Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   U.S. cybersecurity chief gives one-day notice. Plans new job stuffing envelopes at home, setting up Christian dating website or selling penis-enlargement pills   (usatoday.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

5592 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Oct 2004 at 9:01 PM (11 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



55 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2004-10-01 03:41:31 PM  
Dumb geek. He thought it was revenge of the nerds.

He was expecting Halliburton-sized graft and uncontrolled spending.
 
2004-10-01 03:48:55 PM  
This guy replaced Richard Clarke? That'd be two protest resignations in one administration.
 
2004-10-01 04:13:25 PM  
Don't forget Christine Whitman, pontechango.
 
2004-10-01 04:29:06 PM  
Yes... he quit over lack of support from the Administration... exactly the same reason his predecessors quit.

Makes you feel safe to know how well the country is being run, doesn't it? We're protecterated from the terrorists.
 
2004-10-01 04:36:30 PM  
BigTuna

Aw hell, what about John DiIulio, Paul O'Neill, Karen Kwiatkowski and Rand Beers? I was just talking about cybersecurity.
 
2004-10-01 04:59:59 PM  
It would be nice if he came out publicly with his reasons for quitting. If it's true that the Administration is doing such a piss-poor job of protecting America, the public deserves to hear about it.
 
2004-10-01 05:13:54 PM  
pontechango: touche!

Edsel:

If it's true that the Administration is doing such a piss-poor job of protecting America, the public deserves to hear about it.

It's not for lack of trying. Every time someone speaks out, they get shredded by the Republican Attack Machine.
 
2004-10-01 05:16:53 PM  
True - Clarke and O'Neill did speak out.

I think it's more likely people would notice this close to the election, though.
 
2004-10-01 05:47:24 PM  
I guess when you give up a high-paid job to serve the public good you don't like being held back by the adminstration you're supporting.

If you haven't read Clarke's book I highly recommend it! I am reading it now and it really opens the eyes.
 
2004-10-01 09:07:45 PM  
"setting up Christian dating website or selling penis-enlargement pills"

that's comic gold. people who date by religion are teh suck.

/dated a fundamentalist
 
2004-10-01 09:12:16 PM  
Did he IM his resignation?
 
2004-10-01 09:12:47 PM  
Who's gonna protect me from g@y @ss h@x0rz now?
 
2004-10-01 09:14:40 PM  
On the one hand this is bad:
Poor guy actually thought he could make a difference protecting people from hackers and stuff.

On the other hand this is good:
Government tends to screw up everything they can get their fingers on and any attempt to go all ashcroftian on the internet would probably jave resulted in serious badness.

On the gripping hand:
Terrorists won't go after the internet anyway and all the Y2k scaremonongering has given everyone the lasting impression that computers are not vital to the continuing surviavl of our society.
 
2004-10-01 09:17:31 PM  
The crappy part is, every time a cybersecurity chief steps down, we have to change all the passwords in the country.
 
2004-10-01 09:21:36 PM  
Did he IM his resignation?

No, SMS.

"i rsgn fctiv nun 2mrow."
 
Ral
2004-10-01 09:21:49 PM  
BigTuna

It's not for lack of trying. Every time someone speaks out, they get shredded by the Republican Attack Machine.


Who, these guys?

http://www.attackmachine.com/
 
2004-10-01 09:25:18 PM  
So the guy was a washed up exec, took a gov't job in charge if 60 people! As a Jr Asst undersecretary no less.

Lobbied for a huge promotion, increase in staff and budget and didn't get it. He lost, but has to leave because if he wants to be an exec again he can't admit that his dept/domain was that small. This way he can say, I went with an "understanding" the role would grow, it didn't, I left.

60? 2nd Lt's in the army have more reports.
 
2004-10-01 09:26:21 PM  
with a 100 million in the bank, i don't think he needs to work.
 
2004-10-01 09:28:02 PM  
Anyone else get the feeling that this story is far from over?
 
2004-10-01 09:29:05 PM  
Poor guy...

...didn't like working for an ignorant, Unelected Monkey.

Or maybe it was the fundy christian facism.
 
2004-10-01 09:34:16 PM  
I'd love to be a High government employee with my own parking place. It would be nice having a window by my desk too. I like looking at things and waving.
 
2004-10-01 09:34:42 PM  
Don't worry everyone, Poland will help us!
 
2004-10-01 09:35:55 PM  
Loki-L:

Oooh, nice Niven/Pournelle reference! You get a cookie.

/Is there something in my eye?
/Feels like a mote.
 
2004-10-01 09:37:55 PM  
decaf333
60? 2nd Lt's in the army have more reports.
Yep. Those 60 people are responsible for the US's internet security. No wonder the Russian mob loves hacking into US computer systems.

Didn't Bush crow about being responsible for cybersecurity in the recent debate? Woo! 60 people! Woo!
 
2004-10-01 09:42:17 PM  
Thank God! With my Cybo-dick, I can now rest in pease.
 
2004-10-01 09:46:34 PM  
I gyuess I muast apolize. The BEER has taken over. Please excsue my last mesesatge. hehe

/druck.......
 
2004-10-01 09:47:57 PM  
he's just the third resignation within that one specific field of anti-terror work. There have been a couple dozen resignations since this administration took power if you look at the broader anti-terror focused departments. Most of them have said the same thing - that Bush had paid no attention pre 9-11 and still does not give enough heed to their needs even to this day.
 
2004-10-01 10:00:48 PM  
How the hell is the Bush administration supposed to secure our nation when they're so busy running a war over in Iraq?

Just because the President says fighting a war in Iraq is making us safer, doesn't make it so.

Some of the drones that read these boards need to think about this for a minute. If we have dozen of people resigning from various posts in the government complaining about lack of attention, discretion and funding from the white house in regards to anti-terrorism operations here in the USA, then quite possibly, the President is full of shiat about how he is fighting "the war on terror".

Look people, this isn't the super bowl. Stop cheering for "your guys" whoever the hell they may be and get with the program. Democracy is not a god damn game.

Keep voting incumbants out of office until the politicians get a farking clue.
 
2004-10-01 10:09:12 PM  
The administration can't be bothered with the pesky details, and American is safer.

/ Hey Neopets! I mean neocons. Wanna buy a bridge? Cheap?
 
2004-10-01 10:09:21 PM  
Don't worry everyone, Poland will help us!

Indeed! Don't forget Poland!
 
m00
2004-10-01 10:24:01 PM  
Meh.

Rats fleeing a sinking ship.

Bush doesn't need them anyway. All they do is biatch about US security while there's a war on. And we need that war to secure our peace. Haven't you heard? War is peace.

This is good. It solidifies power in the hands of an increasing few because those depts. merely get tasked to some other director who's already ideologically on-board. Less checks and balances is a good thing. It keeps information out of the hands of whistle-blowers and nay-sayers who could spread doubt in the minds of people. We need to be unified. Our ignorance is our strength.

And why do we want power in the hands of a few? To protect us from those damn activist judges who merely want to enslave us to their arbitrary whim that homosexuals deserve to marry. It makes sense when you think about it. Freedom is slavery.
 
2004-10-01 10:28:09 PM  
Yes, America is safer. Safer. And this is hard work. It's hard to be president.

/Bush at debate
 
2004-10-01 10:30:38 PM  
To all the people dumb enough to vote for Kerry let me be the first to say I TOLD YOU SO.
 
2004-10-01 10:31:00 PM  
Is he moving back into his mothers basement?
 
2004-10-01 10:31:40 PM  
"National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace,"

Anyone else read that as "National Strategery to Secure Cyberspace?" Anyone?
 
2004-10-01 10:43:42 PM  
Anyone else read that as "National Strategery to Secure Cyberspace?" Anyone?

Just George W. Bush, I imagine.
 
2004-10-01 10:45:32 PM  
Right on, Point02GPA.

You rule.
 
2004-10-01 10:47:54 PM  
MonkeyBoy666

No they are not. That was likely the issue. See, here in America, there isn't anyone there to hold your hand. Every company is responsible for its own security, and as America doesn't "own" the internet, it can't just install GIANT_SECUR_PROG v1.0 and call it a day.

It has to work with industry, do research, be persuasive, demonstrate effective security at DHS. Then identify and quantify threats, recommend guidelines to deal with them, propose and drive legislation where appropriate. In other words, be a gov't agency.

This guy accomplished nothing other than asking for a huge promotion and proposing $BB in spending. All because there is this huge threat! A huge threat that to date has manifested itself exclusively by demonstrating that MS Exchange sucks.

I don't think I'd approve the request either...
 
2004-10-01 10:54:32 PM  
We need more cyber security. Because I hear tales of people cybering with girls, only the girls turn out to be guys. And that bad cyber experience makes the victims feel insecure.

I'm GreenAdder and I approve this message.
 
2004-10-01 11:03:07 PM  
To all the people dumb enough to vote for Kerry let me be the first to say I TOLD YOU SO.

And your utterance is relevant because..?
 
2004-10-01 11:23:20 PM  
don't worry, bush is going to fix this with patriot ll.
 
2004-10-01 11:29:43 PM  
DammitDrag

To all the people gullible and hubristic enough to vote for "W"eak . It's your fault we're in this mess.

/sorry to use "big words". Good Luck on your kindergarten equivalency exam.
 
2004-10-01 11:36:25 PM  
No they are not. That was likely the issue. See, here in America, there isn't anyone there to hold your hand. Every company is responsible for its own security, and as America doesn't "own" the internet, it can't just install GIANT_SECUR_PROG v1.0 and call it a day.

Um, the government is America's biggest business. A business who depends on its computers to track intelligence regarding foreign militaries and terrorists. Computers it needs to operate its military to keep your ass safe as its sets all comfy in its chair. A business on which millions of old people and poor children depend upon for their food and shelter. A business which relies on computers to keep thousands of planes in the air from running into each other and killing thousands. I'd say securing their computers alone requires quite a bit of funding and attention.
 
2004-10-01 11:37:08 PM  
You all are aware that he could easily make 10X the money with 1/10th the BS in the private sector, right? Nobody in government is allowed to make more than a congresscritter (except the presidentcritter) and they don't make much by CEO standards.

Seriously, 60 people? Should be more like 6000 full time professionals. Nobody cares about security until it bites them in the arse. Except when it's an inconvenience. Which is not to say that security is worth more than freedom... Sorry, that's the homebrews talking. I'll shut up now...
 
2004-10-01 11:41:19 PM  
Oh, yes, then there are things like the power grids, water systems and such that are not generally federal government projects, but are national security issues. The power grid gets blown to hell/sabotaged electronically = America in big trouble.
 
2004-10-01 11:51:23 PM  
decaf333

No they are not. That was likely the issue. See, here in America, there isn't anyone there to hold your hand. Every company is responsible for its own security

Bud, I'm not worried about Best Buy not being able to sell Chinese DVD players over the net. Primarily I'm concerned about attacks on our financial institutions but also our power grids, our transportation systems (including air traffic control systems) and our military systems although the last probably has it's own sizable budget.

But to your point, do you think that companies are doing all they can to protect your data when stockholders are screaming for bigger profits? True name fraud is a biatch my friend - who's has your social?

So yeah, let's skimp - nothing could go wrong.
 
2004-10-01 11:58:54 PM  
Richard Clarke quit for this reason too. He was Uber-hyped about the coming terrorist attack in cyberspace. I was actually involved in some of his programs in the late '90s. Infra-Guard, NIPSI, etc.

Which is why I was incensed to see him acting like Al Queda had always been his top priority. It wasn't. It wasn't even close. He was all about the cyberterrorists.
 
2004-10-02 12:05:57 AM  
WorldCitizen

You bring up a good point about the importance of securing government computers, but that is not what this office does. Each governmental agency has staff within itself to govern security for that department based on federal regulations and reccomendations.

This department is concerned with coordination, response and averting a catastrophic attack on our information systems, and our national data infrastructure.
 
2004-10-02 12:17:13 AM  
Exiting
Nerd-cops

Love

Emerald
Nuts
 
2004-10-02 12:17:27 AM  
WorldCitizen

As an additional side-note, it's worth knowing that many Government local offices are required by law to get 'maintenance' service from local businesses, and that they have to make sure a portion of those contracts go to minority businesses. There are also harsh budgetary controls, and IT is usually low on the list. Which means 'most qualified' is not usually the main decision factor. This rarely equals the best case scenario regarding security.
 
Displayed 50 of 55 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report