Now that I think about it, it is probably a toss up between the author and the guy who approved release of the article.
In case you were under the impression that the police were obliged to 'serve and protect' you in meat-space: guess again. Even if it were not a time/space/numbers issue, the fact of the matter is that the only person looking out for you and yours is you. There is a reason why, when a jurisdiction goes shall issue with regards to concealed firearms carry permits that people rush to get trained and acquire said permits. "An armed society is a police society" is the bumper-sticker cliché that applies, but even if people who have permits rarely end up carrying, the point is they know that when they do they have reduced the probability of being anointed "victim."
What has this got to do with security in cyberspace? One only needs to skim the content of cyber security stories over the past few weeks to draw parallels. Still in the death-grip of legacy-future-think, the military charges blindly ahead with plans to secure (it's) cyberspace(while Verizon and other carriers look on bemused), dueling national and service-centric efforts plod along; most of which are questionable from a mission- or effectiveness-position, and all are assuredly standard-issue attempts to create new or enlarge existing rice bowls. That last bit is the key, because few observers today know or remember that what is "cyber command" today has existed in various forms for years. Now the focus is Maryland and Omaha, but back in the day it was Colorado Springs.
Many of the same people; same mission; different location; still not significantly further along today than they were ten years ago: hope and change? No chance.
The answer, or at least an answer for those with the wherewithal, is to stop thinking that the Cavalry is going to ride over the hill to save you and take the steps necessary to arm and defend what's yours. Britannia ruled the waves, but that's not synonymous with controlling the ocean. You exercise power over what is yours, what you can control, and if you're overwhelmed well, you went down swinging not bent over holding your ankles. The government is not going to save you; the government has a hard enough time saving itself. If you're not boning up on the latest defenses and weaponry (or hiring someone to do it for you, if we're talking about commercial entities), practicing the employment of such defenses, and otherwise preparing for the worst, then prepare for victimhood.
Some day there may be a digital beat cop keeping an eye out for you, but until then, cyber space remains a wide open space and there are no where near enough Marshals to go around.
So in the mean time you need to ask yourself: Do you want to be judged by 18 USC 1030, or carried to insolvency by an eastern European cyber crime syndicate?
. . . best video about a system 99% of you will never see goes to . . .
I was waiting for someone to raise this issue. The solution of course is to dust off all those old 05Hs who are tooling around this town and get them back on rack with cans on their heads. Sid! Hugh! Kenny! Randy! Where are you when we need you? ;-)
It's what we do best. See I think we pretty much have this already, its called the JTF-GNO.
Last seen contributing a chapter to Threats in the Age of Obama, my fellow Claremont Lincoln Fellow Matt Mayer has a new book out: Homeland Security and Federalism, now available for pre-order. From the press release:
The book takes the reader from the streets of Ismailia, Eygpt, in 1921 to New York City on September 11, 2001 and from America's Colonial period to the inner workings of DHS to show what worked historically and why the approach taken after 9/11 failed to heed the bright lessons of history on how best to protect our nation against this new threat. After asking where are today's federalists who will push back on Washington's power grab, the book develops a rational risk model to guide where our limited resources should be allocated that will lead to less pork and more protection. The book then systematically builds the case that states and localities are uniquely suited to lead our efforts on terrorism preparedness, disaster management, illegal immigration, and counterterrorism. Case studies highlight best practices from outside the Beltway that once again vindicate the role of federalism in solving America's complex challenges, including cases on Arizona's actions to curb illegal immigration, Seattle's approach to pandemic flu preparedness based on lessons learned from the SARS crisis, why New York City saw a decline in homeland security grants, and Los Angeles' innovative counterterrorism actions.
Journalists love to pummel intelligence for its mistakes, weasel words, and - in the case of the recent DHS "intel" debacle - plain old bad work. I guess it was too much to ask that the critiquers would display a higher caliber product themselves. Some pointers:
- "Conservative" is not code for right-wing extremist.
- The common theme linking recent "right-wing" extremism events - Roeder, von Brunn - is crazy not politics. Some people have issues with abortion, some people have issues with Jews, but 363 days of the year no one resorts to these levels of violence against either party.
- Violence against soldiers who happen to be standing around smoking and joking is still a heinous act that deserves equal time/consideration; unless of course you think soldiers are not worth as much as ordinary people.
- Roeder, von Brunn, even McVeigh are outliers. If you're looking for stats on domestic violence movements, you might consider:
Over the past 18 months, there have been at least 39 criminal actions undertaken in the name of animal rights, according to data compiled by the Foundation for Biomedical Research, an advocacy group for researchers. That represents a significant rise from 2006 and 2007, when there were only 25 incidents. . . . "A lot of activists are frustrated. They've exhausted the legal means, and they've decided to take it to the next level," said Jason Miller, a press officer with the North American Animal Liberation Front . . .
Apparently volume and suffering from extreme anthropomorphism count for nothing.
I don't entirely disagree, but I fail to see how the recommendations will really address the issues.
"Openness" is a waste of time w/o utility. The DC effort was successful because it was data people could fiddle with to produce information ("news you can use"). Throwing out gov't reports - information that has to be broken down into data and then reconfigured into another form of information with more utility - might be "open" but its not as useful as we might think.
And let's not forget that even with stringent handing policies there is no shortage of breaches today. People will still be careless (lost media) or stupid (phished) regardless of what rules are in place. The solution to that problem is to retool your agency so that it moves faster than anyone who might misuse or abuse your data.
Matt Armstrong points out some rare forward progress in the TT 2.0 . . . well, it can hardly be called a "movement" . . .
In another sign of the irrelevance of blogs and the overall fad that is the Internet, Abu Muqawama, the must-read blog on counterinsurgency, finally relocated from its no-rent digs at Blogger to the same home as its principal blogger and part of the Center for New American Security empire.
Analogs abound, but let's just say that CNAS just became a site I'm going to hit a lot more often.
Or are we making this waaaaay too complicated:
An influential general with a key role in the ongoing Quadrennial Defense Review this week argued irregular warfare could become the primary focus of future ground forces ... The general (Mattis), who touted the growing importance of well-trained ground troops over high-tech weapons, said his overall point is that hybrid threats will characterize the future.
To address that future, Army soldiers, special operations troops and Marines must form a new triad, he argued, which would be supported by air and naval power. Another new triad should focus on the leader, team and individual warfighter, he said. High-performing, smaller units are now a "national imperative," he added, noting forces must operate independently at lower echelons.
Pretty sure fighting in diverse conditions - amphibious landing on a beach (or airborne assault), small-unit engagements in hedgerows and mountains, urban combat in cities and towns, armored columns, strategic bombing - was what our grandfathers called plain old war back in the day. Now its 'hybrid' war.
Maybe less with the buzzwords and wheel-reinvention and more with the common sense, eh?
Recent Comments