- Edwards Releases Senate Fundraising Totals
- Academics Say Higher Education Prepared Them for Higher Office
- Top Races to Watch in 2016: The Mountain Region
- Top Races to Watch in 2016: New England
- Top Races in 2016: The Midwest
While some have tried to argue that any cybersecurity regulation of at-risk critical infrastructure networks would stifle private-sector innovation and growth, the message from the national security establishment is clear and unified: We must take proactive steps to safeguard the nation from the malicious cyberactivity that is draining our intellectual property, harming commerce and threatening the integrity of our infrastructure.
In fact, over the past few weeks, FBI Director Robert Mueller, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and former National Intelligence Director Michael McConnell have gone on the record as saying that the threat to our government and critical infrastructure from cyberattacks is real and growing and that a legislative fix is sorely needed to keep pace and reform our country’s cybersecurity efforts.
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said comprehensive cybersecurity legislation will come before the House by the end of the month. To address the real and growing cybersecurity threat, any such comprehensive legislation must contain three essential elements.
First and foremost, it must address the cyberthreats to networks controlling critical infrastructure, such as water and power utilities. Such infrastructure is essential to the basic functioning of our society. Vulnerabilities to our electric grid and other critical infrastructure will not be fixed by sharing information alone; proactive steps are needed to build toward a level of security that is commensurate with risk. A tailored approach that puts critical infrastructure owners and operators on a path to meeting basic risk-based standards is essential to ensuring that their networks are protected from potentially devastating cyberattacks. Some have launched a scare campaign against such an approach and have attempted to brand these efforts as excessive regulatory encroachment on the private sector. But the protection of critical infrastructure is, in fact, a national security issue, as evidenced by the active push from President Barack Obama and top defense, intelligence and homeland security officials. The growing threat to our infrastructure necessitates a consensus development of risk-based standards.
Second, the Department of Homeland Security’s role as the leader for protecting federal civilian networks and supporting the private sector’s cybersecurity efforts must be solidified, not weakened, in any such legislation. Several proposals on Capitol Hill would scale back DHS’ role under the Federal Information Security Management Act, the law governing security of federal government networks. These proposals essentially ignore almost a decade of progress in implementing FISMA, in which DHS has built significant operational capabilities to help secure federal agencies’ systems. FISMA reform is urgently needed, and any such reform effort should provide the DHS with the authority needed to fully execute its cybersecurity mission and better enforce security standards across federal networks. Forcing the Office of Management and Budget to take over this effort would be turning back the clock just when the federal government needs to move quicker than ever.
Furthermore, the suggestion that the Department of Defense, particularly the National Security Agency, should take the lead, especially with regard to protecting the private sector, is wholly inappropriate and ill-advised. In fact, the NSA director, Gen. Keith Alexander, recently said that to do so “sends the wrong message.” The privacy and civil liberties ramifications implicit in unfettered information sharing between the private sector and the intelligence community preclude such an approach.