Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Data Exhaust: Romney's Life is in Danger

While only one passing mention of cyber security came up in last night's presidential debate (Romney mentioned Chinese cyber attacks in a compound sentence), my handy-dandy Quantum Leap Buzz social media analytics notification came alive with Obama supporters actually making threats on Romney's life. I'm rather surprised the news hasn't covered this. Then again, social media analytics is constantly putting me onto trending stories that NEVER make mainstream media newscasts. Below is my "buzz furball" for the "kill Romney" movement.
Hopefully SOMEBODY in the Secret Service candidate protection detail is paying attention. I now return to my regularly scheduled Cyber Privateer dialogue.

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Cybercrime & Tonight's Presidential Debate

In February 2011, I opined (see it here) that cybercrime was indeed an easy-entry career. Given today's Computerworld story (read it here) how cyberthieves looted $400,000 from a Bank of America client, it appears that it's also a lucrative career. Especially when current cybercrime law in the U.S. forces us to play only defense. Yes, it's too much to hope that either presidential candidate gets the big picture, here. Which is too bad. Selah.

Friday, October 12, 2012

DOD finalizing offensive "rules of engagement"

The final paragraph of today's New York Times story (read it here) is the only element of hope on the horizon of an otherwise bleak future.
The Defense Department is finalizing “rules of engagement” that would put the Pentagon’s cyberweapons into play only in case of an attack on American targets that rose to some still unspecified but significant levels. Short of that, the Pentagon shares intelligence and offers technical assistance to the F.B.I. and other agencies.
Unfortunately, U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has the same set of blinders as every other administration and legislator has worn. Namely, he just assumes that the only way to deal with cyber threats is to line the pockets of "Beltway Bandits" and insist that the government should be the only source of offensive cyber capability. And that is the reason why blocking the latest cyber security bill makes sense.

The "rules of engagement" should be…you guessed it…The Morgan Doctrine and rigid adherence to my Cyber Privateer Code (read it here). Otherwise, we really will have what Panetta calls a cyber equivalent of a Pearl Harbor from which we will not easily recover. Right now, we're guaranteed to lose because we're playing the game with our hands tied behind our backs.

Too bad this subject won't come up in the presidential debates.