http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKCN11J1QU
should cyber command be separated from NSA?
currently one person runs both the cyber command & NSA.
there is a proposal to devolve those functions to 2 people.
I think those functions should be separated.
what do you think?
- dilbert firestorm
- 09-25-2016, 01:52 AM
- Old-T
- 09-25-2016, 07:08 AM
No, they should not be separated.
Let's see: if part of out pre-9/11 problem was sharing data we had (and it was PART of the problem)
and if our improvements in that area have been slow, since the best of bureaucracies move slowly
Then let's add a high-level barrier to worsen the comms.
Let's see: if part of out pre-9/11 problem was sharing data we had (and it was PART of the problem)
and if our improvements in that area have been slow, since the best of bureaucracies move slowly
Then let's add a high-level barrier to worsen the comms.
- dilbert firestorm
- 09-25-2016, 09:39 AM
No, they should not be separated.heres the thing.
Let's see: if part of out pre-9/11 problem was sharing data we had (and it was PART of the problem)
and if our improvements in that area have been slow, since the best of bureaucracies move slowly
Then let's add a high-level barrier to worsen the comms. Originally Posted by Old-T
cyber command & NSA functions are two very different disciplines.
cyber command involves hacking & protecting other sites from hackers where as NSA is involved in electronic intelligence gathering.
those things require different focus and oversight on these duties. It just means less work for one individual on oversight over 2 agencies and more attention on focus on the 2 agencies if separated.
theres also a potential for abuse with one person in charge of both agencies.
- Old-T
- 09-25-2016, 09:51 AM
Both those are true points. But the NSA work is often what warns the cyber defensive ops, or points to the offensive ops--and doe the BDA to tell if they were effective. The two domains are indeed related very strongly.
The misuse point is fair, and that is a fundamental piece of the Freedom vs Security debate that we are 15 years late in having as a nation. Some people would have us believe 100 Freedom is the answer, but I believe that is a ridiculously simplistic approach. But obviously if we give up too much Freedom, then the Security isn't worth having. I don't know where they right answer is, but we need the conversation.
The misuse point is fair, and that is a fundamental piece of the Freedom vs Security debate that we are 15 years late in having as a nation. Some people would have us believe 100 Freedom is the answer, but I believe that is a ridiculously simplistic approach. But obviously if we give up too much Freedom, then the Security isn't worth having. I don't know where they right answer is, but we need the conversation.