White House Cybersecurity Boss -- Who Argued Against Overhyping Threats -- Resigns

from the too-bad dept

Mon, May 21st 2012 9:48am — Mike Masnick

There's been a lot of attention lately on various "cybersecurity" bills making their way through Congress, and the White House's role in the debate has been pretty important. So it's interesting to see that the White House's cybersecurity czar, Howard Schmidt, has announced that he's resigning. While I don't always agree with Schmidt, he was one of the few (perhaps only?) high level government officials talking about online security issues who seemed willing to avoid hyperbole. In fact, he actually hit back against those who kept talking about "cyberwar," saying there was no such thing and it was "a terrible concept." One hopes that his successor, Michael Daniel, will be similarly willing to push back against the rush of hype around "cybersecurity."

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: cispa, cybersecurity, howard schmidt, michael daniel, white house

39 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

DannyB (profile), 21 May 2012 @ 9:54am

Forced out?
Being unwilling to use hyperbole for the benefit of lobbyists and tyrant wannabes probably made him unsuited for the position.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 21 May 2012 @ 9:59am

Not good
The US has lost Thomas Drake, William Binney, and a number of whistleblowers that spoke up as well as instill a $1.7 billion dollar massive spy ring in terms of the NSA Utah project. Honestly, the chances of Michael Daniel coming into this situation and wanting to change the system are very few. The "establishment" has spoken. The ones that speak up and don't go for the scare mongering are going to be the ones that are thrown out. I wouldn't be surprised if eventually Howard Schmidt, like Robert Gates, doesn't start speaking up about how the government is truly corrupted in this regard.

I truly hope I'm wrong, but the signs for Michael Daniel being as moderate as Howard are very slim IMO.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
arcan, 21 May 2012 @ 10:02am

it seems to me that obama doesn't want competent people in his government. he just wants people that agree with him. I am just wondering how long until some president tries to get a thought reading device. and how long until police attempt to use it without a warrant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2012 @ 10:05am

i swear this is like the 8th "cyber czar"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
arcan, 21 May 2012 @ 10:09am

Re:
what in the world is with all the Russians in the whitehouse....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2012 @ 10:10am

The term "cyber" anything is pure science-fiction bulls*** developed by devious but clueless a**holes playing on the fears of the equally clueless masses.

It makes me want to puke that people can be so f***king stupid.

It has about as much to do with reality as the moon being made of green cheese.

If you use the term "cyber" anything you are either a scaremonger with an agenda or a complete utter dumb fool.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mr. Smarta** (profile), 21 May 2012 @ 10:10am

Doubtful
One hopes that his successor, Michael Daniel, will be similarly willing to push back against the rush of hype around "cybersecurity."

That's doubtful. Slowly but surely they're getting rid of all the voices that oppose the White House's socialist agenda. No doubt the administration made things so hard on Howard Schmidt because of his stance and they intend to control Michael Daniel with a clentched fist. He'll fall to the regime that will eventually lead to the US becoming socialist and it's people so tightly controlled that nobody will have any privacy even in their own homes and minds, and every American will be forced to have a camera in every corner in their house and pointed at their beds to make sure they aren't terrorists. Every trip starts with the first step, and censorship/slavery is where it all starts.

... Is it a conspiracy theory if they really are out to do it??
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Killer_Tofu (profile), 21 May 2012 @ 10:19am

Re: Doubtful
Socialist, I do not think that word means what you think it means.

If you were to say fascist, well then sir, I would agree with you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
arcan, 21 May 2012 @ 10:22am

Re: Re: Doubtful
1984 is communist based. communism is just a more extreme version of socialism. in 1984 the government wanted complete control over a person's life. therefore his statement is not that off.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2012 @ 10:23am

Re: Doubtful
please don't use the word socialist like that. The US has 2 parties, both are right of centre. You have no centre party let alone a left of centre or 'socialist'. There are many countries in the world that are run by socialist or left of centre governments that are a lot freer than the US.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 21 May 2012 @ 10:44am

Re: Re: Doubtful
Who decides on the directions? Can I get a party that's, say for example, up and forward?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2012 @ 10:48am

'One hopes that his successor, Michael Daniel, will be similarly willing to push back against the rush of hype around "cyber security.'

dont be so bloody ridiculous! the reason he's been given the job is because he is a 'yes man', just doing as he's told. the real question to ask is who stands to gain the most financially when whatever 'cyber security' bill is introduced? what's the betting the chances are it will be some senator?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ThumbsUpThumbsDown (profile), 21 May 2012 @ 10:49am

Re: Not good
Perhaps these guys are more useful on the outside....After all, three hundred die hard sleepers need to be woken up.....Of course, they might all pull a Chris Dodd and go where the money is.....

Is this a real loss? Not if "the money" is where they've always been.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cowardly Anonymous, 21 May 2012 @ 10:51am

Re: Re: Re: Doubtful
Somewhat incorrect, Socialism is actually the paradigm this country has used since around the turn of the century. It consists of a fundamentally capitalist structure with communistic support of those who end up at the bottom of the curve. Welfare, social security, enforced insurance and workers unions are all socialist in nature.

Communism is what happens when the capitalistic forms are removed. It is government taking direct control of the market and has always been oppressive in all iterations where it remains pure.

Capitalism is what happens when governments remain entirely separated from companies. It is the license for a company to do whatever it desires with its workers and has always been oppressive in all iterations where it remains pure.

Mercantilism is what happens when governments work for the benefit of companies. It consists of monopolistic policies and similarly drives oppression through imperialism.

Fascism is the result of militarizing the economic sector. Like mercantilism, it is imperialistic and a drives oppression in this manner.

We are currently dealing with a government that corrupts towards Mercantilism and Fascism. Note that this is not driven by conspiratorial forces, but rather by the nature of a quick buck. The presence of and legality of unions pressures against pure capitalism and hold-over from extensive propaganda campaigns pressures against pure communism.

Anti-fascist sentiments run stronger than anti-mercantilist sentiments and mercantilists are better at generating income which has placed them in a stronger position.

The take-away: any extreme system that is not built on a balance of differing forces will tend towards oppression. The focus should be on preventing oppressive regimes, rather than lauding one form over another, as we need to draw from all forms if we are to sustain freedom.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 21 May 2012 @ 10:59am

Re: Not good
Then perhaps it's time for eradication fo the political �lite in the US: I'd prefer metaphorically speaking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 21 May 2012 @ 11:10am

Re:
I get a vague impression that you're against the cyber security czar post. Care to clarify?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 21 May 2012 @ 11:13am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Doubtful
The turn of the century was only a bit over a decade ago. I'm pretty sure it goes back to the 1930s, give or take a Republican or two and a JFK.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 21 May 2012 @ 11:19am

Re: Re: Re: Doubtful
Europe does, obviously. That most of them who used to be capitalists are now socialists and vice versa changes nothing about their authority to dictate to the rest of the world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Liz (profile), 21 May 2012 @ 11:21am

Re: Re:
I take it you haven't seen the documentary film "Red Dawn."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2012 @ 11:23am

Re: Re: Re: Doubtful
1984 is not really what I would term as a "socialist" state. It is statist to the extreme with very strong communism-similarities, but actually "socialist" has its core in helping the poor get jobs which takes a stronger government to cut out too many middlemen, as opposed to help the rich create jobs which is ironically called "liberal conservative".
That is pretty far from what the book describes.

A totalitarian state is a micromanaging state to the extreme and it is honestly the better description of the world in George Orwells novel.
Totalitarianism is according to both true oldschool conservatives and communists, but most other democratic ideologies are far removed from that.

A lot of politics around the world seems to be suffering from exactly the same problems: Too powerful and undemocratic administratons, too much economic pressure (lobbying and binding economic support for politicians) and not enough openness in procedures.
It does not matter at all who you vote for. The problem is in the system and it does not go away by switching voodoo-doll.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cowardly Anonymous, 21 May 2012 @ 11:28am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Doubtful
Yeah, sorry, since two turns of the century ago (I've read too much stuff from the 1900's).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2012 @ 11:49am

Re: Re: Doubtful
Actually, we do have a socialist party (Socialist Party USA) and a communist party (Communist Party USA). They just get very little of the vote, which means that they don't get any candidates elected.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 21 May 2012 @ 11:59am

Re: Doubtful
Is it a conspiracy theory if they really are out to do it??

Technically, yes. "Conspiracy theory" means a hypothesis of conspiratorial actions. It says nothing about how accurate that hypothesis is.

If by "they" you mean "the government", then there is zero indication that "they're" out to do that. However, there are several private-sector efforts to do exactly that, so if by "they" you mean private-sector corporations, then yes, they are out to do it.

By the way, if you think the current administration is even remotely socialist, then you either misunderstand what socialism is or you aren't paying attention to what the administration has been doing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rich Kulawiec, 21 May 2012 @ 12:00pm

The timing of this is suspicious
Coming as it does in the midst of hysterical OMG!OMG!CYBERWAR fear-mongering, I have to wonder if perhaps this was more the result of a push than a jump. We'll know soon enough, once we see if the WH position on nonsense like CISPA shifts.

It's one of the great ironies of our time that climate change -- which, unlike cyberwar is actually real and is actually an existential threat to the United States -- is still being denied by some and explained away by others, while greedy government contractors hyping fabricated threats in order to line their own pockets are getting serious attention from Congress.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ThumbsUpThumbsDown (profile), 21 May 2012 @ 12:06pm

What makes the Queen a King?
Persistent in these facts is the Idea that the "real" powers have spoken on the coming trend in Cybersecurity and
whoever wants to head a relevant federal agency had better show up ready to say "yes" to the conventional beaurocratic wisdom or learn to fly unceremoniously out the window.

Of course, the "done deal" that shows up in the American legislative tea leaves is yet another indistinguishable version of PIPA, SOPA, ACTA, CISPA or Six Strikes....In short, yet one more repackage of assorted nullifications of American Constitutional and Civil Liberties....things like broad grants of Immunity to govermental and Private agencies for damages inflicted on innocents; conversion of Presumption of Innocence into (cough, cough) rebuttable presumption of guilt; rechartering of National Security Agencies to operate within the United States with American Citizens as legitimate subjects of investigation; expansion of government and private party actions that can be taken prior to or without warrant; incorporation in written law of the effectiveness of Commercial TOS waivers as dispositive for the waiver of Constitutionally protected rights.

Took a lot of Balls to present the American People with these already known bundles of nullifications of their Civil and Constitutional Rights....Will take even less brains to offer up the next pretty package with these same traps restated....

Yet,if these "powers that be" were so powerful and unopposable, don't you think they could have saved themselves from the public bitch-slapping the American People gave them the first time around in the matters of PIPA, SOPA, ACTA, CISPA?

The special interest beneficiaries of these laws don't just "want" Immunity from Liability....They desperately NEED Immunity from liability....and the American People said, very LOUDLY...."NO! You cant't have Immunity from Liability!"

Why?

Because the next Public Bitch-Slapping is going to send the political hacks who protect these special Interests permenantly into the closet in a coma.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2012 @ 12:17pm

White House Cybersecurity Boss -- Who Argued Against Overhyping Threats -- Resigns

Of course he resigned his ideas do not fit the current narrative.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 21 May 2012 @ 12:26pm

Re: Re: Re: Doubtful
If you check out the World's Smallest Political Quiz, you will find that it goes in four directions. From up to down and left to right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 21 May 2012 @ 12:27pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Doubtful
Forgot the link: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2012 @ 12:43pm

Cyber-war sounds like the back-up plan in case the "war on terror" doesn't look so effective anymore and most people stop believing in it.

The war on terror was also prepared for many years before 9/11 actually happened.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HypnoBlogger, 21 May 2012 @ 1:02pm

Overstating...
If the government doesn't overstate and inflate "threats"... how can they possibly justify the abuse of its citizens? The TSA is one HUGE example... REALLY?! Per an earlier article... DHS is doing patdowns at proms? MY TAX dollars are going for that?!

It's like everyone in the government has some form of Tourette syndrome...

"Think of the children!"

"Terror threats!"

and now...

"Cyber Threats!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
arcan, 21 May 2012 @ 1:08pm

Re: Re: Re:
i think it does not matter. there are 500 million more screamin china men at the moment than there are in the movie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Almost Anonymous (profile), 21 May 2012 @ 1:24pm

Re:
If you use the term "cyber" anything you are either a scaremonger with an agenda or a complete utter dumb fool.

William Gibson is a sad panda :(
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Enlightened, 21 May 2012 @ 1:26pm

Re: Forced out?
DannyB you're absolutely right. The Bilderberg elite had him removed.

Dr. King publicly opposed the war and help raise awareness to its human and financial cost...........yet he pissed off the "Machine".

Summary: Piss off the War (any kind of war) Machine, you get dismissed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2012 @ 1:48pm

High paid industry job in 3...2...1... The countdown begins.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2012 @ 1:55pm

Re:
Kind of like "the cloud"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Enlightened, 21 May 2012 @ 1:57pm

Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 21st, 2012 @ 1:48pm
..........and the Military Industrial Complex wins another victory.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2012 @ 2:14pm

Re: Re: Doubtful
Seriously? Name them... and cite each country's version of the First and fourth amendments, just to name two.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jonathan, 22 May 2012 @ 3:22pm

Re: Re: Re: Doubtful
The slavish devotion to the First Amendment has brough us the alternate reality of Fox "News", Christian Reconstructionism, and Citizens United. A more finely tuned replacement would be most welcome.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 7:14am

And what a casuality
That there appears a video with threats of cyberattacks, now that they want to push the bill.. What a casuality... or may be not.

http://news.yahoo.com/virtual-terrorism-al-qaeda-video-calls-electronic-jihad-214355054.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]