Cyber Security Chief – Release Candidate 1.10a
Cyber security is a topic that few people have given due concern. Many of the computers today operate on similar x86 architecture whose uniformity could be a downfall. Industrial firewalls are often deployed in widespread usage, thus creating a point of vulnerability. Operating a single unique firewall for each application would likely produce the best security but it is impossibly unwieldy. These firewalls are not the kind that comes with Windows 7. These ultra advanced filters can operate on heuristic frameworks that can realize when you are removing sensitive data on the outward jump. In the infallible wisdom of architects, public infrastructure is critically linked with the internet wherein they no longer are distinct.
To put it bluntly, it opens the door to ghoulish scenarios of highly advanced hacker teams from China subverting American interests. Note that China has an allegedly massive core of computer experts mobilized for intelligence gathering.
Pressure inevitably ends up with the presidency to create an office that will act to secure America’s information nexus. Obama’s newly appointed cyber chief Schmidt will come into a post that has been criticized for the lack of power to create policy. From my prior writings it is easy to discern that I am avant-garde techno optimist; I think deference to a unilateral administrative chair will inevitability assume an aggressive position toward internet openness. The trade off would be security for freedom – a ‘Quixotic’ endeavor.
Considered an expert in computer forensics, Schmidt’s roughly 40-year career includes 31 years in local and federal government service, including a stint as vice chairman of President George W. Bush’s Critical Infrastructure Protection Board. He also was for a short time an adviser to the FBI and worked at the National Drug Intelligence Center. – nydailynews
The novel idea coming from this office has been to create a systematic way to lock down the internet in the event of a crisis. Does that make others feel as though an axe looms perilously above ones head?
I wouldn’t want to come across as though any reasonable protections are wholly unwarranted, but I question the efficacy of a total recall plan. An unabridged forum for ideas naturally raises the ire of those it questions. The Pirate Party in the EU acknowledges the constant threat to the status quo, thus explaining the need to censor the web. Why create a tool of oppression when it would be nearly as effective to create a rapid response network? It is more reasonable to create a response scheme, one that in an emergency can roll out an array of interesting updates and patches to quickly discern the heart of the attack?
Several interesting concepts on cooperative security have been proposed. Risk allocation among numerous nodes actually seems to thwart attacks (using the theory of large numbers approach). The singular method has an all or nothing approach; if it is compromised then the flood gates remain open. While both methods can exist simultaneously, it is a disconcerting thought that the lifeblood of free thought is controlled by a benevolent leader. I think an adoption of the cooperative method is ultimately a safer tool than the command and conquer paradigm. Schmidt would be wise to resist the temptation create policy and opt in favor of a multilateral cooperative method of security.
