White House May Step In for Cybersecurity

Today a report in the New York Times cites Melissa Hathaway, acting senior director for cyberspace appointed by President Obama, as saying the White House needed to step in and take control of the nation’s cybersecurity policy.

Hathaway was given responsibility for a 60-day review of the issues surrounding cyberspace threats. Yesterday, the federal official said the issue “required leading from the top,” starting from the White House and running right down through, “departments and agencies, state, local, tribal governments, the C-Suite, and to the local classroom and library.”

Yesterday, National Security Agency Director and three-star army general Keith Alexander called for a "team" approach to cybersecurity that would see the NSA take care of protecting military and intelligence networks while the Department of Homeland Security protected government networks.

All of this follows an alleged breach of Pentagon security which apparently saw terabytes of data stolen from the $300 billion Joint Strike Fighter project. While initial reports say hackers accessed the information by exploiting a vulnerabilities in the networks of two or three contractors helping with the development of the program, contractors say reports are incorrect. The WSJ yesterday reported that Lockheed Martin Corp., the lead contractor involved in the program, said Tuesday that it believed the publications report was "incorrect in its representation of successful cyber attacks."

"To our knowledge, there has never been any classified information breach," the statement said. The WSJ countered this with the fact that at no point did they report that the stolen information was classified.

Create a new thread in the US News comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
15 comments
    Your comment
    Top Comments
  • AdamB5000
    Why don't they just worry about keeping their stuff safe and let me worry about keeping my stuff safe? Why do they need to "take control?"

    Well, that's a rhetorical question. We all know our beloved government seems to want to control everything. Their faux pas of lack of security is just an excuse to overstep their boundries of internet regulation. Yay.

    Amendment 28: What you can and cannot say/do on the internet.

    You worry about yourself. I'll worry about myself. We have plenty of private security/firewall/anti-virus companies that offer their services to keep me safe. They're much more efficient at it than you, the government, will ever be.

    Maybe I'm over reacting, but when I hear the government say they need to step in on the internet, nothing good will come of it.
    10
  • Other Comments
  • Anonymous
    Welcome to the New World Order.

    Keep buying into the governments lies to gain control.

    2009 = 1984
    2
  • AdamB5000
    Why don't they just worry about keeping their stuff safe and let me worry about keeping my stuff safe? Why do they need to "take control?"

    Well, that's a rhetorical question. We all know our beloved government seems to want to control everything. Their faux pas of lack of security is just an excuse to overstep their boundries of internet regulation. Yay.

    Amendment 28: What you can and cannot say/do on the internet.

    You worry about yourself. I'll worry about myself. We have plenty of private security/firewall/anti-virus companies that offer their services to keep me safe. They're much more efficient at it than you, the government, will ever be.

    Maybe I'm over reacting, but when I hear the government say they need to step in on the internet, nothing good will come of it.
    10
  • Tindytim
    That what you get when you have a more extreme Democrat in office. They want to provide for everyone, even if they don't need to be provided for, and even if there are more efficient manners to do so.
    6