President Obama Signs 'Secret Directive' On Cybersecurity

from the it's-so-secure-it's-secret dept

Wed, Nov 14th 2012 1:41pm — Mike Masnick

While we're hearing that the Senate is likely to take up (though not pass) the Cybersecurity Act yet again either today or tomorrow, and the White House is still sitting on a cybersecurity "executive order," in the meantime it's being reported that President Obama has signed a "secret directive" to allow the military to "act more aggressively to thwart cyberattacks." This is limited to the military, but that means we're talking about the NSA (which is a part of the Defense Department). Considering that it seems to view a stronger offensive effort (i.e., collecting all data) a key part of a strong "defense," this is worrisome.

The really troubling part in all of this is the really unnecessary level of secrecy. We keep being told scary bogeyman stories about online attacks without any evidence or proof. And now the President is signing a "secret" order allowing the military to do more in response? Without any real scrutiny, it's not difficult to see how these things expand unceasingly and are wide open for abuse. Given the NSA's track record here, it's inevitable that these efforts will be massively abused.

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: cybersecurity, military, nsa, president obama, secret directive

48 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Dark Helmet (profile), 14 Nov 2012 @ 12:01pm

Presidential overreach....
It's probably the most logical reason to never vote for an incumbent for President....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chosen Reject (profile), 14 Nov 2012 @ 2:02pm
  
  Re: Presidential overreach....
  No matter who won the election last week, Obama would still be president this week. I doubt voting him out last week would have changed this one bit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 14 Nov 2012 @ 2:08pm
  
  Re: Presidential overreach....
  A thought occurs: governments are becoming less relevant to the population of the world.
  
  ...and this fact scares the be-f***ing-jebus out of the government.
  
  If we thought the death throes of the MAFIAA were bad, the death throes of the governments (as they reach obsolescence, rather than thru any coup or revolt) will likely be exponentially worse.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 14 Nov 2012 @ 3:52pm
    
    Re: Re: Presidential overreach....
    A thought occurs: governments are becoming less relevant to the population of the world.
    And I wonder why that is?...
    As I understand it the presidential race cost $1billion per candidate or there abouts. It's hardly suprising that:
    1/ Anyone getting there is beholden to whoever can provide that kind of money to get them there and
    2/ The interests of those that they are beholden to are not the same as the other 99.99% of the world that don't have that kind of money.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mason Wheeler, 15 Nov 2012 @ 10:28am
    
    Re: Re: Presidential overreach....
    Be careful what you wish for. History has shown that whenever one group in power declines, there will be several others that are more than willing to step in and fill the void, by whatever means necessary. A power vacuum makes for even worse conditions to live in than a tyrannical government. (Just look at Somalia!)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wally (profile), 14 Nov 2012 @ 8:49pm
  
  Re: Presidential overreach....
  That's why I voted Hillary Clinton for Presidential Candidate for the DNC. She's the one who encouraged Obama to go against SOPA after he quietly expressed his support.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DS, 15 Nov 2012 @ 3:51am
    
    Re: Re: Presidential overreach....
    She isn't that much of a saint... she also supported Jack Thompson before the shit hit the fan for him.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2012 @ 5:18am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Presidential overreach....
      Power causes corruption! Trust me I know from personal experience. I won this bet when I was 11 and during the month my brother was my slave I turned from a nice kid into a goddamn tyrant.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
alanbleiweiss (profile), 14 Nov 2012 @ 12:17pm

Power corrupts. Same story. Always. Without someone providing order and structure, there's always going to be unfettered chaos and someone somewhere is going to do grievous harm to those around them.

So how do we maintain order and structure without crossing into corrupt motives within the realm of cyber security, since it's hidden under the guise of national security?

The notion that Congress supposedly oversees such things and is charged with providing checks and balances has become a joke given their own corrupt motivations. And the Supreme court? total crap-shoot as a "final protection".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2012 @ 2:44pm
  
  Re:
  My sentiments exactly.....its uplifting to know im not alone with these thoughts
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
weneedhelp (profile), 14 Nov 2012 @ 1:46pm

No difference
Barry, or Mitt, would be the same shit, different asshole. Our kids kids will tell the story of the great uprising, or the massive slaughter. Sad really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trevor (profile), 14 Nov 2012 @ 1:53pm

No matter who was elected President would have done this. The only consolation is that Obama was a Constitutional Lawyer, so at least he KNOWS what he is signing. Romney would just go along with whatever.

"Anyone capable of getting themselves elected President should by no means be allowed to do the job." -Douglas Adams
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chosen Reject (profile), 14 Nov 2012 @ 2:00pm
  
  Re:
  I don't know, I'm fairly certain Gary Johnson wouldn't have signed this. And while it might be true that Romney would have done the same thing if he had the opportunity, the reality is that your statement is true in one sense. No matter who won the election last week, Obama would have signed this anyway. If Obama had lost the election, he'd still be PotUS right now.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chosen Reject (profile), 14 Nov 2012 @ 2:01pm
  
  Re:
  How is it a consolation that someone who should know better is doing this rather than someone else?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Trevor (profile), 14 Nov 2012 @ 2:34pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I was not defending the President for his actions. I was pointing out that at least he KNOWS what he is doing, like it or not. The only consolation is that this isn't a situation where the President is being told what to do and to just play along. At least he knows the implications. The problem is: He's ok with it.
    
    Also, I meant between the two people with a fighting chance to get elected. Until the system changes to allow a viable third party contender that has an actual chance, the President is coming from one of the two main parties.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2012 @ 2:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That is the dumbest thing I have read here. You excuse Obama for signing something he should know better than to sign. You must be some kind of Obama apologist.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Trevor (profile), 14 Nov 2012 @ 3:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Um, dense much? My point went over your head. I didn't excuse Obama. I simply pointed out that he KNOWS WHAT HE SIGNED, as opposed to a President (Bush, possibly Romney) who would have just signed whatever his Generals told him to sign, no questions asked.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2012 @ 3:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That is exactly my point, you somehow think that is better,
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2012 @ 4:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Is that an Obamologist?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - TheLastCzarnian (profile), 14 Nov 2012 @ 4:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, you Obamapologist.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2012 @ 3:40pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "The only consolation is that this isn't a situation where the President is being told what to do and to just play along. At least he knows the implications. The problem is: He's ok with it. "
      
      That's not a consolation. That's a BIGGER problem. When the problem is simple ignorance, knowledge will cure it. This problem is apparently deeper.
      
      Would you rather have someone who would take improper action advising the President - or BEING the President?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rekrul, 14 Nov 2012 @ 4:24pm
  
  Re:
  The only consolation is that Obama was a Constitutional Lawyer, so at least he KNOWS what he is signing.
  
  I think you mean that he should know better...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2012 @ 4:54pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Anyway, how does being a constitutional lawyer mean he knows what he's signing? If he doesn't understand cybersecurity, he won't understand the constitutional implications.
    
    Kind of like how people in the patent office might understand patent law but not understand that a PARTICULAR patent application is overbroad- if you don't fully understand the material, you can't know how the law applies to it.
    
    And again, what good is his being a constitutional lawyer if he's just going to ignore whether it's constitutional anyway? You can't seriously tell me that caring whether something is constitutional has been a big priority for him in general in this presidency.
    
    And how long is this bill? Has Obama actually even read it word for word, as a lawyer would have to in order to form an actual legal opinion on it?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2012 @ 1:59pm

The directive was leaked to WikiLeaks 37 minutes before he signed it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2012 @ 2:02pm

Easy fix for the bad guys...
just throw some cyber hookers their way and let the fun begin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2012 @ 2:10pm

OBAMA
WUT R U DOIN
OBAMA
STAHP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2012 @ 2:14pm

"The really troubling part in all of this is the really unnecessary level of secrecy."

Mike, you've got the NSA admitting that they are violating the Constitution. When asked about the scope of the violations, they stated it would further violate the Constitution. The whole process has been a complete disaster to civil rights in the United States and you expect them to be open about it? I've got some beach front property in Florida to sell you...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JNR, 14 Nov 2012 @ 2:21pm

Terrifying
Secret laws, written anonymously, granting sweeping powers to parties unknown, passed without a vote? What is this, the USSR? What the hell happened to my country.

And this isn't "hurr durr obawma is evul", McJesus Rmoney would have signed this just as fast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2012 @ 3:48pm
  
  Re: Terrifying
  Well, we don't know what is IN the order. Obama is commander in chief, and has the power to issue directives to the military. And the exact rules of engagement probably SHOULD be secret, to avoid having others exploit them. How can you say it "grants sweeping powers to parties unknown" without knowing what's in it? It may very well grant only powers that certain people already assumed they had.
  
  I'm sure this was leaked on purpose. You can tell, because the article in the paper spins it in a positive light. "Look, we're doing something about cybersecurity!"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2012 @ 2:31pm

Well, it ain't so secret now, is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 14 Nov 2012 @ 2:35pm

Long live the King
With Obama skirting congress so often with executive orders we basically now have a king. That should scare people even more than this bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 14 Nov 2012 @ 3:56pm
  
  Re: Long live the King
  In his case yes.. in general, arguably a somewhat benevolent dictator would probably be better that clowngress or any other "democratic" government in the world.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hello World, 14 Nov 2012 @ 2:42pm

... about time ...
There are regular attacks on DoD and Infrastructure (Electric Grid) already...

http://www.informationweek.com/government/security/dod-hackers-breached-us-critical-infrast/2400 08972

... and more than most reading this would really want to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2012 @ 3:05pm
  
  Re: ... about time ...
  if you put CRITICAL INFASTRUCTURE ON THE WEB you DESERVE to have a SPIKE DRIVEN THRU YOUR HEAD... ITS NOT THAT FREAKING HARD of a concept to get...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- A1der, 14 Nov 2012 @ 5:58pm
  
  Re: ... about time ...
  Electric grid is NOT connected to the world wide web. It cannot be affected by hackers, only by highly placed, corrupt politicians.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hugo First, 14 Nov 2012 @ 2:46pm

How far can they go?
The president has already asserted the authority to kill US citizens on his order, on his say-so alone, without any of the niceties afforded by the bill of rights. Why on earth would this surprise anyone? And what difference does it make any more?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JohnParry, 14 Nov 2012 @ 2:59pm

Facts
Author, you offer no facts. Just rumors and speculation. Poor article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 15 Nov 2012 @ 6:55am
  
  Re: Facts
  Which is the same thing the government offers us.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2012 @ 3:16pm

Given the NSA's track record here, it's inevitable that these efforts will be massively abused.

Hell yeah. That's all the government does--they shit all over us. Rabble rabble! I hate America!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
temoi, 14 Nov 2012 @ 3:32pm

No matter who's president they will fuck us pirates hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BentFranklin (profile), 14 Nov 2012 @ 3:33pm

I wonder if any part of thwarting cyberattacks includes not provoking cyberattacks by being a cyberfirststriker?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 14 Nov 2012 @ 6:12pm
  
  Re:
  but but but think of terrorist children!
  
  This is letting them get their need to have war happen without having to use nukes. They've had them and only got to use them that one time.
  Now we can have giant bloodless battles in cyberspace.
  
  Maybe they should take a page from Notch's playbook and just have a Quake 3 deathmatch tournament.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wally (profile), 14 Nov 2012 @ 5:10pm

Better in the hands of the NSA where it gets lost from the billions of daily communications than the DOJ and FBI who will not only arrest you for the littlest of things, but leave your personal information open to hackers ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2012 @ 1:59am

Remember y'all, the internet can't be regulated.

Just cuz.

We said so.

Don't give a damn that it's about commerce now, not communication.

You can't mess with us. Free speech bitches. LOL

Pay no attention to all this money being accumulated that's making us wealthier than everyone else.

FREE SPEECH.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Real Michael, 15 Nov 2012 @ 5:09am

Their actions are a national disgrace. Our enemies must be having a good laugh as our own government turns rogue before our eyes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2012 @ 3:16pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I highly doubt that these people who think theres nothing wrong with these bill actually have the morals or self control not to do it regradless of permission, with the recent cia firing and bengazai testifying, plus the numerous other examples, its clear they already poses the capability........no, this is and will always be a law brought up to justify something, past, present, or future.
Your government is out of control, and its leading the rest of the world down the drain pipe
There are few americans i would call friend, those in liberty have mine by default, and my respect and my support, whenever, however i can.......i wish you guys the strenght to fight the apathy, but will never begrudge if you fall back, as they say, you can never unlearn what you see, read, or hear.........the fire of liberty rages on.....its, its own beast, doesnt seem like it wants to get put out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shruggingshoulders, 15 Nov 2012 @ 9:58pm

Should know better?
Pres Obama should know better?...?
And just what in the last 4 years proves that he cares about the constitution?
There is this current scandal right now, where his admin scapegoated an insignificant video maker for a certain overseas problem. Um.. Freedom of speech?
No. To use your conjecture of Romney's future actions as a foil to lessen Pres Obama's responsibility in his duties to uphold the constitution is exactly why the slippery slope is a steep grade right now. Partisanship is leading to double standards w consequences. Thank you for yet another example. The constitution is the standard. Period. Whatever happened to the Liberal speaking truth to power? Sad, because the sycophancy and plain wierd cult of personality for our current pres is taking its toll.
Even if this article proves false, with such pervasive thinking, it won't matter w the next issue on deck.
Our best hope is a statesmen in the Dem party shows some backbone and says no more. It won't come from the GOP, so successfully marginalized, as they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
relghuar, 16 Nov 2012 @ 4:26am

Secrecy forever!
Please, Mike, how can that still surprise you after 4 years?
Obama loves secrecy. When secrecy is alone and afraid at night, it goes to White House to huddle in bed right between Mr. and Mrs. Obama.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]