Cyber security proposals

As if on cue, former Congresswoman Heather Wilson (R-NM) has an op-ed in today’s Washington Post advocating a dynamic response to cyber security:

First, we must abandon the notion that static defenses will help us against sophisticated threats….

Our cyber-defense capabilities must be inherently dynamic, with a close connection between system operators, intelligence analysts, and the researchers who can rapidly build and deploy tools to protect or restore vital capabilities.

Second, our intelligence on other countries’ cyber-capabilities must be strengthened. We have scores of trained experts who know the ins and outs of foreign radars and missile systems and almost none who are daily tracking cyberthreats in all their manifestations.

Third, while there are national security systems we certainly need to protect, our greatest vulnerability as a nation is outside the government. Our banking system, our telephone communications and our electricity grid are all owned and run by private companies and are interconnected to the global computer network. We must anticipate that an adversary determined to cause economic damage or enhance the fog of war will exploit these vulnerabilities.

A better approach is to align the interests of stockholders with the interests of national security by establishing a trusted safe harbor where private entities can confidentially share information and get help from cyberexperts in and out of government. Such an information clearinghouse could, without attribution, share information with other private entities so that everyone benefits.

The timeliness of Wilson’s piece fits nicely with PPI’s cyber security event on Thursday.  The good news is that there’s starting to be a ground-swell of bi-partisan support on the federal level for cyber security, but while op-ed’s in the Washington Post are a great start, the government has to do a better starting the dialogue with the public.  Think about climate change - fifteen years ago, it was an issue that a few fringe environmentalist groups cared about.  It was a long-term threat that the average American couldn’t physically grasp.  Then along came “An Inconvenient Truth” and $4 gas, and BOOM, everyone’s an environmentalist.  The key was that there were consequences for all - the left viewed climate change as a moral issue, the right viewed it as a national security issue (”energy independence”).  And the cross-over between the two was significant enough to galvanize the country.

Where’s that moment for cyber security?

Come on Thursday and hopefully we’ll find out.