Monday
Nov022009
No Need For Cyber Czar Says Republican Collins
Monday, November 2, 2009 at 3:44PM
By Meagan Wiseley - University of New Mexico/Talk Radio News Service
Despite continued threats to the security of the global cyber infrastructure, Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Susan Collins (R-Maine) said Monday that she is opposed to the Obama administration appointing a cyber security coordinator, or “cyber czar.”
“We don’t need yet another White House czar. A czar would conflict with statutory duties established elsewhere,” Collins said.
Instead, Collins favors a cyber security “center” within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). DHS would appoint a director for the center, and the director would report both to the DHS on a day to day basis, and act as the head adviser to the President on cybersecurity.
“Effectively managing government cybersecurity is going to require more than a few staff crammed into a cubicle in the depths of the White House,” said Collins.
Last Friday, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano opened the DHS’s National Cybersecurity and Communications Coordination Integration Center, which acts as a 24-hour coordinated watch and warning center to bolster cyber information sharing and incident response.
Collins said that despite its effort to manage cyber security, the DHS “still lacks the authority and resources it needs to secure our federal and private sector networks.”
She says her “center” proposal must work in accordance with law enforcement and intelligence agencies, the U.S. military and private owners and operators of critical cyberspace infrastructures.
“It is vitally important that we build a strong public-private partnership to protect cyberspace, a vital engine of our economy, our government, our country and our future,” Collins concluded.
Despite continued threats to the security of the global cyber infrastructure, Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Susan Collins (R-Maine) said Monday that she is opposed to the Obama administration appointing a cyber security coordinator, or “cyber czar.”
“We don’t need yet another White House czar. A czar would conflict with statutory duties established elsewhere,” Collins said.
Instead, Collins favors a cyber security “center” within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). DHS would appoint a director for the center, and the director would report both to the DHS on a day to day basis, and act as the head adviser to the President on cybersecurity.
“Effectively managing government cybersecurity is going to require more than a few staff crammed into a cubicle in the depths of the White House,” said Collins.
Last Friday, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano opened the DHS’s National Cybersecurity and Communications Coordination Integration Center, which acts as a 24-hour coordinated watch and warning center to bolster cyber information sharing and incident response.
Collins said that despite its effort to manage cyber security, the DHS “still lacks the authority and resources it needs to secure our federal and private sector networks.”
She says her “center” proposal must work in accordance with law enforcement and intelligence agencies, the U.S. military and private owners and operators of critical cyberspace infrastructures.
“It is vitally important that we build a strong public-private partnership to protect cyberspace, a vital engine of our economy, our government, our country and our future,” Collins concluded.
Reader Comments (1)
This is irrational. The unstable DHS has neither the compentancies nor the authority to provide OVERSIGHT for cyber-security issues, their job is concentrated on physical infrastructure and is unrelated to the diverse commerce and institutional systems which must be covered by a true authority not a brokering overpriced entity and must be capable of handling the real issues such as the Department of Commerce's direct sponsorship of exploit through patents and FCC policy, factors which are simply not within the realm of DHS nor will be. Military topics are unrelated to civilian infrastructure in the USA. DHS is simply not qualified for oversight, no less any other antics.