Cyber security is a serious concern. That said, when The MIC gets into the ring you have be sure to keep your guard up. At $800 billion and rising that is a lot of power in few hands.
$1 trillion...here we come. We're certainly not going to give up our 20th Century military toys.
We need much much more military spending, not less. We’re currently only spending about 3.5% of our GDP. It should be at least 10%. The threats to the free world have never been greater - we must ensure peace through strength.
We spend more than the next 8 to 10 nations *combined*, and all but two of them are allies. Who are we defending ourselves against? Eurasia? Eastasia? The Boogie Man? Or Santa?
Furthermore, we clearly out spend Russia - approx 10 to 1 - and that didn't stop them from going into Ukraine. Keep in mind, Russia has a massive border to defend so 10 to 1 in a way conservative.
We have so called strength and then some. We don't have peace, and things (with China) are getting less stable. But you want to triple-down on what isn't working? Why?
Of course it's a concern, but there's the Government Accountability Office, the Inspectors General, the Defense Contract Management Agency, and the many, many congressional hearings- and that's just off the top of my head. So like yeah. The guard is up buddy.
The US Air Force changed their uniforms to be Space Force.
The US Army can change their uniforms to be Cyber. Bu really it needs to act like a brain and nervous systems and have a pop in every unit. The opportunity is there to compress the time between layers of the hundred fold echelon.
We already have a very large cyber apparatus between many agencies + Booz allen and Friends. I have a feeling this would just be another agency with more spending.
Purraps the NSA has its work cut out surveilling people they "shouldn't". Keeping a low profile. But nonetheless diligently tracking those ubiquitous terrorists.
Well, except for the ones with AK-47s from Walmart.
I'd like to hear James Bamford's take on whether the task is in-scope for the NSA.
The NSA is a joint military-civilian agency by design. Its a pretty unique org structure, with military personnel reporting to civilians and civilians reporting to military at various levels.
This is not what the nsa is. The nsa doesn't defend networks other then it's own. It does set a lot of standards and provide expert opinion.
This proposal would be to combine the six (?) uniformed cyber services into one. So it would be a reduction. The large distributed cyber apparatus is what this proposal is trying to solve. The more i write this the more i think you didn't read the article.
Defense is the critical problem. There is very little in the way of serious cyber security defensive minded assessment before projects are on-boarded. Technical vulnerability assessment, reverse engineering, security-by-design, all of that doesn't really exist and isn't thought of as a NECESSITY. Contractors pitch toys to different commanders, they say hell yeah, then security is this after thought and not part of development from an engineering perspective, just like almost every business working in technology. All the money goes to attacking bad guys, not to protecting what's there. Most people think it's no big deal until you realize it means the enemy can destroy expensive tools and possibly injure personnel without any physical involvement.
Legislation on security-centered development is a possible solution, but the political will from congressional sub-comittees just is not there. It could be if it was pitched as a way of enriching the states those reps are from with high paying white-collar jobs that would make states like Mississippi, Ohio and other struggling but MIC centered states at the center of a growing and important field, but alas, the contractors doing the hiring probably won't want to balance the budget on their current money printing machines for that.
This is something worth talking to your member of Congress about. Budgets might be bigger, but it helps some destitute states, improves national defense (defense defense, not war in the name of defense), and makes politicians re-electable.
19 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 44.7 ms ] thread$1 trillion...here we come. We're certainly not going to give up our 20th Century military toys.
Furthermore, we clearly out spend Russia - approx 10 to 1 - and that didn't stop them from going into Ukraine. Keep in mind, Russia has a massive border to defend so 10 to 1 in a way conservative.
We have so called strength and then some. We don't have peace, and things (with China) are getting less stable. But you want to triple-down on what isn't working? Why?
The US Army can change their uniforms to be Cyber. Bu really it needs to act like a brain and nervous systems and have a pop in every unit. The opportunity is there to compress the time between layers of the hundred fold echelon.
We already have a very large cyber apparatus between many agencies + Booz allen and Friends. I have a feeling this would just be another agency with more spending.
Well, except for the ones with AK-47s from Walmart.
I'd like to hear James Bamford's take on whether the task is in-scope for the NSA.
https://www.nsa.gov/About/Central-Security-Service/
The first part does not follow from the second; also the NSA director is a uniformed military officer.
Though the US military has a separate cyber warfare combatant command, too.
This proposal would be to combine the six (?) uniformed cyber services into one. So it would be a reduction. The large distributed cyber apparatus is what this proposal is trying to solve. The more i write this the more i think you didn't read the article.
Legislation on security-centered development is a possible solution, but the political will from congressional sub-comittees just is not there. It could be if it was pitched as a way of enriching the states those reps are from with high paying white-collar jobs that would make states like Mississippi, Ohio and other struggling but MIC centered states at the center of a growing and important field, but alas, the contractors doing the hiring probably won't want to balance the budget on their current money printing machines for that.
This is something worth talking to your member of Congress about. Budgets might be bigger, but it helps some destitute states, improves national defense (defense defense, not war in the name of defense), and makes politicians re-electable.