SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed a long-awaited executive order on cybersecurity.
Mainly, the order requires a number of cybersecurity reviews across the various agencies of the federal government, in order to determine what must be done to strengthen federal computer systems, as well as United States' critical infrastructure.
Here are some industry reactions to the executive order Help Net Security received.
Source: https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2017/05/12/reactions-trump-cybersecurity/
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Industry Reactions to Trump's Executive Order on Cybersecurity
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 48 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
There are no data that cannot be plotted on a straight line if the axis
are chosen correctly.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Monday May 15 2017, @04:59PM (4 children)
When Sen Diane Feinstein says there is no evidence that is a statement against interest so I tend to believe her. She sits on the committees who would have seen all of the classified intel so she is in a position to know about any nefarious stuff too secret to talk about in public.
As for what we do know, Russia did indeed attempt to stop Hillary Clinton and thus prevented World War IV. They did exactly what every country has been doing since countries became interconnected enough to make it feasible and the horror of Democracy made it possible. They are accused of trying to influence U.S. policy in the best way possible, by providing the voters with timely and accurate information. In other words, they are charged with committing Journalism with intent to influence an election. Had a U.S. based media outlet did the same thing it could have had a Pulitzer Prize for its trouble, but of course we no longer have a press. In America in $current_year, journalism is no longer a profession it is a tactic used by The Party against its enemies.
When the Russians start trying to influence our political system with assassinations and smart bombs I'll have a problem with it. But for now, Hillary Clinton was a far greater threat to America than Putin could even aspire to become and if he gets a small share of the credit for defeating her it is a fair deal. Sometimes it takes a monster to beat a monster.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday May 15 2017, @05:29PM
The former DNI and Head of the FBI and the new acting head have all said the Russians definitively attempted to influence the election and refuse to comment on the current administrations involvement due to an ongoing investigation.
When Sen Diane Feinstein says there is no evidence that is a statement against interest so I tend to believe her.
And the bubble thickens! You are willfully conflating two topics. Feinstein says she hasn't seen evidence of COLLUSION:
“You don’t have to provides us with any classified information, Senator, but do you believe—do you have evidence that there was in fact collusion between Trump associates and Russia during the campaign?” asked CNN’s Wolf Blizter.
“Not at this time,” replied Feinstein.
Also, "not having seen" != "doesn't exist"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 15 2017, @06:38PM
World War IV
Are you counting John Titor's original timeline when N-day happened in 2015? I guess from that perspective, the conflict the led to N-day in 2025 could be considered a fourth world war, but in 2042 we generally don't count events that are beyond the Stein's limit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 16 2017, @01:47AM (1 child)
Lol finally you flat out state your position. "Democracy is a failed system and Russia is A OK.". Just because your own country is a corrupt failure for its people doesn't give you the right to tear down others. Democracy is the best system, but your overlords don't like it because it steadily tears power out of their dry half dead fingers.
I don't know what to make of someone like yourself. Who really advocates for tyranny and corruption? You obviously, but what has bought you off? Money? Promises of power? Moving up the ladder so you can have some poor bastards lick your boots to a shine?
(Score: 1) by butthurt on Tuesday May 16 2017, @02:44AM
If I recall correctly, the other poster has described himself as NRx, short for neoreactionary. Neoreactionaries are indeed against democracy--not to say that American presidential elections are especially democratic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoreactionary [wikipedia.org]