Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Tech Lobbyist Named to DHS Top Security Post 107

An anonymous reader writes "Greg Garcia, a lobbyist for the high-tech industry, has been appointed to fill the new assistant secretary post for cyber security and telecommunications at the Department of Homeland Security. Garcia, a VP with the Information Technology Association of America, will try to resuscitate DHS's flagging efforts to formulate a response plan should the nation's key digital assets come under concerted attack or crumble due to some catastrophic failure. DHS is a little late in filling this post: Congress created it 14 months ago after getting fed up with the agency's lack of progress on cyber issues."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tech Lobbyist Named to DHS Top Security Post

Comments Filter:
  • by macadamia_harold ( 947445 ) on Tuesday September 19, 2006 @01:29AM (#16135990) Homepage
    Garcia, a VP with the Information Technology Association of America, will try to resuscitate DHS's flagging efforts to formulate a response plan should the nation's key digital assets come under concerted attack or crumble due to some catastrophic failure.

    But what will he do if the tubes become clogged?
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I would guess the tubes have already become clogged with money.

      Generally government is swiftest to act when this dangerous situation occurs, and the key words "private-sector participants" imply a problem that could best be solved by giving the excess money to the first insider who takes it.

      As a lobbyist, Garcia has the connections and experience to remove this money from the tubes as efficiently as possible, while simultaneously routing future congestion to his selfless corporate backers -- who will willin
      • by Ana10g ( 966013 )
        Well, I'd like to make a contradictory point here. Not that the private sector isn't greedy, because it is, but the government sector is just as greedy. Private sector industries are not burdened by nearly as much red tape and stupid bureaucracy, and will ALWAYS be more efficient that the government. In this case, outsourcing security work to the private sector is fine, as long as the contracts are not written in such a way as to make them anticompetitive (e.g.: sole source), bureauracratic (e.g.: oversi
        • Private sector industries are not burdened by nearly as much red tape and stupid bureaucracy,

          Bullshit. In my last private sector job, any project that failed to show a profit by the next quarterly report was considered to be a failure. At least in State Government, the cycle is the bienium, and we have two years to complete projects.
          • by Ana10g ( 966013 )
            Actually, not showing a profit has nothing to do with red tape or bureaucracy. Bureaucracy has to do with all of teh crap that you need to go through to get a particular task accomplished, such as an approval process for a particular action item having too many steps. Such as a software design process that, from beginning to end, has over 800 steps! And that doesn't even address implementation!
            • I think you miss my point. Private industry, because of the focus on profit, kills useful projects far to early. They do so because their concentration, due to SEC regulations, is on the quarterly bottom line, not on the future. Government has a similar short sightedness, but depending upon the budget cycle, will spend the extra money at the end to finish a project within the budget cycle instead of just killing it outright and wasting man-hours.
              • by Ana10g ( 966013 )
                I just noticed your handle... I'm not sure we're ever going to settle this issue between us, actually :)

                There's two sides to your argument. Killing projects far too early can be a financial burden, yes, as wasted man hours and budget are spent on the project when it will never see the light of day. However, the opposite side of the coin is that, when a project is doomed to failure, killing it early may actually be a cost savings, rather than continuing to lather lipstick on an already ugly pig.

                I'm wi
                • Actually, my main argument is on efficency of the beuracracy- Waste in government results in jail sentences, so there is an attempt made to "save" the project and at least use it for something. Waste in private industry is barely punished at all, and not at all at the decision making (CxO) level, so the "cost savings" method of killing innovation is much more attractive.
    • by eyeye ( 653962 ) on Tuesday September 19, 2006 @02:06AM (#16136096) Homepage Journal
      He will get laws passed that make fantastic profits for the companies he lobbies for.

      US politics 101
      • by hcob$ ( 766699 )
        He will get laws passed that make fantastic profits for the companies he lobbies for.

        US politics 101
        Last I learned in US Politics 101 is that CONGRESS passed the laws, the President signs them, and the Judiciary reviews them. Yes, his opinion will have large sway with the President, but you gotta ram crap through Congress first.
        • He will get laws passed that make fantastic profits for the companies he lobbies for. US politics 101

          Last I learned in US Politics 101 is that CONGRESS passed the laws

          Last I learned in English class, "he will get laws passed" means he will to things to make them be passed, not that he himself will pass them.

          You don't think that this money man will be in a position of influence?

          The whole system is about money. War on drugs? Money. War in the middle east? Money. It's not about ideology;

        • but you gotta ram crap through Congress first.

          With enough campaign contributions, you could get that body to rename the color Black, White. Congress is no obstacle when the voters are always presented with two equally bought-and-paid-for politicians who accepted bribes from the same companies.
      • Right you are, good citizen, with ITAA being the number one promoter of the offshoring of ALL American IT jobs!!! Anyone doubting this, just Google "Information Technology Association of America" + "offshoring". Man oh man....these clowns just when to put that blade in deeper and deeper.
    • Simple, he'll just shoot a lottery ball through it...
    • Bring back the trucks.
    • ...call a plummer, and possibly install bigger pipes with less bends for better flow...
    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      Given his last name, swab them out for less than $2/hr. Isn't that what illegal immigrants do?
  • Gibson (Score:3, Funny)

    by SuperBanana ( 662181 ) on Tuesday September 19, 2006 @01:32AM (#16136001)
    Greg Garcia, a lobbyist for the high-tech industry, has been appointed to fill the new assistant secretary post for cyber security and telecommunications at the Department of Homeland Security. Garcia, a VP with the Information Technology Association of America, will try to resuscitate DHS's flagging efforts to formulate a response plan should the nation's key digital assets come under concerted attack or crumble due to some catastrophic failure.

    Dude. Just put a level 10 firewall around the Gibson, keep a file on all Vanilla Ice wannabees, and have a watchlist for Powerbook Duo owners.

    • "Brian thought that he was totally hacking the Gibson, but ended up formatting his own hard drive instead."
    • by Gilmoure ( 18428 )
      I am a Powerbook Duo 270c owner, you insensative clod!
    • Personally, I would support this move. While there are certainly matters of personal freedom involved, I would pay any price, bear any burden, undertake any action possible to save a new generation from "Ice Ice Baby". Secret prison camps with sound-proofed walls filled with upper-middle class white kids with bad hair and the mistaken impression they're hip? It's not just something I'd accept, it's something I'd encourage!

      Please, DHS, please! Think of the children! Think of the children who, 15+ years
      • "I would pay any price, bear any burden, undertake any action possible to save a new generation from "Ice Ice Baby"....15+ years later still have to hear this crap on early 90's compilation CDs!"

        Well, whenever Ice Ice Baby comes on...just promptly get up, and throw on Queen/Bowie's "Under Pressure", from whence the 'hook' was stolen.

        You'll get a much more pleasing and original musical experience. No cringing required.

        :-)

  • by BadAnalogyGuy ( 945258 ) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Tuesday September 19, 2006 @01:35AM (#16136010)
    Look at how badly DHS and the TSA are handling air travel. Now think about how royally they can screw up our information infrastructure.

    These are unelected officials making law by fiat. And like anything made by fiat, it's crappy and doesn't run very long until you have to take it to Tony to fix it again.
    • by kfg ( 145172 ) *
      it's crappy and doesn't run very long until you have to take it to Tony to fix it again.

      I own a FIAT, please give what you can
      I'm broken and tired and footsore young man
      I walk the cold earth, with my hat in my hand
      Saying, "I own a FIAT, please. . .give what you can.

      There aren't too many American country songs about Italian car ownership. In fact, I think that's the one.

      KFG
    • by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Tuesday September 19, 2006 @09:52AM (#16137366)
      These are unelected officials making law by fiat.

      So. You think we should actually include positions like "Deputy Undersecretary Of Transportation for Ice Cream Truck Regulation" part of the general federal election? How about his boss? And his boss's boss? And above him? Oh, right, we already do that. Was the Secretary Of Transportation under Bill Clinton acting according some idyllic democratic principle, but the same role under a different administration is suddenly Junior Ceasar?

      Wake up. We elect an executive administration specifically to get things done, and they appoint people into thousands of roles as part of that job. Every administration has different priorities and policies, but if they had to try to get anything done while dealing with - what, thousands of departmental bureaucrats all of whom had to run campaigns to get their office? - you'd have absolutely no ability to focus on anything.

      Every four years you get to vote for the person who appoints such people, and every 4 or 6 years, you get to vote for the legislators that fund what they do (or not).

      So, what's your problem? Don't like the reality of the structure of the executive branch of government, or just don't like it when you don't like who happens to head it at certain times? Or maybe, as is more likely, you know all of this and you're just trolling in hopes of scoring some lame political points with whatever percentage of this audience actually does not know how it works, and wants to hear you paint some Emperor image of the presidency. Just remember, if you ever to get together enough votes for someone you do like better, whatever FUD you spread about the nature of the office and its interaction with other agencies is going to impact that person, too.
      • Wake up. We elect an executive administration specifically to get things done, and they appoint people into thousands of roles as part of that job.

        [. . .]

        Every four years you get to vote for the person who appoints such people, and every 4 or 6 years, you get to vote for the legislators that fund what they do (or not).


        I agree entirely, and wish more voters would stop voting for the candidate they'd most like to have a beer with, and start voting for people who are competent and will make responsible decisi
        • I agree entirely, and wish more voters would stop voting for the candidate they'd most like to have a beer with, and start voting for people who are competent and will make responsible decisions and appointments.

          I used to say things like that all the time. I never could understand that people would vote for someone based on his good looks, or charming voice, or good mannerism. I mean, ok, sure he's handsome and talks good, but he's a MORON people, don't you see? Then it dawned on me (and it took me over 2

    • It's all about offshoring - with the ITAA being the chief promoter of offshoring American IT jobs over the past 6 years.....
  • by JanneM ( 7445 ) on Tuesday September 19, 2006 @01:41AM (#16136030) Homepage
    Well, as a tech industry veteran, he has the protocol all set:

    "Calm down, sir, calm down. Now, a disaster you say? How so? Uh-uh.. Uh-uh... Uh-uh.. Hmm, yes, it sounds like your country is infected with a virus alright, and a nasty one too. Here's what you do: You shut down the country, reinstall the government and then you restart the whole thing from the beginning. That should take care of it. Have a nice day now!"

    • by k2r ( 255754 )
      > you restart the whole thing from the beginning.

      Just minutes ago a customer who is an engineer and surveyor for very special stuff told me that he was offered a good job in the US but his insurance specifically excluded coverage in the US. He wouldn't want to risk to be detained somewhere or to be ruined for the rest of his life because of some stupid lawsuit. So he'd prefer working in China.

      He concluded that the US political and judicial system was a probable case of "the dog ate my homework" and that
      • by tbone1 ( 309237 )
        Ah yes, better to stay out of the US, where lawyers are amoking a bit, than in China, where the worse that can happen is being run over by an armored personnel carrier.

        I am no fan of lawyers, but criminy, ...

    • by kfg ( 145172 ) *
      Sounds like a plan.

      KFG
    • Yes,he is a vetaran and have enough qualified skills and knowledges and experiences fot the secratary post.Look for new ways to perform the given responsibilities maybe by a proper control of data mining of your company.thus, linkages and unauthorized access to secured data can be prevented.
  • by RyanFenton ( 230700 ) on Tuesday September 19, 2006 @01:41AM (#16136032)
    I wonder how many of these 'former' lobbyists in positions as leadership in governmental agencies get their taxes audited? It would be fascinating to see what kinds of offshore accounts they have, and how their balance changes once they are in a position to 'regulate' the industry they used to represent?

    But really - I'm sure this is all done in the purest of intentions. After all, the best people to run agencies are those really familiar with the issue at hand, and cagey enough to know what tricks people out to trick the government are, right? The weight of responsibility of protecting American's safety and well being is best secured when it is in the hands of people who used to press the government to look the other way when industries wanted to maximize... certain negative and positive externalies, shall we say.

    Ryan Fenton
    • the administration is apparently following the same plan for cybersecurity that they used to reconstruct Iraq----put it in the hands of people who are cheerleaders for the administration but have no real competence for the job at hand. Expect similar results!
    • by PopeRatzo ( 965947 )
      Ryan, someone seems to have moderated your post "Funny". Someone's strange sense of humor finds the idea that a former sleazebag (lobbyist) for corporate interests will now have free reign with fat government contracts for cyber security. Sounds suspiciously like another croney named Brown that was in charge of FEMA during Katrina. Some freaking joke.

      A news story came out yesterday that these positions under the current administration are given out based on ideological "purity" and agreement with their ex
    • Offshore accounts are too risky these days. There's plenty of ways to hide money in plain sight: personal PACs, sham non-profit foundations, etc. California's former Insurance Commissioner set up a sham charity (California Research and Assistance Fund) that received millions from insurance companies in exchange for him waiving billions in claims and penalties related to the 1994 Northridge quake. That's what I call a return on investment.

      Wikipedia entry for Chuck Quackenbush [wikipedia.org]
      Timeline of scandal [insurancejournal.com]
    • Hear, hear. It is my opinion that public servants should have their lives made public.

      Barack Obama and Tom Coburn just got a major accountability/transparency bill passed so we can see where "our money" (our debt, actually) is being spent. Like a bus full of lawyers at the bottom of the ocean, it's a good start.

      I say that if you want to be a public servant, you lose all privacy. That's the trade off. I don't mean the way it is now, where your past is investigated in order to smear you. You get elected, appo
  • by glomph ( 2644 ) on Tuesday September 19, 2006 @01:43AM (#16136038) Homepage Journal
    Wow, we are really peeling back the foreskin of quality here. You could probably do better shopping for bureaucrats at Wal-Mart.
    • Wow, we are really peeling back the foreskin of quality here

      That is without a doubt the most disgusting metaphor I've seen in some time! Well done!

  • by geoff lane ( 93738 ) on Tuesday September 19, 2006 @01:43AM (#16136041)
    Network security needs widespread attention to detail. Some guy in a Washington office won't make one jot of difference unless he starts investigating why most government computer services are based on a product that is insecure by design.
  • by stox ( 131684 ) on Tuesday September 19, 2006 @01:52AM (#16136065) Homepage
    The Department of Homeland Security was originally created using an alloy of Bureaucratritum and Administrontium. Sadly, the amount of alloy used exceeded the critical mass, resulting in a Black Hole of un-imagined proportions. Our only hope now is to collide the DHS with another Black Hole of unimagined proportions such as the SSA.
  • by Mantrid42 ( 972953 ) on Tuesday September 19, 2006 @03:01AM (#16136211)
    He'd be here commenting on this story. The fact that I haven't seen this guy comment on a story about himself on Slashdot makes me wonder just how tech savvy he really is.
    • by Bootvis ( 913169 )
      Well, you could give him some time. There is a Garcia somewhere on slashdot with a low uid.
    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      And he'd have a wikipedia entry. Searching Wikipedia for "Greg Garcia" just got me a short blurb about a writer for Warner Brothers.

      It's interesting when there is more interest on WP about an almost unknown sitcom writer than the guy appointed to be the "Cyber-Security" Guru. (although I'm sure someone will fix that soon)
    • Speaking as someone who has been involved in the IT-SCC [it-scc.org] that was created as part of HSPD-7 [whitehouse.gov], I've had several occasions to talk and meet with Greg. This doesn't mean that we always agree, that is natural, but he does "get it" with things in this space. There are significant challenges when any department is charged with protecting infrastructure that is privately owned. Who "owns" the internet? Well, nobody, there are large networks that are operated by various companies/carriers that put things together
      • Since you've actually met him- do you think his loyalty lies with the corporations, the American People, or Mexico?

        I only ask because people I've met from the ITAA have all had an extremely anti-American-worker bias in their opinions and attitudes; and when somebody named Garcia comes from the ITAA and joins the "Department of Homeland Security" in any capacity, that makes me feel a LOT less secure than before.
  • by LuYu ( 519260 ) on Tuesday September 19, 2006 @03:29AM (#16136253) Homepage Journal

    Perhaps he could be convinced that information replication is the only way to protect our information environment and that DRM would aid "terrorists" or whatever our Eurasia/East Asia is called nowadays. Then he could prosecute the *AAs for treason.

    It seems that a DRM system would be a rather powerful weapon in the hands of an attacker. The ability to revoke or alter all instances of a document worldwide and trusted systems in general would be quite useful to someone wanting attack a country's communications, especially if users and administrators were barred from preventing it at the hardware level.

    • The ability to revoke or alter all instances of a document worldwide and trusted systems in general would be quite useful to someone wanting attack a country's communications, especially if users and administrators were barred from preventing it at the hardware level.

      It would also be quite useful to a corporately controlled government who wanted certain, shall we say, inconvenient documents to disappear down the memory hole. Say, something like this one [slashdot.org]?

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren
    • More likely, coming from the ITAA, he not only is for DRM, he wants to outsource development of it to India. Either that or get more H-1bs because "No American could be found with 26 years of experience in DRM".
  • Duh! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by misleb ( 129952 ) on Tuesday September 19, 2006 @03:48AM (#16136290)
    If my boss came to me and asked me to formulate a plan on "cyber issues," I probably wouldn't accomplish much either.

    Here's a thought, maybe there isn't a damn thing DHS can do about a concerted attack on key points of the internet. Maybe it just isn't possible for one government agency, no matter how disgustingly bloated or invasive, to "protect" a largely private, distrubuted, decentralized, global internet. What are they going to do, mandate that all ISPs and carriers around the world stock up on duct tape? I can't describe the kind of warm fuzzies this whole thing sends down my spine.

    I say fsck DHS and the Chimp it rode in on.

    Hold on a second, someone is knocking on my doorNO CARRIER
    • by jotok ( 728554 )
      Well, you could do a basic requirements analysis and figure out where the "key points" are, what they are, what could happen if they were degraded or taken offline, and then what you could do to compensate. Basically, the country needs our "cyber" infrastructure in both the short term (disaster response communications) and long term (Wall Street). So you ask yourself what contingency plans we might have if a biological attack occurred at the same time as a power plant failure, or you might look at financi
  • Job description (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Alright, here's your desk. Basically, you can do nothing and sit on your ass all day. No problem, you bought the privilege. At some point something might cross your desk that we'll tell you to sign to help out our buddies, but otherwise, that'll be about it. However, when disaster does strike, it's your job to basically take up a lot of television time saying that the administration is doing a wonderful job. The President will be out fundraising or stumping or playing a guitar or whatever, so your responsib
  • by 99luftballon ( 838486 ) on Tuesday September 19, 2006 @05:17AM (#16136490)
    With around 85 per cent of the US critical infrastructure in private hands the post does need someone who can get private companies on board. The chief problem though is that it isn't in shareholder interests to actively help in this program if it cuts shareholder dividends or hurts profits. The only way to rectify this would be for legislation fining companies for insecure critical networks.

    Given that this guy is an industry lobbyist and the stance of the Republicans on holding any industry to account I'd expect to see a porcine acrobatic team (the Pink Devils perhaps?) performing over Washington than any real progress being made.

    But all this ignores the basic fact; cyber terrorism has yet to materialise beyond a few disgruntled virus writers. As Bruce Schneier has pointed out repeatedly strapping on a suicide belt is far more effective than any form of online attack. If my email goes down I'm inconvenienced, not terrorised.
    • by planetmn ( 724378 ) on Tuesday September 19, 2006 @07:45AM (#16136820)
      Yes, if your email goes down your only inconvenienced, but that's not the "doomsday scenario" envisioned to combat against. There are many areas of our economy and society that now rely on the internet in some way, shape or form. Imagine if all of a sudden all ATMs stopped working, bank tellers couldn't access accounts and credit cards stopped working. On a small scale, it's no big deal really. But on a nationwide scale, it causes panic. Remember, people don't react rationally (hell, I yell at the TV set, and I know that's not rational).

      More and more of our telecommunications infrastructure is potenetially vulnerable. And without the ability to check up on friends and family, a physical attack would be magnified by the psychological impact of not being able to see if somebody is ok and the worrying involved.

      So an attack on our network infrastucture could be very bad for the US. Do I think it's likely? No. But in 2000 if you asked me if I thought terrorists would be able to hijack four airplanes simultaneously and crash them into buildings, I'd have probably said no. It's not the body count that hurts us most, it's the psychological effects. We were attacked here on our soil by a foreign enemy, and that was something new to us.

      I don't think that this lobbyist is going to help us, but then again, I've become more and more cynical about our government being able to accomplish anything (whether it be in regards to rights, terrorism, foreign affairs, or even the tax code) so I'm not exactly unbiased. It's easy to say that cyber terrorism hasn't really caused any problems, and never will. And you'll probably be right for a while. But eventually, there is a good chance that statement will be proven false.

      -dave
  • How delightful to know that the job is going to someone who won't actually know what needs to be done to solve any problems but will be able to instantly name the companies from whom we need to buy a lot of very expensive goods and services.
  • A lobbyist??? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sm62704 ( 957197 ) on Tuesday September 19, 2006 @07:17AM (#16136747) Journal
    Good job, Brownie. Would it be too much to ask that we get someone who knows something about security to run homeland security? I guess it would...

    While 3500 people died in terrorist attacks on US soil in your lifetime, 40,000 people die on the highways every single year.

    Homeland Security is about keeping you terrified so you'll continue to let the corporate-owned US government keep taking your rights away.
  • I'm still stuck on "flagging". What exactly is a "flagging effort"? Didn't know flag could be used as an adjective. I guess it's an effort that just blows around in the breeze at the whim of the administration.

    From Oxford English Dictionary:

    flag

    noun
    1 a piece of cloth or similar material, typically oblong or square, attachable by one edge to a pole or rope and used as the symbol or emblem of a country or institution or as a decoration during public festivities : the American flag. used in refer
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      That's because you're using the wrong dictionary.

      Miriam-Webster [m-w.com] says:

      Main Entry: flagging
      Function: adjective
      1 : LANGUID, WEAK
      2 : becoming progressively less : DWINDLING
      - flaggingly adverb

      and American Heritage [bartleby.com] says:

      SYLLABICATION: flagging
      PRONUNCIATION: flgng
      ADJECTIVE: 1. Declining; weakening: flagging strength. 2. Languid; drooping.
      OTHER FORMS: flaggingly --ADVERB

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by lostboy2 ( 194153 )
        Hmmm... FWIW, the online Oxford English Dictionary [oed.com] also has this definition:

        flag, v.
        1. To hang down; to flap about loosely.
        2. To become limp or flaccid. Now only of plants: To droop, fade
        3. Of wings: To move feebly or ineffectually in attempting to fly. Of a bird: To move its wings feebly (in early use also trans. with wings as obj.); to fly unsteadily or near the ground. Obs.
        4. To become feeble or unsteady in flight. Hence in wider sense (in early use perh. consciously transf.): To be unable to maintain on
  • Who they put in charge of what. If a particular group, terrorist or not, decides to crash the web it is going to happen. There is no stopping extremest actions, this is being proven everyday. Sure you will catch some of them, but it is there is always that one that gets through.
  • Can you run Linux on him?
  • As it happens, I discovered that this happened before. I typed into the very cool and soon to take over the world intelligent search engine Hakia [hakia.com] "Is it legal for a lobbyist to run DHS?" and Hakia showed me that in January 2006 Bush nominated a lobbyist (Nicole Nason) to take over the NHTSA [consumeraffairs.com]. As head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, she would apparently be in the position of implementing measures that she had opposed as a lobbyist for DOT. In delicious coincidence, Nason would be taking
  • by Beryllium Sphere(tm) ( 193358 ) on Tuesday September 19, 2006 @11:54AM (#16138229) Homepage Journal
    If you think a lobbyist is a good choice for a homeland security position, consider what his group has lobbied for.

    In a conference call with voting machine makers, the ITAA proposed conducting a campaign on their behalf, in exchange for $100,000 to $200,000 per company, depending on the services provided. [wired.com]

    The ITAA president told Computerworld that criticism of voting machines was just a "religious war" [computerworld.com].
  • Is it any surprise that the Bush White House hired a) a lobbyist hack b) mouth-foaming ideologue or c) a personal golfing buddy for a crucial job such as securing our national IT infrastructure? Remember, when Katrina hit NOLA, FEMA was being run by guy whose last job was judging horse shows. Dollars to doughnuts that this new under secretary starts handing out major Cyber Security contracts to Bush's "pioneer" contributors or his "Father's brother's former roommate". Business as usual.
  • The first thing that DHS has to do before leading the country in a cyber war is to clean up it's own house. Last time I heard they were still getting a d or D- for their cyber security.

    Putting somebody who lobbies for various security companies in charge of designing the security used by DHS creates an immediate conflict of interest. How are we going to know that he's not pushing a given solution because it would keep his (former?) handlers happy as opposed to because it's a good thing. Furthermore, a l

  • Cyber tech security is unpredictable.we will never know how secure is a data over the network. Cyber attcks like spamming, cracking and injecting may occur secrectly behind the running programs in a situation where the user is totally unware on what is happening.Being a lobbist in this area,is kind of sitting in front of a monitor without not knowing the upcoming dangers. but it will be ok to accept the job is programs in computer are programmed with secured codes and keep an eye on everything tht runs in t
  • cyber attckers caused by users and affectd by users

In every hierarchy the cream rises until it sours. -- Dr. Laurence J. Peter

Working...