Schneier on Security

I think Bruce would make a good cybersecurity czar.

Does anyone second the motion?

RC

Objection to consideration: A free society needs exactly 0 czars.

Motion to dismiss the nomination. Second?

I remember all too well the Reagan "Russian Evil Empire years" and how they gloated over having made the Soviet Union spend itself to death in the arms race of that time. Sounds to me like the whole purpose of the Al Quaida thing, whatever it is is to do a few highly visible deadly stunts, throw in a few minor ones from time to time to keep the pot boiling and watch the "free world" spend itself to death. We have a stunned "deer in the headlights" obsession fueled by the graphical news media that is probably causing us to miss the larger picture.

Point of Order, Mr. Chairman! Since the recent Sovietization of U.S. Government, requirements of "free" societies with respect to number of Czars (OK, General Secretaries) have increased, and are no longer zero.

Czar is a misnomer for that position. Bruce is too smart to take a "responsibility without authority" gig. There's a reason it's been a revolving door, methinks.

Anyone having great power or authority can be called a 'czar'.

I agree with martinelli's post.

So far Al-Quaida has succeeded in making
the US government waste an inordinate
amount of US citizens tax money on programs
that strip them of their civil liberties,
do not protect them from terrorism,
sow paranoia and breed corruption under
the cloak of National Security.

Never mind the US military shedding all
the credibility they had by torturing and
abducting civilians.

Unfortunately the people profiting from
this setup are not the same paying for it.

"So far Al-Quaida has succeeded in making the US government waste an inordinate amount of US citizens tax money on programs that strip them of their civil liberties, do not protect them from terrorism, sow paranoia and breed corruption under the cloak of National Security."

The next time you consider giving up your rights because "9/11 changed everything" keep in mind that this is exactly the goal that those despicable 9/11 terrorists wanted to achieve. You're not just giving up your privacy rights when you surrender to that thinking.

Just a few months ago, the UK government claimed it was absolutely essential that the police be able to hold suspects for up to 90 days
(from the current 7 + limited extensions) without being charged. This time was required because of the increased complexity of "terrorist" cases involving computers, web sites, cell phones etc. Anything less than 90 days was "giving in to terrorism."

In the end, a revolt in the House of Lords and government members in the Commons forced the government to accept 28 days (despite the government not conceding that 90 days was the minimum acceptable time.)

Now, months later, the 28 day holding rule has NOT YET BEEN INACTED. So suspected terrorists such as the brothers arrested in London recently still get to be released after at most 7 days (no evidence was found against the brothers and it seems they were victims of a false report and useless survellence.)

So, something that the government told us was absolutely essential for the safety of the country appears to be of such a low priority that they can't get around to completing the paperwork!!

@ AC

"So far Al-Quaida has succeeded in making the US government waste an inordinate amount of US citizens tax money on programs that strip them of their civil liberties, do not protect them from terrorism, sow paranoia and breed corruption under the cloak of National Security."

Um...since when did Al Quaeda do this?

Our leadership has determined this "best course of action" and we've agreed like lambs following the ewes (with our votes). Al Quaeda stripped us of nothing; we've done that to ourselves. We've wasted the money, we've curtailed our own civil liberties, and we're the ones not protecting ourselves from terrorism while spreading paranioa in the media and on web logs.

Why do you think the government's strategy is failing? It got them re-ellected, didn't it?

I'll agree with Tom Grant, this is just another in a series of threats, or better 'threats', used to justify incleasing intrusions into and control on the lives of citizens. The War on (some) Drugs and various anticrime 'wars, as well as much of the anti-Communist actions of days past are other examples.

Besides Tom's and AC's lists of what this costs us, it's making us ignorant; the home experimenter is being driven out of existence. And the logic is no better than the "movie plot terrorism" listed here in the past; from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/chemistry.html

comes the following

"...It is illegal in Texas, for example, to buy such basic labware as Erlenmeyer flasks or three-necked beakers without first registering with the state’s Department of Public Safety to declare that they will not be used to make drugs...
...The Mr. Coffee machine that every Texas legislator has near his desk has three violations of the law built into it: a filter funnel, a Pyrex beaker, and a heating element...."

@Tom Grant:
I think the current situation in the US is comparable
to a DOS attack on the citizenry.
And it takes an outside threat (real or not) to pull it off.

If you ask yourself who profits from the current US
threat situation it is unfortunate that both terrorists and
the US government profit from it.
Terrorists succeed in sowing fear, discord and unease and
the government gains control and tax money for security projects.

>There is clearly a major problem for the security services in distinguishing disaffected talk from serious planning

In some countries disaffected talk is what the security services are there to prevent.

Who profits? Maybe also the Military-Industrial complex, and Security companies?

Also, given that the "War on Terrorism" is focused on the Middle East, maybe the Oil companies as well?

Anonymous,

'The next time you consider giving up your rights because "9/11 changed everything" keep in mind that this is exactly the goal that those despicable 9/11 terrorists wanted to achieve.'

How do you know the exact goal of the terrorists? We don't even know exactly who they were. Were you involved? Do you have terrorist connections? Or is this what the media wants you to believe? I even doubt that Al-Quaida really exists...

There are still so many unanswered questions from 9/11, while the case was closed as fast as possible. Remember the large financial transactions around the incident? Anyone ever heard anything of them again? Or was it dropped into silence?

I really hate the term "czar" when applied to someone in charge of a particular policy area.

"I really hate the term "czar" when applied to someone in charge of a particular policy area."

I agree, especially if the person is supposed to be accountable to an elected body. You can't just imply an autocracy.

However it does sound better than "cybersecurity cleric", which might be the next title if religious extremism continues to spread in government.

"I really hate the term "czar" when applied to someone in charge of a particular policy area."

I always liked the term "poobah"

I wonder what happened to the anthrax scare.
Who sent those batches; where did it come from; why don't they send it anymore?

@MikeFromEarth: 'Grand Poobah' sounds even better!

I nominate Bruce 'Grand Poobah of Security and Chairman of the Imperial Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Squids'; do I hear a second?

I am so ready to be the nation's cybersecurity poobah.

"The next time you consider giving up your rights because "9/11 changed everything" keep in mind that this is exactly the goal that those despicable 9/11 terrorists wanted to achieve."
Posted by: Anonymous at July 14, 2006 12:18 PM

Says who idiot?
They actually have stated goals and demands and even peripheral shit that serves their purposes which could be referred to as "what they want". That ain't among them and you're not going to up up with shit that suggests it is so FFS quit repeating this already.

As far as I can tell, they "build the case" using concealed listening devices, undercover operatives and informants rather than CCTV.

CCTV has been used post-event to find perpetrators and accomplices.

"I am so ready to be the nation's cybersecurity poobah."

Bruce, I think you need to think on a larger scale - how about the

Worldwide
Integrated
Master
Poobah

?

~EdT.

Just curious: has anyone ever commented on the fact that police techniques/procedures are pretty good at catching the criminal after they commit the crime, but these same techniques are really, really lousy for pre-emptive work (e.g. catching the criminal *before* s/he commits the crime)?

Maybe *this* is the basis for the ongoing clusterf***age with the NSA, CIA, TSA, DHS, INS, EIEIO, etc - they are using the wrong tool for the job!

~EdT.

@Ed T.: "Just curious: has anyone ever commented on the fact that police techniques/procedures are pretty good at catching the criminal after they commit the crime, but these same techniques are really, really lousy for pre-emptive work (e.g. catching the criminal *before* s/he commits the crime)?"

Police have been aware of this for many, many years. The difficulty is that before someone commits a crime, they are not in fact a "criminal."

I agree the US government has spent too much money, but that's always the case. It's not exactly an efficient organization. The TSA is a joke, but it's what we've got for now. Unfortunately, what the TSA is doing isn't any more of an intrusion than what's been being done in every state with anti-drunk-driving roadblocks.

Show me one american citizen who has had their civil liberties stripped. Regardless of whether you approve of current methods, no thought police are breaking down doors, so you may want to cool the rhetoric for when it's really needed. Remember the boy who cried "wolf" or the pundit who cried "nazi" one too many times.

Poohbah isn't bad. Beware of being called "Ayatollah", though - it could shorten your career significantly.

@ derf

"Show me one american citizen who has had their civil liberties stripped..."

Anyone else on the no-fly list care to comment on this?

Oh...and what happened to the pundit?

I'm not saying every decision we've made is wrong, nor that we are completely stripped of civil liberty...but rest assured that we are making more mistakes than seem reasonable, and liberties are slowly (if not systematically) being eliminated in the guise of "security". Take a day and read the Patriot Act...seriously. If it doesn't cause you to shake your head at least a dozen times you should pick up and re-read the Bill of Rights, the US Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence. Then remember that the Patriot Act has been passed, ratified and approved TWICE by the leadership of this Country.

Is the current course of action making us any safer? Usually the answer is an outright "no", sometimes it's a "maybe", and rarely is it "yes". If you want references just scroll back through Bruce's archives...this site is packed with examples.

I have higher expectations of my Government and its leadership than that. Don't you?

I don't expect 100% efficiency, mind you, but appropriate action that actually results in a safer Country would be nice.

And the thought police aren't breaking down the doors, but have you a good handle on all the wiretapping that is going on? Or is that no concern of yours unless it's your phone being tapped or your e-mail being read?

Is it ok to invade the privacy of ten people to secure the country? A hundred people? A thousand? Fifty thousand? All of Chicago? Where do you draw the line, or do you? Perhaps it's a "don't ask - don't tell" situation for some, but I expect the United States to lead the world in Freedom and civil liberties, as well as many other areas.

My earlier point is that our security is up to US, not the terrorists.

And Bruce for Cybersecurity Poohbah would be an excellent first step. I heartily second (or third) that nomination. Even Privacy Comissioner has a nice ring to it...

TG

--"So far Al-Quaida has succeeded in making the US government waste an inordinate amount of US citizens tax money on programs that strip them of their civil liberties, do not protect them from terrorism, sow paranoia and breed corruption under the cloak of National Security."

I disagree with two words in that comment. "Making" and "waste". Exchange them with "allowing an excuse for" and "to spend" and you'll be much closer to the mark.
The former correction should be obvious. The latter is simply that you wouldn't consider it a waste to spend other people's money to achieve your goals.

derf,

"Regardless of whether you approve of current methods, no thought police are breaking down doors, so you may want to cool the rhetoric for when it's really needed."

"When it's really needed" it will be too late, especially with today's and tomorrow's surveillance technology. The earlier you begin to fight for Freedom and Liberty, the less bloody it will be. Once a dictatorship is up, it won't retire on a voluntary base.

But there are just too much sheeps out there who never learned a single lesson from the history of mankind...

While the article may have had some valid points to make, I intensely disliked it's tone and indeed some of the specific comments made.

I couldn't help but feel that the article wasd written with a tone that is shockingly flippant given the subject matter. Furthermore, having been in London last July and having attended one of the memorial ceremonies on the 7th this year, I found the suggestion that the Metropolitan Police somehow wishes for a huge terrorist attack to be bluntly insulting.

Lastly, the concept that the security services should be ridiculed for over reacting to a given threat does not take in to account the fact that NOBODY KNOWS exactly what the capabilities of the terrorists are! Who would have thought prior to this week that Hezbolla would be in possession of medium range ballistic missile? Is this the capability of a techincally and operationally incompetent terrorist group? Of course not!

Basing security on a perceived lack of capability is utter folly and invites disaster.

Mr. Pond

If you look at the capabilities of Private Military Firms
you can derive the capability of a dedicated terrorist group.

You can not protect any public infrastructure
against an infantry platoon with modern equipment.

Modern equipment and armament is available on the free market.

So you are out of luck regarding capability on the level of damage
a platoon of modern infantry can inflict on infrastructure and the population.

Because you will most probably not be able to
handle the damage inflicted by an intelligent enemy.

And Hezbollah may be called a terrorist group
but is actually a well-trained and equipped special forces group.

AC:

While I agree Hezbollah may well be well funded, describing them as a well trained special forces group is laughable.

It's one thing to know about certain special forces techniques, but being trained in them by individuals with a wealth of actual operational experience, and then practicing them for hours a day, every day; is quite another.

Please note that I'm not saying that Hezbollah is not well trained in strictly terrorist techniques - they may well be so. But well trained in special forces techniques? I hardly think so.

Hey, get a clue, theres a war on. solders are dieing. Get over the poitcal b/s, it's gonna happen.