ConEd

Obama Will Propose New Efforts to Make Our Creaky Physically Dangerous Critical Infrastructure CyberSafe

One of Obama’s key proposals in tonight’s State of the Union will be yet another effort to shore up the cybersecurity of our critical infrastructure.

As a threshold matter, I find it a remarkable coinkydink that the WaPo just reported the leaked findings of an NIE saying that the Chinese (and Israelis and Russians and the French, but the Chinese are bigger and badder, apparently) continue to rob us blind via cybertheft. I look forward to learning whether this — unlike the convenient drone rule book leaks supporting John Brennan’s confirmation — get reported as sanctioned leaks, as required under the Intelligence Authorization.

And speaking of John Brennan, he’s the Homeland Security Czar. A big part of his job is keeping us safe from precisely these kinds of attacks. So why didn’t he get a single question about why he should be CIA Director considering he has been such an abject failure keeping us safe from cyberattacks? (He was asked a question about CIA’s role in cybersecurity, but not asked to explain why he has been such a failure in his current role.)

Now, frankly, I don’t know that that is much John Brennan’s fault. Folks will say that the problem is — as it has been since Richard Clarke first started fearmongering on this front — that corporations won’t participate willingly and no one is going to make them.

But the proposal — which you’ll see if you tune in — doesn’t change that. It’s still voluntary.

And here’s the thing that all the cyberexperts in the world seem to be missing. Not only are the private owners of our critical infrastructure unwilling to fix their cyberdefenses. They’re not willing to keep their brick and mortar infrastructure up to date either. See, for example, PG&E or ConEd‘s recent records, for example.

Look, if these companies refuse to keep up their physical infrastructure and their cyber infrastructure, there’s probably an underlying reason motivating their negligence that no amount of immunity or winks or risk-free information sharing on the cyber side is going to fix. Moreover, if they are physically fundamentally unsafe, no amount of tinkering with their cybersecurity is going to make them safe. They’ll be vulnerable to a terrorist attack and be vulnerable to not entirely random failures and explosions.

You need to solve the underlying problem if you want to keep our critical infrastructure safe. And yet another EO, particularly one limited to cybersecurity and not affect brick and mortar integrity, will not do that.

Updated: Reading Obama’s longer proposal, it does aim to increase the “resiliency” of our physical infrastructure too. So it is not limited to cyber. That said, the underlying problem remains. Private companies aren’t spending the money to invest in this, whether it is physical resilience (or bare minimum functionality) or cyberdefense.

Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel And if you don't like all that and talk about it 10 years in the pokey for you.
3mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel And that "amicus" has to do what the FISC says. FISC: Argue for retention. Steven Bradbury: OK, Boss.
5mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel But if I'm reading this right, when Apple challenges having to retain iMessage data, FISC can put THEIR OWN amicus to argue for Apple.
6mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel The Judge appointed by John Roberts (Bates) wrote wish list for "amicus" that may deprive providers of their own lawyers, right to challenge
7mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @englishm_ 1AM vote.
9mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Also, someone call @steve_vladeck (who I don't THINK is at reunion this weekend like I should be) so he can rip this amicus to shreds.
11mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @PGEddington The White House runs the IC? This is a new development, no? @joanneleon
13mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Another name for this bill: The American High Tech Destruction Act.
14mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Well that narrows it down https://t.co/Tsp19ntIab
16mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @PGEddington I disagree. This is 1) what the goal has been all along 2) what NSA needs to be able to do what they want. @joanneleon
19mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Someone also call @MJZwills (if he wasn't already called as a VZ or Apple lawyer) bc this MAY try to replace provider lawyers a/amicus.
21mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Burr's bill strongly suggests there have been 702 violations (which USA F-ReDux already did, gently, but this does more aggressively).
24mreplyretweetfavorite
May 2015
S M T W T F S
« Apr    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31