Comments on: Why Tom Davis Shouldn’t Be Obama’s Cyberczar

By: halfwaytoconcord

halfwaytoconcord — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:07:28 +0000

Bruce Scheneir and other leading cyber security experts were the first to say we don’t need no stinking cyber czar.

A monolithic centralized structure cannot improve security and only threatens to weaken many more competent efforts. Diverse, coordinated, transnational efforts that engage users, ISPs, banks, insurers, vendors, and law enforcement will be more effective.

Truth be told—politics aside— the only thing the tech community is interested in is for Obama and Congress to get their heads out of their asses on the issue of Net Neutrality.

bgr

By: JaneaneTheAcerbicGoblin

JaneaneTheAcerbicGoblin — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 18:33:26 +0000

What the hell is wrong with Obama? Didn’t the Judd Gregg fiasco teach him anything? I guess he doesn’t learn.

Obama, I understand this show of bipartisanship is really important to you. But this one–the consideration of Tom Davis to be your cyberczar? It’s just downright stupid.

That’s a great one.

Besides, “bipartisanship” is not on the high list of priorities right now. It’s jobs and health care, two things Republicans despise.

By: Oval12345678akaJamesKSayre

Oval12345678akaJamesKSayre — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 18:09:57 +0000

Is it written in the Bible or in our Constitution that we have to have our most critical systems hooked up to the internet? Are we just too lazy, too cheap, too stupid or too crazy to disconnect our electrical power grid from the internet? Funny, our electrical power distribution system worked fine for over one hundred years without being connected to the internet. Do electrical engineers have to be able to work at home? It is time to disccnnect our most vital systems from the internet. Cut the cable; cut the cord; disconnect.

By: Mauimom

Mauimom — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:46:12 +0000

Exactly!!!

What is it with Obama and the “I’ll be bi-partisan by appointing a Republican”? Is this just another of Rahm’s plans — coming from his infinite, intimate knowledge of the Congress — to pick off a Republican in elected office.

Newsflash to Rahm: you can pick these guys off if you will then send them to Palau. Don’t install them in any position of authority within the government.

By: Nell

Nell — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:07:12 +0000

This is yet more too-clever-by-half electorally motivated meddling of the ‘Judd Gregg to Commerce’ variety.

Jim Webb will face a tough campaign against Davis exactly because of the potential to cut into his votes in the outer NoVa suburbs. But I wish the DNC (Kaine) and White House (Emanuel) would quit trying to kill two birds with one stone every single time out. It demonstrates a serious disrespect for the nominal functions these appointments are supposed to fill, and lack of confidence in real political fights.

Feh.

By: dcblogger

dcblogger — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:03:25 +0000

For those who did not see it the first time, the truth about Tom Davis.

By: oldtree

oldtree — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 16:22:17 +0000

Why hire anyone but an IT professional for the job? Why would anyone hire a politician that can’t possibly understand the depth of the work required? You hire a tic to pitch cars or insurance or something that requires the bamboozle. You hire professionals for jobs that require skills a tic simply can’t afford to have. Why put a liar in place of someone that can answer the questions truthfully?

By: atonemusic

atonemusic — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 16:14:04 +0000

Richard Clarke, an expert in this field with a non-partisan moral compass, would be an ideal choice.

By: nonplussed

nonplussed — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:41:31 +0000

I hope everyone watches him on C-span Washington Journal second hour. It will be up for your viewing pleasure on C-span.org soon. You’ll need to see Tom explain in his own words why he is a partisan hack unfit to be in any position of power, let alone an allegedly Democratic Administration!

By: sadlyyes

sadlyyes — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:57:33 +0000

DRIVE BY
OXWHORE

http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/5873