US cybersecurity 'embarrassing'

[ginge51]

America's cybersecurity has been described as "broken" by one industry expert and as "childlike" by another.

The criticism comes as President Obama prepares to release the results of a review he ordered.

Tim Mather, chief security strategist for RSA, told BBC News "the approach we have relied on for years has effectively run out of steam."

Meanwhile Alan Paller from the SANS Institute said the government's cyber defences were "embarrassing."

The government review, which will outline a way forward, is expected to be opened up for public comment at the end of this month.

At the same time, President Obama is also expected to announce the appointment of a cybersecurity tsar as part of the administration's commitment to make the issue a priority.

"One includes a provision to allow the President to disconnect government and private entities from the internet for national security reasons in a cyber emergency."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8023793.stm

So, we just let them do it?
WHERE IS THE OPPOSITION TO ALL THIS?
It is like they have a free run to do/change whatever/whenever they like, whatever they see fit.
ing ridiculous.
And they go on as if the own everything, even though they don't.
This needs addressing.
Before it is too late.
And there will be a time when it is to late then everyone will be like wtf?
It's not as if nobody is getting the warnings of late, just that we all are to inbred and lazy to do all about it, me included as with everyone else.
Imagine the net being censored in everything you do.
Alls what will be on the net in a few years is government propaganda, and sites like sky news,BBC news.
When it gets that bad I'll just cancel my internet,end of.
The reason the government doesn't like the way the net is these days, is because lot's of people find the truth in what they are doing, and what is wrong with the truth?
They break the very laws they make yet it is not illegal to them, is to us though.
this .

[._.]

u mad?

[ginge51]

u mad?

Instead of saying "u mad".
Why not say why you think I am mad?
So go on, why do you say are " u mad"?

[._.]

Instead of saying "u mad".
Why not say why you think I am mad?
So go on, why do you say are " u mad"?

you are mad because the government will try to pass a law to block sites in case of an emergency. while i am against this new law and the use of fearmongering to restrict privacy and freedom of speech, i think you are overreacting

[ginge51]

you are mad because the government will try to pass a law to block sites in case of an emergency. while i am against this new law and the use of fearmongering to restrict privacy and freedom of speech, i think you are overreacting

Well wait until some in government disagrees with a site say you go on?
Then they shut it down using these new laws there trying to get passed?
Would you be happy then?
As, with all laws it wouldn't just go with the law they try to implement it with.
They will make it into another law then another law, until there is no anti government stuff allowed.
Governments have way to much say in everyday matters these days, i agree, alot of sites do need shutting down and censoring.
But they won't leave it just as that, they'll continue it to make the net even more restricted to there point of view.

[Dunecat]

I don't see this leading to overbearing government censorship. I'm not aware of any laws that are being specifically broken, or rights stepped on, but i could be mistaken of course.

Instead of saying "u mad".
Why not say why you think I am mad?
So go on, why do you say are " u mad"?

[Mithie]

u mad?

University of Madison? What about it?

[Ahlerich]

it for the better of mordor

[Mikelus Trento]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8023793.stm

The reason the government doesn't like the way the net is these days, is because lot's of people find the truth in what they are doing, and what is wrong with the truth?

I'm not sure what folks are finding is "the truth", but I understand what you are saying and agree with it.