Cybersecurity Bill Fails To Move Forward In The Senate (Again)

from the why-did-they-bother dept

As was widely expected, Harry Reid tried to bring the problematic Cybersecurity Act back from the dead today. He needed 60 votes for cloture, which would have then allowed the bill to actually be debated upon (with various amendments considered as well). However, after a few short grandstanding speeches, the attempt at cloture failed, 51 votes to 47, well short of the 60 votes needed. Harry Reid then got up and lashed out at his colleagues, basically saying that he and other Cybersecurity supporters have been spreading so much FUD about how we're going to be attacked that he can't believe Senators didn't fall for it. Of course, one of the problems is that all of the fearmongering failed to actually identify the problems or threats other than to handwave about planes falling out of the sky and similar fanciful stories. Furthermore, it fails to acknowledge that rushing through a bill that has significant impacts on privacy of the public -- especially at a time when people are increasingly concerned about government snooping -- is a bad thing. Reid admitted that the cybersecurity bill in this Congress is likely "dead," though I'm sure something like it will be revived before too long. How about next time, rather than rushing it through and ignoring civil liberties, the government actually highlights the specific regulatory problems already in place, and why this bill is needed -- and does so while including civil liberties advocates in the discussions?

Filed Under: cloture, cybersecurity, harry reid, senate

President Obama Signs 'Secret Directive' On Cybersecurity

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

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.

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

Harry Reid Wants To Try One More Time To Force Cybersecurity Bill Through Congress

from the good-luck-with-that dept

Despite the fact that his last attempt to shove a questionable Cybersecurity Act through Congress failed miserably, rumors are spreading that Harry Reid (perhaps at the urging of the White House) is going to try to use the lame duck session of Congress to try to get the flawed Cybersecurity Act through Congress once again. Given that those against the bill haven't seen any changes, it's hard to see a different result happening this time around, but you never know how last minute horse trading will fall out.

Reid is aiming to bring the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 to the floor at the end of next week after the Senate votes on Sen. Jon Tester's (D-Mont.) sportsmen's bill, according to Senate aides.

It appears that Reid's strategy is to try to make Republicans who voted against the bill "soft" on terrorism if they don't support the bill:

Last month Reid vowed to bring the cybersecurity bill to the floor in the lame-duck session, saying that Republicans "will have one more chance to back their words with action, and work with us to pass a bill."

This, of course, is silly. "Action" for the sake of action is dumb. Especially when it leads to passing a questionable bill that will have a negative impact on civil liberties and is targeting a problem that still has not been adequately laid out in any detail.

Filed Under: congress, cybersecurity, harry reid, senate

ITU Boss Explains Why He Wants The UN To Start Regulating The Internet

from the not-good dept

We've written a few times about why we should be worried about the ITU (a part of the UN) and its attempts to regulate the internet, to which some have responded by arguing that the ITU/UN doesn't really want to regulate the internet. However, the Secretary-General of the ITU, Hamadoun Toure has now taken to the pages of Wired, to explicitly state why he believes the UN needs to regulate the internet. And it appears that many of the initial fears are 100% accurate. We've already covered how the ITU seems to be hiding all sorts of awful scary things by claiming they all fall under the "cybersecurity" banner, and we've noted that the ITU's mandate over cybersecurity is imaginary and its history with the subject is sketchy, at best. However, in the op-ed, Toure doubles down on why the UN should be there helping countries censor things like "porn and propaganda" on the internet as a part of its "cybersecurity" efforts

Governments are looking for more effective frameworks to combat fraud and other crimes. Some commentators have suggested such frameworks could also legitimize censorship. However, Member States already have the right, as stated in Article 34 of the Constitution of ITU, to block any private telecommunications that appear "dangerous to the security of the State or contrary to its laws, to public order or to decency." The treaty regulations cannot override the Constitution.

Many authorities around the world already intervene in communications for various reasons – such as preventing the circulation of pornography or extremist propaganda. So a balance must be found between protecting people's privacy and their right to communicate; and between protecting individuals, institutions, and whole economies from criminal activities.

First, it should be made clear that Toure is being somewhat disingenuous here. The ITU's mandate concerning such communications were written for a different time, when telecommunications meant limited communications systems -- initially the telegraph (yes, that's how far this goes back) and then the telephone. Toure claims that the ITU is "charged with coordinating global information and communication technology (ICT) resources," but that's only in his own mind. The "Constitution" he so proudly points to only refers to telecommunications -- which in this context has a very, very different meaning than broader "information and communications technology." The ITU's charter is for telecommunications only. That is, old telephone networks (and telegraphs before that). In such cases, there was a need for a group like the ITU to help deal with standardization and interconnection among large companies. But, with the internet, their role is basically obsolete. There are other basic standards bodies -- ones that are more open and understanding. But Toure is focused on helping out authoritarian states like Russia and China that want to claim that "pornography or extremist propaganda" should be censored.

This is a serious problem for those who support an open and free internet that provides greater ability for free expression to occur. If people are doing things that violate local laws, go after them legally and prosecute them under those laws. To put it on telcos -- often ones with close ties to state governments -- to block and censor, all in the name of "cybersecurity," is opening up a huge can of worms. There is no need for the ITU to get involved in this situation at all.

Then, there's the second big problem -- and what this story is all about in reality. As we've noted in the past, large, slow, lumbering legacy telcos (many of them either state owned or formerly state owned) haven't innovated at all. They see big internet companies, who are building awesome and fantastic services that consumers want -- and getting rich doing so. In response, they get jealous, and say that they deserve some of that money. And that's what this plan is really about -- the ITU helping its "member" telcos try to divert money from the successful services out there to the big lumbering telcos who failed to innovate. Toure more or less says that in his op-ed, by labeling it as a more "fair" distribution of revenue:

An important and influential factor is network financing, so the conference may consider strategies around sharing revenues more fairly, stimulating investment, mainstreaming green ICTs, and expanding access as widely as possible to meet booming demand.

And that's what this comes down to. It's about diverting revenues from companies who earned it in the market, to the telcos who did nothing, often getting fat and lazy on the back of government subsidies and who are now jealous. But since they make up the core of the ITU and give it its purpose, suddenly it's all about "sharing revenues more fairly."

Thankfully, it appears that most of the commenters on the Wired piece see through this and are calling Toure out on it.

Filed Under: cybersecurity, free speech, hamadoun toure, internet regulation, itu, pornography, propaganda, un

What Do Sandy & Pearl Harbor Have In Common? Politicians Exploit Both To Push Cybersecurity Agendas

from the but-of-course dept

Defense Department boss Leon Panetta has been recycling his cyber Pearl Harbor ghost stories for a few years now to push for expansive cybersecurity legislation (i.e. budget and power to spy on people), but Pearl Harbor is a bit outdated these days. So why not shoot for a more contemporary reference? Why not something in the "now"? Well, Homeland Security boss Janet Napolitano (who's in a bit of a turf war with Panetta over who gets control -- again, budget and power to spy on people -- of "cybersecurity") has decided to go with the most contemporary possible reference: Hurricane Sandy. Apparently, to Napolitano, the answer to the question of "how soon is it appropriate to cynically abuse the story of Hurricane Sandy for political gain?" is "right away."

Napolitano, who, you may remember, doesn't know how the internet works, went to a cybersecurity event on Wednesday to warn that without cybersecurity legislation, an attack might be just as bad as Hurricane Sandy. Quoting a report from Hillicon Valley:

After Hurricane Sandy wreaked havoc on the East Coast, Napolitano said people should look than no further than the damage caused by the massive storm to understand the need to boost the nation's cybersecurity protections.

"One of the possible areas of attack, of course, is attacks on our nation's control systems — the control systems the operate our utilities, our water plants, our pipelines, our financial institutions," Napolitano said. "If you think that a critical systems attack that takes down a utility even for a few hours is not serious, just look at what is happening now that Mother Nature has taken out those utilities."

"The urgency and the immediacy of the cyber problem; the cyberattacks that we are undergoing and continuing to undergo can not be overestimated," she said.

I'd say that it's not so much the utility downtime that's been the problem with Hurricane Sandy compared to, say, the wind and the copious amounts of water falling from the sky and piling up on the ground. Last I checked, that can't be controlled via a computer (leaving wacky conspiracy theories aside).

As per usual, when it comes to cybersecurity threats, Napolitano (like pretty much every single other politician pushing for legislation) refused to get into specifics about how real any threat is -- other than to make scary "be afraid, be very afraid!" noises. The one time she was asked about a specific threat, she immediately went vague, but in full-on FUD mode:

When asked by Post editor Mary Jordan about whether hackers are stealing information or money from banks, Napolitano answered "yes" and then quickly added, "I really don't want to go into that per se."

"All I want to say is that there are active matters going on with financial institutions," she said.

Is it really so crazy to think that if the government is going to pass a bill that has broad implications for our privacy, they should at least come up with a legitimate and clear explanation for why it's needed? Instead they toss out scare stories about hackers stealing money, planes falling from skies and utilities shutting down -- without any proof that any of it is actually likely or possible.

Filed Under: cybersecurity, fud, grandstanding, homeland security, hurricane sandy, janet napolitano

Cybersecurity Never Sleeps, Except In Canada

from the this-post-closes-at-5pm dept

We're highly critical of most government cybersecurity efforts for a number of reasons. One is that they are often pushed with totally overblown rhetoric about power grids going down and planes falling from the sky. That said, it's not as though we want our governments to be completely ignorant about security issues online — more realistic threats like data breaches are something we expect them to be protected against, especially as they struggle to bring more and more government services online. Which brings us to another big reason we are critical of new cybersecurity powers for the government: they usually aren't very good at it, and fail to make smart use of the powers and resources they already have. In the US, federal agencies are demanding more information sharing powers without identifying the obstacles they claim to face. In Canada, a public audit reveals that they have made little effort to start sharing security information at all:

Seven years after the Canadian Cyber Incident Response Centre was created to collect, analyse and share information about threats among various levels of government and the private sector, many were "still unclear" about the centre's role and mandate, says the report.

"Some private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators that we interviewed told us they were not sure whether cyber events should be reported to the Government of Canada and, if so, to which agency."

As a result, the centre "cannot fully monitor" Canada's cyber-threat environment, hampering its ability to provide timely advice.

An ineffectual bureaucracy is nothing new, and it can often be fixed by finding the right people to whip it into shape. But you face a much bigger problem when the core culture of your government still fails to comprehend how the internet works or what cybersecurity means — which is where this tidbit comes in:

Further, the centre was still not operating on a 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week basis, as originally intended, shutting down weekdays at 4 p.m. Ottawa time and closing for the weekend.

Yes, that's right — the response center for monitoring cyber threats isn't even open around the clock. It has shorter hours than the brunch menus at most restaurants. Recognizing that this could be a problem, but still completely failing to understand the fundamental stupidity of being "closed for the night" online, the government has plans to extend the hours to 9pm, seven days a week.

How did they get to this ridiculous place, and where are they going? Five years ago the government allocated some money for cybersecurity. Nobody really checked to see if it was accomplishing anything until now, with the Auditor General's report. The audit revealed all these flaws and criticized "limited progress", so as the report came out... the government allocated some more money. Hurray! But not. Because what they still lack is an actual road map — a clear identification of the real cybersecurity threats that exist, a strategy to combat them, some evidence that it will actually work, and a way to check and see if it does. Then they can figure out how much money it will cost, and they can figure out if there are any acceptable new laws that are actually necessary to make it happen. If governments in Canada, the US or anywhere else can't get the basics of cybersecurity right with their existing resources, and can't communicate intelligently about the problems, then neither more money nor more laws will fix anything.

Filed Under: canada, cybersecurity

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta Recycles His 'Cyber-Pearl Harbor' FUD... Third Time's The Charm?

from the if-at-first-you-don't-succeed,-beat-that-dead-horse dept

A recent (failed) push to enact cybersecurity legislation has resulted in some interesting maneuvering in Washington, DC. Rep. Mike Rogers, who introduced CISPA, is trying to revive his lousy legislation by telling scary stories that are short on detail, but long on FUD. Other interested parties are hoping to bypass the legislative process altogether and get an executive order pushed through. The "process" has become so chaotic that politicians are finding themselves hurriedly agreeing to stuff that contradicts the other stuff.

Of all the people that believe Something Must Be Done, cybersecurity-wise, one of the pithiest has been Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who issued a memorable pull-quote on October 11th in a speech at the Intrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum, warning that the United States was facing the possibility of a "cyber-Pearl Harbor."

A dire situation indeed, if true. Panetta is worried about critical infrastructure being sabotaged by cyberterrorists and is totally not just pushing his own agenda.* According to defense officials, "Mr. Panetta's words were not hyperbole."

(*Panetta is totally pushing his own agenda... those same defense officials "acknowledged that Mr. Panetta was also pushing for legislation on Capitol Hill.")

Yes. Panetta is non-hyperbolically pushing his own agenda. The problem is that, while the CISPA/executive order debacle is fairly recent, Panetta's "cyber-Pearl Harbor" has the ring of a worn-out catchphrase, severely limiting the impact of those somewhat stirring words.

Let's go back to June 2011, when Panetta was holding forth during his confirmation hearing for the post of Secretary of Defense.

The next great battle America faces is likely to involve cyberwarfare, Leon Panetta, the Central Intelligence Agency director, warned senators Thursday, predicting that "the next Pearl Harbor that we confront could very well be a cyberattack that cripples" America’s electrical grid and its security and financial systems.

Tough words from an old warrior (and now former CIA Director). Perhaps the warrior might be a bit too old, as he also offered this quote-worthy bit of scaremongering back in February 2011:

"The potential for the next Pearl Harbor could very well be a cyber-attack," he testified on Capitol Hill Thursday before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

The more things change, the more they are the same old shit. Unchanged: using "Pearl Harbor" as shorthand for "unforeseeable bad thing," while simultaneously plucking at patriotic heartstrings by conjuring up the last war the US didn't play to a tie. Savvy. But repetitive.

The most current edition of "cyber-Pearl Harbor" finds Panetta concentrating mostly on infrastructure, thus equating a military surprise attack with some Russian Chinese Iranian hacker flipping the "OFF" switch on the power grid.

“An aggressor nation or extremist group could use these kinds of cyber tools to gain control of critical switches,” Mr. Panetta said. “They could derail passenger trains, or even more dangerous, derail passenger trains loaded with lethal chemicals. They could contaminate the water supply in major cities, or shut down the power grid across large parts of the country.”

Past editions of "Clue: Panetta Edition" haven't been so concentrated on the still-mythic "Cyberterrorists in the Water Main with the Malicious Code." In February 2011, it was "Chinese 'Entities' in the Internet with the Hacking," and a bit of "Anonymous in the EVERYTHING with the LOIC." There was some talk of putting together a joint task force composed of NSA and DHS members. Additional hyperbole was added by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper:

"This threat is increasing in scope and scale, and its impact is difficult to overstate."

Sure is. Especially when you lead in with "cyber-Pearl Harbor." Setting the "overstatement" bar this high does kind of throw off the curve.

June 2011 didn't change much for Panetta's ongoing game of cyber-Clue. Most of the "grilling" during his confirmation hearing revolved around ongoing actual wars, like Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Concern was also expressed about "indiscriminate Pentagon budget cuts."

Back to last week, and it's all about the infrastructure. It's as if no one had bothered debunking a recent DHS report about Russian hackers burning out a water pump at an Illinois water facility. Not that it matters, as the DHS was proud to have been involved in a successful FUD operation. Any publicity is good publicity, right? Boring old truth and measured phrases rarely inspire the sort of support needed to shove through questionable legislation and keep the money flowing to the cottage industries that have sprung up like kudzu around the leaky water main that is Washington, DC.

This repeated catchphrase of Panetta's has stuck with him, even as he's shifted loyalties. Back in February 2011, there was talk of DHS/NSA cooperation. Fast-forward to the latest iteration of "cyber-Pearl Harbor" and Panetta's batting for his new home team: the Defense Department, pulling the control (and money) back into the hands of the NSA, the greater of two evils.

Repeat after Panetta:

If you're against cybersecurity legislation, you're for bombing Americans on early December mornings. Can you live with that?

Filed Under: cyber pearl harbor, cybersecurity, fud, leon panetta

DHS: Our Reports To Congress Are Successful Bullshit

from the yeah,-we-already-kinda-figured dept

Okay, it's official. I no longer believe that our Department of Homeland Security is an actual government agency with important work to do. No, I now believe that it is a series of highly subtle performance art pieces designed to make us laugh at the sheer audacity of dumb government. We already know about the agency's boss, who is in charge of cybersecurity, not bothering to use the internet. And then there is the DHS's highly touted fusion centers being both a waste of money and a detriment to the very freedoms they're supposedly protecting.

But Tim K writes in about a rather stunning admission by DHS officials of a bogus DHS report on a water pumping facility. It essentially amounts to: "sure the report is a complete lie, but it was a successful lie." Don't believe me?

Officials behind the false claims told Senate investigators that such reports weren’t meant to be “finished intelligence” and that despite their report’s inaccuracies and sloppy wording they considered it to be a “success.”

“[It did] exactly what it’s supposed to do – generate interest,” DHS officials told Senate investigators.

Now, let's do some quick background on this report, less because it informs you and more because it's hysterical. About a year ago, a water pump failed in an Illinois water facility. In response, almost immediately, an Illinois fusion center (part DHS, part Illinois State Police) circulated a report blaming a hacking attack from Russia. Not soon after that report was circulated, the greater DHS office rebuffed the fusion center's hacking allegation as absolute nonsense. It pointed out, as does the linked article, that the allegation was pure conjecture based on the fusion center's inability to do even the most basic investigation.

Someone did access the water district’s SCADA system from Russia, but it was a water district contractor who was asked to access the system by water district employees, as Wired first reported. They had called him to seek his opinion on something while he was on vacation in Russia, and he had logged into the system remotely to check on some data for them.

When the pump broke five months later and someone examined the network logs to determine the cause, they found an IP address from Russia listed in the logs next to the username and password of the contractor. No one ever bothered to call the contractor to see if he had logged in from Russia; they just assumed someone in Russia had stolen his credentials.

It's worth noting that the water pump busted 5 months after this Russian IP logged in. In other words, none of this makes a lick of sense, except if it's the case of someone looking for a convenient scapegoat. "Hackers! Russians!" is apparently what these people went with, for reasons unknown to this author.

But the DHS report circulated to Congress, which DHS says is a success even though it's bullshit, was written up after they called out their own fusion center for making stuff up. I think most reasonable people would suspect that such successful excriment is part of the fear mongering around so-called cyberwars and the trumped up need for Congress to pass some kind of cybersecurity bill. But even the least cynical person would at least expect the DHS to correct their report and alert Congress to the pure made-up-iness of it. DHS has thus far declined to do so, because, paraphrasing DHS itself, the lie is more effective than the truth. Yay, government!

Filed Under: congress, cybersecurity, dhs, fear mongering, fud, homeland security

Congress: Fear Chinese Networking Companies! But Ignore That China Makes All Our Networking Equipment!

from the where's-the-smoking-gun? dept

For years, there have been reports or whispers about how Chinese networking giant, Huawei, might not be trustworthy. Specifically, people talked about how China might hide trojan horses in the equipment for economic espionage or even cyberattack reasons. These rumors got so loud that Huawei last year flat out told the US government to investigate it and come to its own conclusion. Well, the House Intelligence Committee has done exactly that... and Huawei is not pleased (pdf). Despite the investigation coming at its own request, with its promises to be as open as it could be, the report slams Huawei and another company ZTE, and basically says "don't trust these companies."

Huawei has hit back hard, claiming that the report is "libel" and "utterly lacking in substance." They also note that it appears to just be political, calling it "an exercise in China-bashing and misguided protectionism." Indeed, some commentators are noting that this has all the indications of blatant protectionism, rather than a legitimate concern, with some pointing out that the Intelligence Committee seems to consistently ask Huawei to prove a negative and then bashes the company for failing.

But again and again, throughout the report, the pattern emerges: an allegation is made, Huawei denies it, without providing evidence deemed detailed enough to substantiate the denial, and the Committee is unimpressed.

As that writeup notes, Huawei has not been found guilty, but is repeatedly asked to prove its innocence, and being unable to prove conclusively that it hasn't done anything, the Intelligence Committee insists that the threat is just too great.

It is, of course, quite possible that something nefarious is going on with Huawei and ZTE. But there doesn't appear to be any detals in the report that actually proves anything. Instead, it's all just baseless allegations, followed by Huawei (and ZTE) not providing enough details to convince investigators that they're innocent. Given Congress' history of grandstanding, this certainly raises some questions.
But... an even bigger issue is that the whole focus on Huawei may be kind of silly. Yes, it's a Chinese company, but as others have noted, basically all of our electronics products are made in China, and if that country really wanted to do something questionable, why not sneak in trojan horses there as well?

One fundamental failure of all this official hand-wringing is that it neglects the fact that many if not most of the components, with the exception of certain higher-value chips like those from Intel, are manufactured in China. Cisco Systems and Juniper Networks in the U.S., Alcatel-Lucent in France and Ericsson in Sweden, all use Chinese-made parts and carry out at least some portion of the final assembly of their equipment in China.

Furthermore, that same report notes that, if this is just kicking off a trade war between the US and China over telco products, the US companies may get hurt a lot more than the Chinese:

Might China respond with its own restrictions against U.S. telecom firms like Cisco and Juniper? Is this the first shot of a telecom trade war? We’ll see.

If that happens, expect Cisco to be hurt more than Huawei. U.S. sales account for only 4 percent of its overall revenue, whereas Cisco’s operations in Asia, the Pacific Rim and China account for more than 16 percent, and China was its second fastest-growing market in that region after Japan.

Yes, it's entirely possible that Huawei and ZTE are doing something bad -- but you'd think any report claiming that would have a lot more evidence than what's in this report. Of course, considering it's by the same FUD-spewing folks responsible for CISPA, perhaps we should get used to the fact that FUD without evidence is their standard operating procedure.

Filed Under: china, congress, cybersecurity, espionage, house intelligence committee, mike rogers, protectionism
Companies: huawei, zte

CISPA Author Ramps Up The FUD: Claims He Can't Sleep At Night Due To 'Unusual Source' Threatening Us

from the oh-come-on dept

Rep. Mike Rogers, who introduced CISPA, the infamous cybersecurity bill that was absolutely horrible when it came to privacy, is apparently trying to ramp up the FUD to get CISPA back on the legislative calendar, despite the Senate's decision to go in another direction (which eventually stalled out). In a new interview, he talked mysteriously about new threats from "unexpected sources" and even claimed he couldn't sleep at night because of them. But -- shh! -- he can't really talk about specifics:

"We think there might be one last shot here -- maybe I'm just an eternal optimist -- to get this thing sparked back to life."

Driving the interest, he said, has been a series of briefings for key legislators "on what appears to be a new level of threat that would target networks from -- I've got to be careful here -- an unusual source."

Rogers has been giving fellow legislators a "glimpse" of this new danger. "I figured if I can't sleep at night, why should any other member of Congress?" He declined to describe the threat, citing the highly classified nature of the information. "I look really bad in orange -- those orange jumpsuits with the numbers on the back," he said to laughter.

It really was just a few days ago that we wondered if the government was going to start using stories of "new threats" to try to ram through legislation. That's basically been the plan all along. Tell scary ghost stories, none of which have any actual facts behind them, until people feel compelled to pass the bills. What's never mentioned is whether or not any of this is effective or a reasonable response. Also missing: any discussion of what is the actual problem being solved today. Rogers' CISPA bill, for example, focuses on information sharing, but fails to explain why the necessary information sharing is being blocked today, or why the bill can't just target the few issues that block such info sharing.

Of course, at the very same time that he's telling scary ghost stories about monsters in our wires keeping him up at night, he's absolutely livid that no one in the White House came to talk to him about their own plan for a cybersecurity executive order. So, apparently, we're all going to die in the night if we don't let companies and the government spy on us more easily... but the White House's plan to do something about that is "irresponsible." Right.

Filed Under: cispa, cybersecurity, fud, mike rogers, threats