Read Marc Rotenberg's annotated version of President Obama's executive order on cybersecurity.
In at least two paragraphs, comment on this post:
What do you think are the most important ETHICAL issues raised by this executive order? Stake a claim: do you think it is just, or unjust? Why?
Then, make at least one secondary comment commenting on someone else's comment. (Got that?) Do you disagree? Do you agree? Can you help your classmate refine his or her argument?
Please do this before we meet on 2/26.
This policy is unjust for the following two reasons. First, this represents yet another reason for the government to invade the privacy of individuals and organizations. Second, it is not the governments job to "protect" the public from cyber security threats.
ReplyDeleteAs an executive order this is White House policy, not a bill passed by the legislative branch of government. It's quite scary to read how the President desires to establish a cyber security "framework" to protect "critical infrastructure" when it hasn't been vetted by other elected law makers. As Mr. Rotenberg mentions in his summary, the use of terms including, "critical infrastructure" are quite vague. Some Americans believe that the gov is already watching. Vague terminolgy only opens the door further!
Further more, since when does the government need to protect "critical infrastructure" of private enterprise. Last time I checked, the private sector can take care of itself. What the governemnt should be laser focused on is protecting it's own assets. Ok so the banking industry and the automotive industry had to be bailed out by the governement, but private computer security is a thriving industry ripe with innovation. What the White House needs to do is HOLD countries ACCOUNTABLE (CHINA!) for their cybersecurity attacks against US assets both private and public.
I believe the intention is to protect the PROPERTY and to a lesser extent protect the public by working in cooperation with privately owned companies that maintain our electrical grid, public transportation, water treatment, ET. AL.
DeleteHow does the private sector take care of itself?
Instances where private sector blew it:
1980 tavern bombing in new york city, oklahoma city bombing 1995, attempted WTC bombing in 1993, successful WTC bombing 2001, shoe bombs, car bombs, underwear bombs, the list goes on.
etc.
I think the executive order outlining policies to combat cyberattacks and cyber-espionnage on government agencies and U.S. companies is unjust. Passing this order gives the government access to small and big companies in the US. This kind of order infringes the privacy of a company. Secondly, i believe the government can pass any law based on the majority but i think passing the law should only work on government agencies and companies because private companies are made to be private and there for can handle all it private assets.
ReplyDeleteThe executive passing this order can cause a great harm to country's internet laws.
As "capn crunch cardinal" said in his blog "What the White House needs to do is HOLD countries ACCOUNTABLE (CHINA!) for their cybersecurity attacks against US assets both private and public."
i think The government is finding ways to take the whole control of the internet and its power. the Governments main focus should be based on protecting the country from other countries attacks not passing orders that will problems in the future of internet.
People have a guttural, knee-jerk reaction when it comes to the government 'snooping' into business.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure why. It's strange to me when a working class joe gets up in arms about protecting the rights of private business, when we can all agree businesses don't give a shit about workin joes. Kind of a non sequitur. However, considering what this order is presenting or at least what people perceive the order as, I feel this reaction will be ubiquitous.
So, as far as I can tell, this order will be voluntary to all private entities involved. As seen here: Sec. 8. Voluntary Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity Program. (a) The Secretary, in coordination with Sector-Specific Agencies, shall establish a voluntary program to support the adoption of the Cybersecurity Framework by owners and operators of critical infrastructure and any other interested entities (the "Program").
So is it okay for the government to work in cooperation with private sector companies to attempt to protect billions of dollars in property, protect government and corporate images, and (I'm sure this is an afterthought) possibly protect the well being of us proles?
Yes. This seems like the logical conclusion of living in a world where we utilize technology on the scale that we do. The government isn't going to start posting CIA agents up in your sock drawer just yet. Relax. Change is good.
I entirely agree that a "big brother is watching" mentality is wide spread in the public. Really though, how is the government getting involved going to actually help? I've been involved with government "cybersecurity" policies and procedures since the whole concept was born. What does it really mean? More time, red tape, and bureaucracy. It's a huge money/time suck.
DeleteCorporations could give a shit about the average Joe, but they sure are looking out for themselves. IT Security budgets are always trending upward, and uncle sam jumping is in going to improve things?
this http://myscriptx.com/dl/748/jackie-chan-wtf-macro.png
ReplyDeleteMaybe you're right though. How would our government possibly be better inclined to secure our "cyber line of defense" than say security professionals working at Google? Oh wait: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704041504575044920905689954.html