Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by takyon on Monday August 03 2015, @06:27PM   Printer-friendly
from the blunt-assessment dept.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is struggling to hire computer scientists, according to a Department of Justice audit of the feeb's attempts to implement its Next Generation Cyber Initiative.

A 34-page audit report (PDF) from the DoJ notes that, while making considerable progress, the FBI has "encountered challenges in attracting external participants to its established Cyber Task Forces".

[The audit] bemoaned how hiring and retaining qualified white hats remained a challenge for the FBI, especially when competing private-sector entities pay more and have less invasive recruitment processes. The FBI reportedly did not hire 52 of the 134 computer scientists for which it was authorised, meaning 38 per cent of the workforce it requires (as per budget) is simply not there. This additionally means that five of the FBI's 56 field offices do not have even a single computer scientist assigned to their Cyber Task Force.

Back in 2011, the Office of the Inspector General gave the FBI a thorough scolding over its inability to address America's cyber-intrusion threat, for which it has become the responsible national body. The Next Generation Cyber Initiative was launched in response, essentially as a platform for funding increases in the face of a swelling number of data breaches and cyber-attacks in recent years.

This is not the first mention of the FBI's difficulties in recruiting infosec professionals. Last year, the [FBI]'s director James Comey said the company was re-examining its drugs policy as too many applicants seemed to be enjoying a doobie en route to interview.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @09:52PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @09:52PM (#217610)

    This "hat" crap is a load of juvenile crap. Do we refer to corrupt police as "black hat"? How about politicians, for that matter? What about bankers, bureaucrats, and public servants?

    The topic is not so complex that we have difficulty distinguishing between people who do it for love, and people who do it for money.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @10:41PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @10:41PM (#217627)

    The distinction is not one of love and money.

    And yeah, we do have different names for good/bad versions of other professions. You used two of them. A bureaucrat is bad. A public servant is good. A banker is bad. A financial manager is good. Dirty cops, snitches, shills, astroturfers, blackhats: all bad names. Police officer, whistle blower, advertiser (okay call it grey), vial marketer, whitehats: good names.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by mendax on Monday August 03 2015, @11:18PM

    by mendax (2840) on Monday August 03 2015, @11:18PM (#217637)

    Do we refer to corrupt police as "black hat"?

    No, but they wear black hats and uniforms where I come from. If they were a little more stylish they they could easily look like the new SS.

    --
    It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.