Obama expected to issue cybersecurity executive order

Have any of you actually <i>read</i> the executive order? If not, did you perhaps notice who the sources were for the stories being written about it today?<p>There was a cybersecurity order on the table last year (it wasn't enacted). HN got up in arms about it. Some of us read it. Guess what? It concerned itself almost entirely with the operational security of the federal government itself (which operates the world's largest IT departments). The places where it stepped past instructing DOE how to secure their networks were to create educational programs to get more people doing information security. It contained <i>no provisions at all</i> that would have given the government access to private entities networks.<p>I haven't read this executive order, but if I was going to place a bet about it, it would be that everyone hyperventilating about "king complexes" on HN is being played.

The fundamental problem with this in my opinion starts with the executive order. As the article states: the executive's job is to enforce laws, not make them. EO's have stepped well beyond that in the last 20 years, with the executive branch becoming more sovereign in nature, which scares the hell out of me.<p>We do need a cyber security bill, but it should be passed by Congress, whose job it is to iron out all the competing needs, instead of passed by fiat by a wanna-be king[1] who "knows what's best for the country".<p>1. EO's aren't the exclusive domain of Obama by any stretch. Every president since HW Bush has used them in increasing number and, IMO, in increasing defiance to the separation of powers. Another 20 years and Congress will be nothing but a complete farce, much like other dictatorial "republics".

I find it worrisome when government declares it is time to protect the internet. The internet has flourished just fine without intervention.

The order should be all critical computers like power-grid control should not be able to connect to the internet in any way or have usb ports or DVD drives.<p>I have this fear that somewhere an ICBM is on an internet router because some general wants to monitor it. Sounds insane right? Well why are power stations on the internet?

the govt's efforts on cyber security are almost as much of a joke as their response to protecting private businesses. unless you're google or a major bank, getting some sort of response from the fbi/ic3. Have tried playing by the rules when a client is attacked and submitting the information to them, but never any response. Most of the time i brush these attacks off as my own failure to keep things locked down but on the more serious attacks i've submitted server logs, documentation tracking the person back to their home address, facebook page, mother's phone number, everything they could possible need to arrest and prosecute. nothing but crickets.<p>glad they're starting to make some effort, but from software loopholes to literally exposed (outside &#38; unprotected) hardware/transmission equipment, doubtful they'll never get their shoes on the right feet.

Seems pretty sensible to me, though some folks seem to be linking it with the revival of CISPA.

The internet has been a wild new frontier. Unfortunately All frontiers eventually become littered with the selfish ambitions of man.