In November, information security in America will face an epic dilemma. Given two presidential candidates who will shape information security policy at a time when we are seeing information warfare as a common weapon. The skirmish between Russia and Georgia a few weeks go illustrated painfully the reality of this situation when Russian hackers took over Georgian web sites. (See http://valleywag.com/5035493/claim-russian-hackers-behind-spam-crime-ring-took-over-georgias-national-websites for more information.)
The candidates differ in significant ways on virtually every issue. Perhaps the most visible difference is the use of the Internet as a campaign tool. On one hand we have a 72 year old Man, who until recently had never used the Internet. Opposite him we have a candidate whose success is based largely upon his master of the Internet and the grass roots networking made possible. Not to disparage either candidate, but it does seem to me that the candidate who is at least familiar with the internet will be better equipped to make important policy decisions and steer the general direction of security policy for our nation as it relates to technology.
I hold no illusions that either candidate will be actually writing policy themselves, but at a minimum the executive of or nation will be the one guiding us through a period when increased regulation is sure to come out of the housing finance debacle. This regulation will no doubt affect information security in some respects. In response to our nations defense, I would expect that the candidate with some grasp of the Internet would be more equipped to make tough decisions and help to secure our digital borders. I find it personally hard to believe that a 72 year old that until recent had never used the intent has the necessary grasp of the devastating effects of a digital war.
Sure, either candidate will rely heavily upon industry experts for guidance. This guidance is expected and certainly needed, with some level of temperance. Which candidate has the better filter to skim the propaganda and sales speak from these experts and get to the truth in the underlying statements? We don’t expect our candidates to be master of all topics affecting our nation. We do expect them to use effective judgment. They will both rely upon the guidance of industry experts across the board. As the “victim” of their leadership, we either fall prey to corporate interests or benefit from their objective wisdom. It is this ability to identify the reality of a situation by identifying corporate and personal biases and making an INTELLIGENT and informed decision.
We must trust our candidates to stave off the propaganda of lobbyists, special interests and big business. We want them to glean nuggets of truth from the sea of sources and give us the unfiltered truth. We want them to use this truth as they lead, as they steer policy and as they drive our nation forward. The banking finance scandal, Enron and other examples of federal deregulation show quite clearly the effects of corporate greed on not only our economy, but also the American way of life. America will continue to push back against deregulation for years to come. It is up to us as voters to decide which candidate will represent our interests as America rebuilds its economy into some shadowy resemblance of its prior stature. On November 4th a decision will be made, will you have your say?
Certainly Obama has more experience using the internet. The real consideration is which candidate's philosophy tends towards more government control (i.e. less freedom) and which is for less government control. Consider also that the advisors they listen to will be of the same persuasion. I for one would rather have a president who is for less control and continued freedom of the internet rather than one who is for bigger government and more control in general. And remember, Obama also needs to generate more taxes to pay for his trillion dollar increase in spending, and don't think that internet useage will escape notice.
Chad,
Thanks for proving that opinions are like.....well, you know. It appears to me that selecting a president based on your criteria would not be such a wise process. If all you are going to do is slam one guy for being 72 years old to bolster support for your candidate, then hold your tongue. Perhaps you might want to look at each candidate's voting record on the issue of cybersecurity instead. You might find the record points to a stronger stance on national security by the 72 year old, former military man.
Respectfully,
A Citizen
Have you considered the possibility that Obama isn't the web master that you make him out to be but rather his supporters are?
Or do you think that he's out there designing his own web pages?
I'm sure that neither of the candidates is a chef but I doubt that it makes them less able to understand world hunger. I also doubt that either will starve to death during their term in office!
But thanks for your completely unbiased report!
By the way, have you considered that you're making the case that Obama will NOT make a
good war time President because he's never been in a war? (Or a uniform for that matter!)
Or do you think that the only war we have to worry about is a cyber one???????
The fact that one candidate is more familiar with the use of the internet is no reason to vote for a candidate. It is my opinion that we are faced with two choices; neither of which is very desireable.
You attribute deregulation and corporate greed as the cause of the banking finance scandal. However you ignore the fact that the sub-prime mortgage mess was a result of over regulation, not deregulation. To add to that mess, was Congressional greed that fanned the fires.
If you have looked at the candidates backgrounds, other than an off handed comment about internet use, you will notice that the candidate whose campaign was most helped as a result of the internet, has on his staff, two former executives of Freddie Mac; both of whom profited emensely.
The 72 year old candidate, who in your opinion is out of touch, attempted to correct the problem in Congress, however he was ignored.
When Congress and the Clinton administration created regulations imposing the mandate on mortgage lenders that they make these risky home loans; the door was opened for this scandal. Don't blame it on deregulation. Over regulation is what started it.
As far as staving off the propaganda of lobbyists, there has to be a will to do so. When the son's of the running mate of your choice for President work for a lobbyist, who the candidate has had dealings with in the past and at present, I don't believe ability to use the internet is any gague of character.
As someone who whose career took a sharp turn on September 11, 2001 making anti-terrorism a major priority; my opinion is that if your guy get's elected, which he probably will, WASS.
First: " I find it personally hard to believe that a 72 year old that until recent had never used the intent has the necessary grasp of the devastating effects of a digital war."
The Spell Checker is not your friend.
Second, Fact Checking is.
You might want to look at the policies that each candidate has proposed in the past. That unnamed 72 year old has done quite a bit to promote technology and the infrastructure to support it. That other guy... not so much.
Fear Mongering in Infosec: You're doing it wrong.