The answer is yes, according to John Arquilla, who blogged about the directive in a recent issue of the Communications of the ACM.
According to Arquilla, a national security affairs and defense analyst, Obama’s insistence on relying upon and further implementing existing policies — which are largely tied to incident response procedures — shows an “apparent unwillingness to encourage innovative approaches to improving cyber security.”
Presidential Policy Directive No. 41, titled United States Cyber Incident Coordination, acknowledges the contribution made by networked technology to innovation, free expression, and economic prosperity. That contribution, however, has made us vulnerable to malicious activity, malfunction, and simple human error. “Cyber incidents,” the Directive points out, “are a fact of contemporary life, and significant cyber incidents are occurring with increasing frequency, impacting public and private infrastructure located in the United States and abroad.”
To tackle that, the market only had one expensive drug known as order generic levitra . Initially doctors were of the belief that this was a psychological problem and is caused due to bacteria that can have an get viagra no prescription effect on prostatitis. The cheapest price for levitra conventional medicine typically offers in this situation it is concentrated on abscess. buy viagra online hartbuildersinc.com At the second place, it reminds us of the famous blogs. In an attempt to deal with malicious cyber incidents, the Directive calls for a unity of effort within the Federal Government and especially close coordination between the public and private sectors. But that’s not enough, says Arquilla, who asserts that such a statement is merely a reiteration of past policies.
What’s needed, according to Arquilla, is a globally networked response. “Cyber security is integral in nature in a very connected world; the insecurity of some contributes to the vulnerability of all.” True enough, but in a world seemingly rife with paranoia, most governments have little desire to share what they see as sensitive information about cyber incidents and their responses to them.
It is time, Arguilla insists, to create Government brain trusts designed to seize the initiative from hackers – a proactive rather than reactive approach to cyber security. We should be introducing fresh paradigms rather than just working harder to implement existing policies. But exactly how we do that and what those fresh paradigms might be remains decidedly fuzzy.