iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Richard A. Clarke

GET UPDATES FROM Richard A. Clarke
 

John McCain and Chamber of Commerce Strike a Blow Against American Cybersecurity

Posted: 08/09/2012 11:08 am

Despite the warnings of generals, intelligence officers, corporate cyber security experts, and academic experts that America is dangerously vulnerable to attack in cyberspace, John McCain and the right wing Chamber of Commerce succeeded in blocking Senate action to improve our ability to defend America against cyber attack. They said they believed that the bill would create onerous federal regulation. Any objective observer would quickly see that there was no such regulation in the bill, but rather a set of industry created, voluntary standards. Even that was too much for the ideologues who believe that private sector companies are better off without any government assistance and can defend themselves from sophisticated cyber attack, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. For a man who campaigned for president on the slogan "Nation First" it was a stunning display of placing partisan and ideological interests ahead of the national security interest.

To be clear, what is at stake here is America's economic competitiveness, something the naive might think a chamber of commerce would champion. Once upon a time, before it became the bastion of knee jerk right wing economic dogma, the chamber of commerce put things like global competitiveness and national security ahead of partisanship and ideological purity. Now, it and its well funded lobbying machine, have killed a bill that would have addressed the most significant current threat to America's ability to compete with China economically and to defend ourselves against potentially devastating cyber war in the future.

In case you have missed the constant drum beat of reporting, China is systematically stealing American corporate secrets, research and development, transactional data, and anything else that is on our corporate computer networks. The four star Army general in charge of Cyber Command has called this "the greatest transfer of wealth in history."

Not satisfied to steal our competitiveness data, China and other nations have placed cyber bombs on such things as our electric power grid control systems. The officers of the government charged with defending us against this sort of threat have made it very clear that they think they need new authorities to help them defend against this real and new kind of warfare. And they have been denied what they need by John McCain and the Chamber of Commerce.

The president went around earlier in the year saying "if congress won't act, I will." He needs now to apply that general concept to the specific problem of cyber security. By the powers invested in him by the Constitution, by the Homeland Security Act, and other laws, the president can by executive order achieve most of what was contemplated in the cyber security bill that has run aground in the monied morass of Capital Hill. He can provide for information sharing about cyber threats with private sector companies that run critical infrastructure. He can create voluntary standards for those industries. He can call upon the existing regulatory bodies to improve their oversight of cyber security. He can use federal procurement power to create incentives for companies to improve their cyber security. And he can direct federal agencies to safeguard key networks and control systems from foreign logic bombs.

Recently the president participated in a war game with members of his cabinet. In the exercise, he came face to face with the kind of devastation a national cyber attack on America could wreak. He would be derelict in his duty, if he allowed us to continue on without a national plan to defend against a major cyber attack. But the truth is today that America has neither a plan nor the capabilities needed to prevent the on going cyber espionage against our companies and an even more damaging potential cyber war attack against our privately owned critical infrastructure.

The president could let the Congressional farce continue on the issue of cyber security, with resulting inaction. He might score some partisan points that way, pointing out the craven hypocrisy of those who stand in the way of addressing this serious issue. That course, however, would be inconsistent with his Constitutional duty to protect the nation from significant threats. He should issue an Executive Order to improve our cyber defenses now.

 
FOLLOW POLITICS
Despite the warnings of generals, intelligence officers, corporate cyber security experts, and academic experts that America is dangerously vulnerable to attack in cyberspace, John McCain and the righ...
Despite the warnings of generals, intelligence officers, corporate cyber security experts, and academic experts that America is dangerously vulnerable to attack in cyberspace, John McCain and the righ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 261
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (7 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:13 PM on 08/15/2012
The irony is that the right loves to claim that we are the exceptional nation because of our freedoms. Well the truth is that here is an example where totalitarian nations have the ability to just have orders such as this carried out with no objections such as that of McCain's.

In our nation of so-called freedoms, we have to deal with irresponsible interference by irresponsible people on the right in Congress who put self interest ahead of that of the nation.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:33 PM on 08/13/2012
The greatest threat to national security is greed. Those companies that put profit$ over national citizenship in matters such as this -- as well as tax matters -- are NOT a national asset but a liability and a national shame.

Anyone wanna bet these companies give overwhelmingly to the GOP.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:28 PM on 08/13/2012
Today's GOP is NOT the patriotic GOP of the IKE policy ilk. Even, though many private companies made profit during the building of the interstate highway system, it benefited the NATION and was has been an asset to the vast majority of Americans. Now the primary impetus of the GOP policy makers is to assure the profit$ of the wealthiest among us--even if that means putting our national security at risk. There is no doubt in my mind that there were private contractors as well as either stup*d and/or currupt public officials involved in putting the dangerous equipment in place at any nuclear power plant or other "sensitive" site. They and those on the government side of the revolving door in our defense and intelligent industries need to be prohibited from such cost-cutting profit-enhancing purchases and prosecuted for treason if the ignore those restrictions.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Julie Baker Morse
Mostly harmless
01:20 AM on 08/13/2012
Any actual evidence that this is happening, by the way? If so, why has it not been addressed in a court of law?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:29 PM on 08/13/2012
I can't help wondering if that if they actually KNOW there are "bugs" in stuff bought from China, then why is it still in place where it can do damage.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Julie Baker Morse
Mostly harmless
01:20 AM on 08/13/2012
To date, none of these so-called cyber"security" bills really address security. I have no problem with the failure to pass this legislation. If companies are lax in their security, that's their own problem. If it's a company that contracts work for the government, the government should simply end the contracts with these companies until such time as their security can be improved. If there's an issue with electrical grid security, than those utilities can be responsible. [Why does our electrical grid depend on the internet, anyway? Is that absolutely necessary?]

It is not the government's job to protect companies too lazy or incompetent to protect themselves, particularly when that dubious "protection" has the potential to interfere with the free internet.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:31 PM on 08/13/2012
The word that comes to mind is "refund" (for the taxpayers).

Wanna bet these are some of the same contractors that keep charging those "cost over runs".
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:37 PM on 08/12/2012
We've seen what happens when the government tries to guarantee the security in all areas of our lives.

We end up with some grotesque pot-belly TSA clown stickin'-hands-down-our-pants.

It has nothing to do with "American competitiveness" because the libor-interest rates is a FRAUD!

Rather, "security" to these people is the growth of the MIC.
photo
Digitized Human
I have a pulse and working coffee maker!
10:22 PM on 08/12/2012
This crap about cyber security is so over blown. The fact is, some of the secrets stolen cannot even be accessed by the internet. Where I work, none of the critical systems have an internet connection at all, thus have to be attacked from the inside by employees, not cyber hackers. Some companies have three layers of networks, and none of those are actually connected, and only one is attached to the internet, and that is a portal for the public to use.

Some of these people have watched too many TV shows, and the movie "War Games" 10 or 15 times, believe everything is attached to the internet, thus is at risk. While cyber security is important, people must realize that congress proposed making internet companies like Google police user traffic, damn, I thought that was the big gripe about Google, keeping too much information. While there are cyber dumb companies out there, most have competent I.T. departments, that keep the good stuff safely stashed on on discreet systems. The biggest risk to computer security is (drum roll) politicians, they approve funding for the lowest bidder, thus get a system that has critical security risk to publicly owned enterprises, such as power systems, data bases with personal information, and public employee data.
photo
modeforjoe
We had the experience, but we missed the meaning
10:06 PM on 08/12/2012
You sound like a homeland security freak. Tiresome.
photo
OC Surfer
A second is 30 nanoyears.
10:06 PM on 08/12/2012
"They said they believed that the bill would create onerous federal regulation. Any objective observer would quickly see that there was no such regulation in the bill, but rather a set of industry created, voluntary standards."

If they are industry-created, voluntary standards, why would they need to be in a government bill?
09:51 PM on 08/12/2012
I don't know how vulnerable the U.S. is to cyberattack. The nation that invented the Stuxnet virus should have some expertise, if not command, in this field. To assert that we are vulnerable seems disingenious. More likely this bill would provide the US government with information about businesses engaged in international trade. Nothing wrong with that. The fact is international businesses are notoriously politically concerned. Halliburton is one example, Enron is the opposite example. Does anyone have any doubts that Halliburton was as fake and artificial a business, on the books, as Enron until Dick Cheney forced a war with Iraq? How successful would Halliburton be if we just went into Afghanistan to destroy Al Quaeda-not very.
International businesses are not all WalMarts, they are a source of political patronage and, therefore, of international espionage. Cybersecurity, just look at China, is an important political tool that should not be controlled by American business interests and Republicans. It needs a law enforcement arm in charge of it in order for this country not to be undermined, if not betrayed, by international interests. It's too bad we don't have a writer like Michael Crichton anymore to dramatize this. I don' t know if Tom Clancy is up to it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ron Maede
When will Nugent follow through on his promise?
09:45 PM on 08/12/2012
This article should be required reading for all the low-information GOP trolls who post on this site.

Talking points are fun to memorize and fling around.

But this is a threat to every American. Obstructing these important defensive mechanisms is the same as buying airline tickets for Al Queda operatives.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
62WildEagle
GM IS ALIVE-BIN-LADEN IS DEAD
09:39 PM on 08/12/2012
There are times when regulations are needed sometimes to protect us from ourseleves. This is one of those times. To bad common sense can not win.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
McCartichoke
Failing better. One leaf at a time.
09:19 PM on 08/12/2012
I am so glad to see someone of Mr. Clarke's stature speak up in the popular media about this issue. It is one of the gravest ones we, as a declining superpower hobbled by global recession and punishing debt and drought, still need to face, soon. As daunting as our current problems are, they could be humbled -- and the nation with them -- with frightening ease, by anyone without our best interests at heart and with only intermediate hacking skills, who could be sitting in a public internet cafe almost anywhere in the world. The issue is vastly more serious than Americans imagine.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Romeover
Civilization is for weaklings.
05:41 PM on 08/12/2012
"That course, however, would be inconsistent with his (the President's) Constitutional duty to protect the nation from significant threats."

I would appreciate it, Mr. Clarke (or any interested reader), if you would point out exactly where in the Constitution it is stated that it is the duty of the President to "protect the nation from significant threats."

I, for one, am tired of this fear-mongering.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CommandoGOP
Signs the front not the back of his checks.
05:15 PM on 08/12/2012
few people trust Obama, and they know he would abuse the power.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
McCartichoke
Failing better. One leaf at a time.
09:21 PM on 08/12/2012
Not true. And, compared to Romney, hugely inaccurate.
10:00 PM on 08/12/2012
He has done nothing of the sort so far.