LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for IT-DISCUSS Archives


IT-DISCUSS Archives

IT-DISCUSS Archives


IT-DISCUSS@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

IT-DISCUSS Home

IT-DISCUSS Home

IT-DISCUSS  December 2003

IT-DISCUSS December 2003

Subject:

Execs try to slow tech security rules

From:

Stefanie Ploof <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Technology Discussion at UVM <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:50:45 -0500

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (97 lines)

Article from :
<http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/biztech/12/03/computer.security.ap/index.html>

Execs try to slow tech security rules
Wednesday, December 3, 2003 Posted: 10:18 AM EST (1518 GMT)


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Technology executives are trying to convince the
Homeland Security Department that costly new computer security rules
aren't needed, arguing their companies are already taking aggressive steps
to defend against hackers.

The behind-the-scenes lobbying is paying dividends. The administration is
reconsidering its support for a plan requiring publicly traded companies
to describe their hacker defenses to securities regulators.

That proposal was among the earliest outgrowths of the Bush
administration's strategy for securing cyberspace. Now industry lobbyists
and academics are being given a chance to rewrite the proposed legislation
to make it more palatable to them.

The influence of industry groups like the Information Technology
Association of America and the Business Software Alliance in shaping the
administration computer security policy has impressed some observers.

"They've driven it in many ways. They've been very, very effective," said
James Lewis, the technology policy director for the Center for Strategic
and International Studies, a Washington think tank.

Homeland Security officials are sensitive to suggestions that the largest
U.S. technology companies -- deeply concerned about the potential costs of
new regulations -- have exerted undue influence. But they defend working
closely with executives, noting the industry's ownership of most computer
networks and the U.S. government's hands-off preference toward most
Internet concerns.

"We're clearly not catering to special interests," said Amit Yoran, the
newly appointed director of the department's National Cyber Security
Division. But Yoran, a former executive at the antivirus firm Symantec
Corp., added: "To not allow for industry associations to provide us with
their input and their opinions would not be prudent. It would be
irresponsible."

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge was expected to solicit suggestions
from technology executives Wednesday during an appearance at a conference
in Santa Clara, Calif., organized with industry.

Executives there already have established working groups to advise the
Homeland Security Department on subjects that include how to set up
early-warning networks and encourage companies to design better software.
One early idea under consideration: professional licenses for software
writers, like those for doctors and engineers.

Last month, Ridge told technology executives it was "worthy and timely" to
consider requiring companies to disclose to the Securities and Exchange
Commission how well they're prepared for hacker attacks. But the
administration is reconsidering its support for that idea after technology
companies strongly objected.

"It is premature at this point to say that public companies need to have a
disclosure requirement," said Robert Holleyman, chief executive for the
Business Software Alliance, whose members include Microsoft Corp., Intel
Corp., Apple Computer Inc. and Cisco Systems Inc.

So far this election cycle, technology companies have contributed nearly
$5.6 million to candidates, split among Democrats and Republicans. That is
less than some industries -- such as banking or health care -- but more
than oil and gas interests.

Holleyman said new government rules are likely if companies don't
voluntarily improve their computer security. "If that challenge is not met
and a major cyberattack were to occur, then industry might have to deal
with legislation or a response that might not be as well thought out as
one would hope," he said.

The same lobbying approach proved successful five years ago when
technology companies were threatened with rules to better protect the
privacy of Internet users. Trade groups were able to show what they said
were pro-privacy measures companies were taking and largely avoid new
privacy laws.

But critics believe a voluntary approach won't be adequate.

"Without legislation, how are you going to get people to enforce this?
You've either got to get a carrot or a stick," said Michael Rasmussen, a
vice president for standards and policy for the Information Systems
Security Association. "There's a lot of lobbying dollars there. Vendors
are throwing a lot of money around to protect themselves."



--
Stefanie B. Ploof
Computing Analyst
University of Vermont
CIT Client Services / CALS IT Office

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003, Week 1
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
August 1997
July 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
May 1996
December 1995
November 1995
September 1995
August 1995
March 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager