| 4:16 am on May 31, 2009 (gmt 0)|
It's about time.
I had to chortle at one of the sidebar links to an article titled US cyber-security 'embarrassing'. They can only improve from here.
| 4:36 am on May 31, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Improve? Don't be so quick with that, improvements always cost something and he made no mention of what. There's an old saying, you don't build an army you don't plan on using.
I have two concerns -
#1 - Since the taxpayer is footing the bill on this, how long before they begin implementing fees and who will pay them?
#2 - Will they focus their efforts on the host level? The webmaster level? The computer manufacturing level? Again, focus is most easily placed where the possibility to generate money exists (ie:fees, taxes, fines etc).
I want a secure network as much as everyone else but the kind of power hinted at in the video makes a czar a possible threat to everyday webmasters/online retailers in the form of increased costs etc. Obama has already made comments about protecting newspapers, is owning a website about to become more expensive or hard to do?
| 5:17 am on May 31, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Don't get me started.
Should leave it as a one liner but I won't... Bureaucracies are what they are: boat anchors and money pits, layers of obfuscation and minimal effort with a political agenda, TOO. What I want to know is why we have "czars" in America. Where the heck did that come from? What's wrong with "boss" or "master" or "head honcho"?
| 4:56 pm on Jun 1, 2009 (gmt 0)|
However, with so many Americans out of work, maybe "boss" would just have the wrong connotations...and "czars" sound so much scarier and powerful, what with all the Cold War rhetoric behind the term.
I worry less about the fees and payment structure than I do about the money it will cost me to be in compliance with regulations which do NOTHING for security (other than provide someone with GOVERNMENT JOB SECURITY). IMHO, security should be mostly left in the hands of the public. If a service provider, merchant, webmaster, etc. prove to have faulty security, you can bet they will be out of work and in court. Let capitalism work; those with top-notch security should rise to the top...while those with major flaws in their security will go under.
| 11:17 am on Jun 2, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|What I want to know is why we have "czars" in America. Where the heck did that come from? |
The UK, Tony Blair appointed 'czars' for everything. But for the life of me, I can't think of one thing they actually achieved!
| 6:20 am on Jun 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
afaik the first white house "drug czar" was william bennett who was appointed in the late 80's and predated tony blair's occupancy of 10 downing street by quite a bit.
| 2:12 pm on Jun 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I stand corrected!
| 11:20 pm on Jun 9, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Anyone notice that all these Czars that Obama created are accountable to no one but himself? They are a trojan horse designed to destroy what's left of our constitution.