By Mike Martin
Since the cyber attack on the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, there has been talk about counting U.S. elections as critical infrastructure, but that might do more harm than good.
By Mike Martin
The George Washington University annual program, “Securing Our Future,” bought together national, homeland and cyber security experts to discuss U.S. security challenges and priorities. What emerged were three clear metrics for measuring success in the fight against ISIS and al Qaeda.
By Casey Lucius
The recently introduced Feinstein-Burr bill would force encryption providers to maintain backdoors in case the government shows up with a court order. It is bad for government, business and the public.
By Max Skalatsky
Every week, we hear how the FBI is attempting to subpoena text messages from Apple. Instead of tech companies trying to out-argue the Federal government, is it possible to engage with policy makers and law enforcement to understand what the next generation technologies will be?
Apple is fighting a federal magistrate’s order in connection with the investigation of the San Bernardino shootings. This is another instance of consumer privacy potentially conflicting with homeland security issues. Or is it?
On Tuesday, several media outlets reported that Intelligence Community Inspector General sent a letter to Congress regarding Sec. Hillary Clinton stored documents on her home server that were classified “Special Access Program.”
By Dan Gerstein
Cybersecurity is a two-sided proposition, requiring both defense of internal networks and the ability to operate effectively in the cyber domain. Securing government networks is certainly necessary, but authorities should not lose sight of the need to couple their defense of America’s networks with appropriate resources dedicated to combating criminal, terrorist and other threats in cyberspace.
A few weeks back, I recommended that the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection and Security Technologies have a “do-over” of a hearing where the subject was private sector interaction with DHS S&T. The reason I recommended this was because the most successful private sector program at S&T – the SAFETY Act implementation – was never mentioned. On July 28, the same Subcommittee held that “do-over.”