August 10, 2009
4 Comments »
Comment by William R. Cumming
August 10, 2009 @ 9:38 am
OKay let’ skip NSA whose funding and staffing is secret. I recommend that they be pulled out from under DOD and report directly to the President. Many reasons and won’t go into it here.
What would be of interest is to track cyber security effort, staffing and expenditures post Y2 effort which was huge and not just government wide but also national in scope!
Perhaps this would give some indications of whether we (US) is putting our funding and staffing where our mouth is with respect to cyber. I think that because the underlying platforms heavily implicate the private sector and its interests the real battle is not over who does it but who pays for cyber security because likely to be expensive. As CSIS reported last December it really is different that CIP generally and HS. Perhaps at the same time a review of the entirety of the federal telecommunications effort would be appropriate. There used to be a Telecommunications Adminsitration in Commerce and not sure if it is still there. The FCC is involved and so are other organizations like the NCS which is part of the NPPD in DHS. My point is that we don’t still have a really good baseline even though I would argue that IT and telecommunications are now as large a sector of GDP as autos if not larger. Only two agencies opposed the AT&T consent order in 1982, DOD and FEMA. I think the 1996 Telecommunications Act did not understand the cyber world developing and the PCCIP report did not get issued until the fall of 1997. I think the whole arena of Cyber Security needs a massive upgrade and is much more important that certain other well staffed and well funded federal efforts. And in DOD I see a totally new force (purple suits) running for all the ARMED FORCES cyber and IT through safety and security to R&D. Hey if we grow enough purple forces maybe we will not need the former uniformed services. Except for boots on the ground of course. Nuclear surety, safety and command and control should also be totally purple suited.
Comment by christopher tingus
August 11, 2009 @ 4:57 am
The color purple embodies the stimulation of red and the calm of blue and is indeed appropriate in the 21st century.
While it may indeed not be the favorite color of the majority of participants, purple denotes mystical qualities, nobility, intellect, pervaded with spirituality inherent to a “Cyber Command” having a broad, yet specific objective in defending the honor of this great nation and most charitable people!
Mr. & Mrs. Citizen Joe hopes that those entrusted to have the keen insight into the ever evolving cyber world as portrayed by the levels of complexities will be addressed with urtgency for after all we worry at our infancy in competency, but still utilize firewall and other secuity of on simple laptop.
While we thought our government leadership on both sides of the aisle would have identified long ago the necessity to be not one, but ten or more “levels” ahead of those intent to commit “cyberblackmail” or worse….
The competent leadership replacements mentioned herein are much welcomed.
Their invaluable insight are most needed as we ratchet up the numbers of Cyber Security Command and challenge the “KGB Putinites” for they, too are getting the notion that their men in black should be “cyber savvy” as I refer to the “Purple Command” though it is the more than capable pan-Asian computer literacy which already has far reaching affects….
Let’s get a move on all this and prioritize the the well respected – purple people – for they are integral to the team if we wish to deter those that are onbviously seeking our demise 24×7.
Again, all hats off to the folks especially at NSA and others in other agencies who each and every day are committed to the strategy and intellect required to obliterate the opponent at every level of mastery.
With all the DS Lites walking around the malls these days, I have much confidence that if we can keep the WMD out of the hands of those wishing to swipe the WMDs in Pakistan from our sight, the little purple people playing Wii and other will be a formidable force and serve our great nation with the strength depicted by Red Power Ranger and the confidence and calmness often associated with the Blue Power Ranger!
Christopher Tingus
Harwich, MA 02645 USA
chris.tingus@gmail.com
Comment by Sam Clovis
August 11, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
I find this blog one of the most useful, thoughtful and informative venues for gaining insight into the incredibly complex homeland security policy arena. I do, however, want to bring to the attention of readers something to think about as we contemplate the direction of the nation.
My concern is not with the fact that we cannot find anyone to fill the cyber “czar” position. I am more concerned with the fact that we need a czar at all. The Czar construct of governance is very disturbing to me. This form of governance feeds an expansion of power in the Executive Branch that is outside the Constitutional guarantees afforded through the explicit checks and balances codified in our Founding Document.
The Senate of the United States Congress, as is written into the Constitution, is to provide “advice and consent” on “principal officers” that are to work in the Executive Branch. Czars are not vetted through this process. Similarly, there is no official oversight of the Czars or their operations anywhere in the Congress. These officers have policy-making authority without constraint. Thus, an extra-constitutional governance structure is established that is not subject to Constitutional scrutiny.
If one were to examine the 34 Czars established by this administration, one would see that there is a great deal of redundancy with existing Executive Branch departments. In fact, one does not have to work very hard to assign the Czars to departments. Why, then, would the President of the United States think it necessary to establish such a governance structure?
President Reagan established one Czar and in the intervening administrations there have been 8 more czars appointed. There are 34 czars established by this administration. These structural modifications to the executive branch are wholly inappropriate if there are no checks and balances that protect the integrity of Constitutional government and, to the ultimate end of popular sovereignty, that the government not operate at the behest of those governed.
The Constitution is the codification of a solumn agreement between the people and those charged to govern prudently, wisely and cautiously. Any governance structure that circumvents checks and balances and that operates without an ear for the voice of the people should be viewed with concern. For me, the government outlined in the Constitution is good enough.
Comment by William R. Cumming
August 18, 2009 @ 8:40 am
Agree completely with Sam’s comment above. I knew we were in excess of 20 Czars and Czarinas but good to know they are now in excess of 30!
Perhaps SECTION 301 of the US Code should be modified to require delegation only to those positions requiring Advise and Consent by the Senate. In an early case (180-3) the SCOTUS held that anyone dealing with a government official (clerk?) was entitled to know their position and what authority they had been delegated. Perhaps the Imperial Presidency needs some trimming of its royal perogatives if our democracy (republic) is to be preserved.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
