Obama’s Free to Bomb Syria but Is Limited on Cybersecurity

The logjam over protecting the nation’s computer infrastructure and a new report show the limits of presidential power.

Vanishing medium? Obama's 17-minute ad refreshingly positive.
National Journal
Matthew Cooper
Aug. 28, 2013, 2 a.m.

As Pres­id­ent Obama read­ies to strike the Syr­i­an re­gime, it’s worth think­ing about that oth­er de­fense prob­lem—cy­ber­se­cur­ity—and what it says about Wash­ing­ton in the Obama era.

On Wed­nes­day, the cap­it­al will be con­sumed by the March on Wash­ing­ton, as well it ought, and the loom­ing battle with Syr­ia—al­though not at the same time, for surely the mis­siles won’t fly at the very mo­ment Obama sa­lutes non­vi­ol­ence.

But the coun­try’s ef­forts to beef up cy­ber­se­cur­ity are sty­mied, even after thefts at the Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity Agency and the Army have made Ed­ward Snowden and Chelsea (nee Brad­ley) Man­ning em­blems of com­puter vul­ner­ab­il­ity. This week shows why.

On Wed­nes­day, while the march­ers march and the Pentagon plans, a fed­er­al agency in Mary­land called the Na­tion­al In­sti­tute for Stand­ards and Tech­no­logy will be is­su­ing a draft re­port for cy­ber­se­cur­ity stand­ards—ba­sic­ally a list of best prac­tices for busi­nesses and oth­er in­sti­tu­tions to fol­low as they try to pro­tect their net­works.

NIST, as it’s called, is the much-ad­mired sci­entif­ic agency that runs the atom­ic clock and comes up with stand­ards for everything from weights and meas­ures to med­ic­al devices. It doesn’t reg­u­late, but it’s been around in some form since the early days of the Re­pub­lic and its word is listened to closely by in­dustry and gov­ern­ment.

For the last three years, Con­gress has been un­able to come up with a cy­ber­se­cur­ity bill that the pres­id­ent could sign. And to be fair, it’s been over hon­est dis­agree­ments rather than raw ob­struc­tion­ism, such as fili­buster ab­use. The House has passed a bill with over­whelm­ing GOP sup­port and a con­sid­er­able num­ber of Demo­crats that would en­able in­form­a­tion shar­ing between com­pan­ies and the gov­ern­ment in an ef­fort to shut down hack­ers. Op­pon­ents on the left and right have offered up civil-liber­ties ar­gu­ments, say­ing that’s a li­cense to ab­use private data. Throw in some clas­sic ques­tions about cor­por­ate li­ab­il­ity and you have a stale­mate—but at least the old-fash­ioned kind built around ideas (and lob­by­ing of course), rather than gun-to-the-head threats like the debt ceil­ing.

The cy­ber stale­ment is why the pres­id­ent is­sued an ex­ec­ut­ive or­der earli­er this year ask­ing NIST to come up with a vol­un­tary frame­work for re­du­cing cy­ber risks to crit­ic­al in­fra­struc­ture. (His or­der also opened up more in­form­a­tion shar­ing in the gov­ern­ment.) And so the agency’s worked di­li­gently on it and will is­sue best prac­tices to­mor­row. But while they would cer­tainly im­prove se­cur­ity if ac­ted on, none of them are likely to provide the de­gree of pro­tec­tion that can only be af­forded by le­gis­lat­ive ac­tion, nor does any­one ex­pect them to. One in­sider calls them “no brain­ers,” liken­ing them to use-a-se­cure-pass­word brom­ides. (You can read more about where NIST is plan­ning here and about the le­gis­lat­ive stale­mate here.) Wheth­er you be­lieve in the House bill’s in­form­a­tion-shar­ing ap­proach or a heav­ier reg­u­lat­ory re­gime, every­one’s pretty much agreed that NIST isn’t enough.

And this is where it comes back to Obama. For those who think a pres­id­ent has ex­traordin­ary ex­ec­ut­ive powers to lead, here’s a case where he’s pretty much tapped out. The prob­lem is grave enough that Con­gress may even­tu­ally give the pres­id­ent something that he’s will­ing to sign. Un­til then this is about the best he can do—a con­spicu­ous lim­it­a­tion of pres­id­en­tial power in a week where he’s likely to flex his strongest muscles by mak­ing speeches and mak­ing war.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4404) }}

What We're Following See More »
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
1 days ago

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
1 days ago

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
1 days ago

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
1 days ago

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Sanders: Obama Is a Progressive
1 days ago

“Do I think President Obama is a progressive? Yeah, I do,” said Bernie Sanders, in response to a direct question in tonight’s debate. “I think they’ve done a great job.” But Hillary Clinton wasn’t content to sit out the latest chapter in the great debate over the definition of progressivism. “In your definition, with you being the gatekeeper of progressivism, I don’t think anyone else fits that definition,” she told Sanders.