It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Obama Set to Create A Cybersecurity Czar With Broad Mandate

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 26 2009 @ 02:20 PM

Obama Set to Create A Cybersecurity Czar With Broad Mandate

President Obama is expected to announce late this week that he will create a "cyber czar," a senior White House official who will have broad authority to develop strategy to protect the nation's government-run and private computer networks, according to people who have been briefed on the plan.
The White House's role will be to oversee the process, formulate policy and coordinate agencies' roles, and will not be operational, administration officials have said.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 02:20 PM
Soon we will know who the "White House Cyber Czar" is going to be.

What I find interesting is how again more power is about to be given to another White House office which will have a direct line to the President, and by which the White House will "formulate policy, and coordinate agencies' roles".

Obviously this is going to affect everyone, otherwise there wouldn't be a need to "formulate policy on the statements made by this "Cyber Czar" to the President.

What does everyone think?
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 26-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 02:38 PM
This has long been known as a Rothschild/PNAC goal. They based a very large part of their "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report on the need to monitor, police and control the internet.

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 02:46 PM
I think it's more of a response to Chine hacking our networks than trying to control the internet.

Besides the NSA sees all anyway.

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 02:51 PM
reply to post by TheEndofEvolution

Then they need to protect their own crap, not be sniffing in mine.

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 02:54 PM
I doubt your "crap" would even cause a red flash on the monitor.

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 03:06 PM
I think the government has a different definition of "secure" than most people do.

The definition they're using is: "Allow government collection of all internet data, in an undetectable and unavoidable way. Store this data in a manner that it won't be lost, ever. Allow automated analysis of this data, without leaks. When that analysis meet a certain threshold, enable 'court-orders' to be automatically issued which enables human access to the data."

In that way, the interests of the government are met, the right of the people to be "secure" in their papers and information is met, and the proper legal channels are followed.

Makes sense, huh? Do you really think the government would allow data that might be useful to fall through the cracks, just because it happened before they had a compelling interest in investigating something?

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 03:09 PM
The most pathetic aspect of this is that the failure of security they fear is transnational POLITICAL and COMMERCIAL relationships.

Cyber-security is a Rockefeller wet dream. The "Czar" will be a political appointee with strong ties to financial information system commercialization, as well as long-term relationships to the defense contractor industry.

Most military information systems have NO BUSINESS being on the internet. Yet that IS where the contractors put it. True security lies in discreet network implementation, but they will avoid that at all costs.

Our national security vulnerabilities are caused be a single element in the structure of our information machinery. Namely, that of delegating information system design and security to DEFENSE CONTRACTORS.

Now we will get one of these SAME commercial interests to pretend that THEY have a solution.

The position of Cyber-Czar will be to control information, NOT TO SECURE IT.

I predict that the first and most all-encompassing policies this "genius" of the elite will provide is to RESTRICT information flow, as if that were the threat.

Also, freedom to use the internet as a tool for the free exchange of ideas will become costlier....

Sad, sad, sad.

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 03:28 PM
Goes great with the Patriot act and indefinite detention.

Let's keep piling it on.

Who gives a damn right?

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 04:20 PM
By policy he means regulate your freedom of speech on the internet. Theres no need to have this person appointed they wouldnt have anything to worry about if they hired the right people. This is 100% to start controling what you do and say ont he internet, get ready boys ATS will take a huge blow when they start implimenting policy.

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 08:38 PM
This is Obama's power grab.

What people don't realize is that Obama speaks out of both sides of his mouth. In public he says one thing but you can tell by the people he used to hang out with what his views real;ly are.

I don't understand why Americans are not alarmed by this fascist power grab.

This is what Obama's regulatory Czar said about the internet:

Barack Obama's nominee for "regulatory czar" has advocated a "Fairness Doctrine" for the Internet that would require opposing opinions be linked and also has suggested angry e-mails should be prevented from being sent by technology that would require a 24-hour cooling off period.

The revelations about Cass Sunstein, Obama's friend from the University of Chicago Law School and nominee to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, come in a new book by Brad O'Leary, "Shut Up, America! The End of Free Speech." OIRA will oversee regulation throughout the U.S. government.

Sunstein also has argued in his prolific literary works that the Internet is anti-democratic because of the way users can filter out information of their own choosing.

"A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government," he wrote. "Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom's name."

This Obama's law school friend and now will be one of his closest advisors.

He actually said the internet is bad because it allows people to filter out information of their own choosing. This is dangerous stuff. Now Obama is announcing a Cyber Security czar.

Obam runs the auto industry, banking, credit card and most Americans are not alarmed?

There's no way a President should have this much power. This is fascism in the name of empathy. All you have to do is convince people their a victim and they will let you do anything.

posted on May, 27 2009 @ 01:20 PM
reply to post by platosallegory

"A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government," he wrote. "Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom's name."

The more I look at that quote the more frightening it becomes.

From my perspective, and I think at least some might agree with me, the phrase "limitless individual choices" is synonymous with "freedom." Apparently to him, such 'freedom' represents a 'negative' factor.

Also, he will use "Democratic efforts" to "reduce" the "problems". Since I am generally disinclined to give these people the benefit of the doubt (we've been burned one too may times already), I suspect that 'democratic' means media campaigns and manufacturing public opinion, so that enough of the voting public will 'buy into' their stage show.

I would ask him, since these are his words, "Exactly what 'problems' do you consider worth sacrificing 'freedom' for?"

But I know the answer would be couched and extrapolated to make it seem like the question is 'unreasonable.'


I disagree that this is an Obama power grab. Obama is just a man, he will be gone eventually. This kind of power consolidation can only serve an immortal entity..., like a corporation, or a 'state'...

[edit on 27-5-2009 by Maxmars]

posted on May, 27 2009 @ 01:23 PM
reply to post by Maxmars

Exactly. And to follow your thought process just a bit, one may discover that the educational system is, infected...with inadequacy.

How else can we explain the complicit and even sup[portive minds when the concept of democracy is abused so blatantly...

new topics

top topics


log in