 |
 |
   Dan Savage, the brilliant and foul-mouthed sex columnist, has become one of the most important ethicists in America. Are we screwed?
 The federal government is supposed to issue new rules about debt levels for students in for-profit colleges. In the meantime, the states are working on their own regulations.
 Washingtons budget hawks want to decimate the federal workforce to shrink the deficit. It will have the opposite effect.
 There arent nearly enough counterterrorism experts to instruct all of Americas police. So we got these guys instead.
|
   |
|
|
December 30, 2005
TAKING TECH SECURITY SERIOUSLY....The bad news is 2005 was an awful year for tech security. The worse news is the federal government could invest more in cybersecurity, but doesn't appear interested.
After the ChoicePoint debacle, the recent breakdown in tech security at Ford, and the fact that terrorists are coordinating operations online, you'd think cybersecurity research would get a little more than $16 million -- and wouldn't face budget cuts right now. That, coupled by the fact that the Bush administration has gone through four cybersecurity chiefs in three years, hardly inspires confidence in the system. —Steve Benen 1:43 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)
Comments
I don't think protecting private data held by private companies -- the main impact you cite of these breaches -- is the government's responsibility, primarily. Sure, it would be nice if the government would impose a legal duty on the holders of the information to protect it, and provide for a substantial remedy to those harmed if they failed to perform that duty. From there, most of the rest could be handled by the market. Posted by: cmdicely on December 30, 2005 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINKAnd, inasfar as the "terrorists coordinating operations online", the principle target of that is government work on penetration of cybersecurity, the budget for which is almost entirely, I would suspect, within the black budget of the NSA. Posted by: cmdicely on December 30, 2005 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINKCmon, to the Bush admin, cybersecurity is just like any other branch of government--it'll get mucho funding just as soon as they figure out how it'll be funneled into the political machine. Why pick on cybersecurity? Posted by: Kellogii on December 30, 2005 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINKDoesn't anyone think that these 'thefts' from the likes of Citigroup ChoicePoint TimeWarner and LexisNexis (of all places) all in the past year might actually be among THE data added to this massive TIA re-brand NSA-plus project? Posted by: JES on December 30, 2005 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINKCybercriminals obviously have better lobbyists. It's how the system works. Anyway, it's never the corporations that pay for these crimes. A fraud on a historically unparalleled magnitude(similar to one in France,I cant think of it's name, a century or 2 ago) may be in the offing. You can bet the perpetrators wont be liberals. Posted by: Michael7843853 on December 30, 2005 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINKCan we at least pretend to be reasonable about this? A per capita-type number here is what would be more relevant, given the massive increase in the absolute number of computer/internet users. I'm sure a per capita-type number would still be alarming, but it just looks bad to refer to such an irrelevant stat like an absolute number. Rhetorically, it's like getting bent out of shape because, say, the number of traffic accidents doubles. Without mentioning, hypothetically, that the number of cars on the road doubled. Posted by: cdj on December 30, 2005 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINKThe Bushes don't do technology, never have. Aren't you glad we have Bush in the white house instead of Gore in these troubled times? Posted by: Boronx on December 30, 2005 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINKAlso, don't forget about the Boeing HR system being compromised. I think 100,000+ people had their personal info (inc SS#) compromised. Posted by: cdj on December 30, 2005 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINKcdj while i don't agree with your hypothesis about a possible massive increase in the number of people using the internet, i think another point is relevent. it's not that this is the first year that these types of unintentional disclosures have happened, it's that this is the first year any company has been required to report them, because of a California law that went into effect. there probably weren't, statistically speaking, a great deal more unauthorized disclosures this year than last or the year before. the difference is that this year companies were required to tell CA residents about them, who in turn told Media, or who turned out to be media, or the companies just thought it was easiest to make the disclosure initially through the media. someone made a point on another thread (many moons ago) that when a person's identity gets stolen, the creditors are defrauded, but the person bears the brunt of the costs. i.e. having to prove unauthorized charges, and repairing credit, even when creditors acknowledge that the id was stolen. i think if creditors were made to truly bear the brunt of id theft, and could not reduce a person's credit rating due to id theft, they'd be a hell of a lot more careful with the info. but i'm not sure that gov't regulation is the answer. Posted by: e1 on December 30, 2005 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINKe1 - I don't myself (necessarily) agree with the hypothesis of a massive increase in internet users. That's irrelevant. My point was that THE STATISTIC GIVEN ignores that possibility, rendering it useless. Useless because THE STATISTIC GIVEN cannot bee used to tell the difference between same-number-of-users-double-attacks and double-number-users-double-attacks. Not being able to distinguish between those two renders the stat useless (for get-yer-dander-up purposes at least). And that regardless of which of the two scenarios you or I *think* happened. Posted by: cdj on December 30, 2005 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINKe1 - After reflection: we're vehemently agreeing - just fiddling with a fraction in different ways. :) Posted by: cdj on December 30, 2005 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINKMy point was that THE STATISTIC GIVEN ignores that possibility, rendering it useless. Useless because THE STATISTIC GIVEN cannot bee used to tell the difference between same-number-of-users-double-attacks and double-number-users-double-attacks. The number of intrusions -- or the ratio -- arguably isn't the important number anyway; the number of persons exposed to particular harms (which isn't a function of the number of intrusions but their magnitude) is more important. And the ratio, if any, relevant there is to the national population, not internet users (particularly with identity theft), since you don't have to be an internet (or even computer) user to have your data in, e.g., ChoicePoint's databases. Posted by: cmdicely on December 30, 2005 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINKOr as Fark.com put it: Although now a larger problem than illegal drugs, Federal budget for fighting computer crime cut to $16 million. That's "million" with an "M" Posted by: b on December 30, 2005 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINKcdj the difference is, you're hypothesizing a massive increase in internet users that would somehow skew the data, and i know that the law change has. and cmdicely's point is well taken that you don't have to use the internet or a computer at all to have your info in one of these data clearing houses. so yes, we're agreeing that it would be irresponsible for a journalist to say that this was a "record year" for unauthorized disclosures. except that i'm saying it because there haven't BEEN any records before, not that were made public. not because i think some other trend in consumer/public behavior would make the number irrelevant. Posted by: e1 on December 30, 2005 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINKThere is a bill currently in Washington to protect names, addresses and social security numbers, it's "H.R.1751." Unfortunately the bill, if made into a law would only protect police officers. No mention of protecting the billions of other citizens in the country. Washington always seems to protect certain groups. Posted by: Stan the Man on December 30, 2005 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINKb wrote: Posted by: b on December 30, 2005 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK
I wonder, has actual drug usage (in terms of individuals who use drugs) gone down in the last 50 years? How has the War on Drugs fared? Better than the GWOT? Have they defined 'victory' for the war on drugs yet? Republicans are weak on effective law enforcement and regulation. Because they steal. They're the pro-white-collar-crime party. The party of fraud. The party of embezzlement. The party of war-profiteering. Republican Culture of Corruption. Posted by: Osama_been_forgotten on December 30, 2005 at 8:23 PM | PERMALINKhey, the national security party Attroney General, John Ashcroft cut the counter-terriorism budget by $100 million on September 10th, 2001. F**k republicans and their national security bullshit. I can't believe you folks are all this clueless; I'm going to have to believe that there's no such thing as fairness. Computer security happens to be something I'm expert in, as opposed to politics, fighting wars, or law. Statistics can be argued any way you like. Yes, there *are* a lot more users now. Yes, databases get compromised. No, it's not the government's responsibility if a private database gets compromised, unless you want it to be, but then if you did, you presumably wouldn't have a problem with NSA monitoring, would you? The fact is, you should be concerned if government databases were being compromised. If private databases are being broken, don't patronize those companies. If you're concerned about your own security, be responsible for it. Use a firewall, don't give out passwords, and keep up with your antivirus software. In other words, don't be an idiot. The government - outside of DARPA - has a horrendous record with technology, and it's got nothing to do with party affiliation. Our representatives of all stripes do not understand tech on almost any level, and they deal with it only to the point that it contributes to their reelection campaigns. My point is that BOTH parties are guilty of not paying enough attention to enforcement of cybercrime, and a big part of that is that effective laws don't exist. I don't see either party doing anything about it. You think Kerry would have been any different? Don't make me laugh. Maybe if Gore had been elected, well, then, everything would have changed... Posted by: dilettante on December 30, 2005 at 11:40 PM | PERMALINKOooga Booga!!!! Are you scared yet? No? excuse please. Lemme try again. e-Oooga Booga!!! there. that worked. Posted by: Joey G. on December 31, 2005 at 12:27 AM | PERMALINKInvest in tech security? Why should they? It would just make it harder for the feds to spy on Americans. Posted by: Brownie on December 31, 2005 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINKAnyone have ideas on how smart cards could help with tech security? Posted by: Neil' on January 1, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINKadult personals - adult personals and adult singles top choice free adult personals - free adult personals, adult singles and adult chat rooms adult dating - adult dating for adult personals and adult singles free adult dating - free adult dating with free adult web cam and free adult chat - adult dating free adult swingers - adult swingers and adult personals use this free adult web cam and adult chat free adult swingers - free adult swingers, free adult personals - adult sex dating adult chat - adult chat and free adult dating for adult personals free adult chat - free adult chat and free adult web cam adult friend - adult friend and adult personals free adult dating adult web cam - adult web cam and free adult chat for sex personals adult finder - adult finder for adult personals free adult web cam - free adult web cam and free adult chat adult dating service - free adult dating service with free adult chat sex dating - sex dating for adult personals and erotic adult personals adult sex dating - adult sex dating for adult personals and adult singles adult singles - adult singles for adult sex dating sex adult dating - sex adult dating, adult singles site adult dating service - adult dating service, sex adult dating adult models directory - top adult models free directory adult friend finder - find adult friend for free adult finder - adults find friends for free! adult chat - best adult chat available here best porn stars - best and most famous porn stars adult dating - top adult dating site adult dating chat - adult sex dating - adult sex dating portal free adult dating - free adult dating available here adult dating online - adult dating online best choice adult dating personals - find adult dating personals here adult dating site - best adult dating site adult xxx dating - adult xxx dating available here adult singles dating - adult singles dating top site porn star gallery - most famous porn stars free gallerys porn star gals - best porn star free gals famous porn stars - most famous porn stars free photos porn stars - porn stars and adult models free photos free porn stars - free porn stars listings and galleries top porn stars - top porn stars free listings online dating service - free online dating service dating services - free dating services, online personals single dating - singles dating online internet dating - best internet dating site! christian dating - christians dating services free christian dating service - dating service for christians christian dating services - dating services for christians free online dating - free online dating services online dating Louisville - Louisville online dating hispanic dating service - hispanic dating services dating lexington online - Online Pharmacy cheap online pharmacy Discount Online Pharmacy at best prices. Sildenafil Citrate Tadalafil - Tadalafil Carisoprodol (
href="http://www.rxwanted.com/generic-soma.html">Generic Finasteride (
href="http://www.rxwanted.com/generic-propecia.html">Generic Atorvastatin (
href="http://www.rxwanted.com/generic-lipitor.html">Generic Celecoxib (
href="http://www.rxwanted.com/celebrex.html">Celebrex Metformin (
href="http://www.rxwanted.com/glucophage.html">Glucophage Amlodipine (
href="http://www.rxwanted.com/norvasc.html">Norvasc Simvastatin (
href="http://www.rxwanted.com/zocor.html">Zocor Atomoxetine (
href="http://www.rxwanted.com/generic-strattera.html">Generic Bupropion SR (
href="http://www.rxwanted.com/generic-wellbutrin.html">Generic Eszopiclone (
href="http://www.rxwanted.com/generic-lunesta.html">Generic Fexofenadine (
href="http://www.rxwanted.com/alegra-D.html">Alegra Loratidine (
href="http://www.rxwanted.com/claritin.html">Claritin Ranitidine (
href="http://www.rxwanted.com/zantac.html">Zantac Regalis (
href="http://www.rxwanted.com/cialis.html">Cialis Free games free games free ringtones free ringtones free online games free online games free screensaver free screensaver free credit report free clip art free clip art free downloads free downloads free stuff free stuff free wallpapers free wallpapers free email free email free people search free people search free translation free translation free chat rooms free chat rooms free chat free chat free software downloads free software downloads free sample and free samples free desktop wallpaper free desktop wallpapers Skin treatment skin treatment natural skin care natural skin care Natural skin treatment Natural skin treatment Posted by: dating on January 2, 2006 at 6:42 PM | PERMALINK
May 2011
April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly
|
||||||||
