The Intelligence-Security Disconnect: Wider the Higher You Go

A consultant you probably should not be writing checks to:

Some opponents of the directive, which include several former Office of Management and Budget officials, say that National Security Presidential Directive 54/Homeland Security Presidential Directive 23 authorizing intelligence monitoring of all federal agency network will create a new set of information technology security problems and raise privacy and civil liberties concerns that had been avoided until now.

“To solve the security problem, they want to use intelligence monitoring?” asked Glenn Schlarman, a former OMB official in charge of security policy who is now a consultant. DOD has not done a great job of defending its own networks, Schlarman said, adding that there are “starkly different needs and purposes for intelligence gathering and computer security.”

He sees the trees and has this vague idea of what a forest is, but just can’t make the leap. Who said being an SES was hard?
You can’t fight an adversary you know nothing about. Gathering intel may have zero impact on your security in the short term but that’s not the point of the exercise. Wait (shiver) is that a chill wind blowing?

Bruce McConnell, who was at OMB for 15 years and was chief of the information policy and technology branch for many years, testified before Congress last week that the classified directive could have a potentially chilling effect on the free flow of information between government and citizens.

Because this story has gotten such legs beyond trade press.
True, DOD is as owned as any other agency, but they know intel, defense, and offense; something say, Housing and Urban Development does not. If it is unrestricted warfare at work, then lines between defense and “civil” agencies are artificial for national security purposes. You want every cabinet agency to build their own separate network intel capabilities and further complicate the environment or you want to let the pros come in and stand watch for you?

Leave a Reply