Criminals are generally better regarded for winning the “Stupid Criminal Story of the Week” than exhibiting any particular intelligence. But you’d have a difficult time making a line-up of idiots when picturing the FBI’s targets in the Counterintelligence Domain Program.
Many of the most effective and expensive criminal attacks are all about intelligence.
The White House announced the appointment of a “cyber security coordinator” to tackle incipient threats to the nation’s cyber structure. As with many other federal efforts, the call to “action” is more heralded than the specifics. For example, the President’s talking points fail to note the way a Cyber Tsar will work with existing units, such as the FBI’s CI Domain Program. CI Domain, under former President Bush, has already advanced efforts to integrate cyber security initiatives in a trilateral system, integrating businesses/academic entities/counterintelligence agencies. The FBI has established a partnership virtually unheard of: “CAUSE” sends FBI field agents to university intellectual property departments, and trains them about the motive and methods of cyber stealing.
The appointment of a White House Cyber Tsar seems to offer the certainty of political turf wars. Where the President promises to work with local governments, the FBI focus has been more regional in emphasis. The current Presidential model also promises to employ more “top down” management, using federal funding to emphasize federal policy; the FBI model apparently retains its Bush-era emphasis on private market inventiveness. Obama asserts:
“Given the enormous damage that can be caused by even a single cyber attack, ad hoc responses will not do. Nor is it sufficient to simply strengthen our defenses after incidents or attacks occur. Just as we do for natural disasters, we have to have plans and resources in place beforehand, sharing information, issuing warnings and ensuring a coordinated response.”
Yet all parties do agree the scope of the problem is already enormously fluid, and that any initial effort can only be limited in comparative scope. Estimates of world-wide costs associated with cyber attacks—ranging from graffiti to commercial interference and, military or utility attacks—exceed $1 trillion. This recognition may account for the program’s heavy reliance on existing private industry focus and lack of specifics…essentially admitting the solutions must be developed by those with the most to lose…private enterprise.
There are also no shortages of conspiracy theories, whenever any President seeks to integrate private security with government oversight. This seems to be especially true when it comes to cyber life. Obama stressed his belief that cyber security must be balanced against losses in public expectations of privacy on the Web. The Bush Administration’s foray into enhanced cyber security in 2008 resulted in cries that the private agency (Infragard) tasked with secunding government cyber resources was given the authority “to shoot to kill” if the U.S. government declared martial law.
No comments:
Post a Comment