, head of the Criminal, Cyber, Response and Services Branch, "Our biggest issue right now is getting the private sector to a comfort level so they can report anomalies, malware, incidents within their network [without them fearing media leaks]."

Reportedly the information sharing portions of the order will be voluntary for most businesses.  

Indeed, despite the controversy over what the order does do, there's also some concern/criticism about how much it doesn't get done.  Comments one source to Reuters -- "We know the executive order isn't going to go as far as legislation could or will go, but it's a good start."

Stewart Baker, former National Security Agency (NSA) general counsel and a past assistant secretary for policy at the DHS comments, "I think this can fairly be described as a down payment on legislation.  [It should do something positive], but whether it will provide practical protection from cyber attacks is still in doubt."

Source: Reuters



Comments     Threshold


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

This is a power grab, plain and simple.
By SAN-Man on 2/12/2013 4:11:38 PM , Rating: 2
The Federal government wants in your private network and right now a private network is like a private residence, in order to get in you need a judge to say it's OK.

After this "executive order" my belief is companies will be compelled to grant access to big brother simply by the Fed stating there is a "national security risk".

It's the same with the drone strikes. The Fed (namely the President) need not prove you are a terrorist, they simply must ACCUSE you of it and now you can be targeted with a drone strike.

This will work the same way. The Fed will accuse your network of having a flaw which risks national security, there will be no oversight, no due process, you will simply be required to grant the Fed access to your network.




By roykahn on 2/12/2013 7:21:59 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, good points. I think that this is part of the effort to stop people like Bradley Manning and Julian Assange from attempting to expose the crimes, deceit and corruption of government agencies and the business elite. Information is power, and only the privileged are allowed access. Just dress up the law as cyber-security, say it is in the nation's interests in dealing with techno-terrorists and *bingo* instant political and public support. After all, you don't want the terrorists to win, do you?

One need only look at how the Obama administration has dealt with whistle-blowers to see what the true motives are.


"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer














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