Summary
Political expedience trumps logical and technical expertise, it would seem.
There is a marked difference in the skills one uses for successfully integrating as a political animal, and the ones used for demonstrating technical competence.
But, it is that very technical competence that is needed for securing our infrastructure against threats.
Analysis
One of the interesting things about locks is that they are intended to secure things from the 'wrong' people. The 'right' people, presumably, hold the keys to these locks.
Of course, once a lock and key are designed, and analyzed, and marketed to thousands of customers, there needs to be a locksmith. The role of the locksmith is to break into locks when the keys are lost, misplaced or destroyed.
Of course, once a lock and key are designed, and analyzed, and marketed to thousands of customers, there needs to be a locksmith. The role of the locksmith is to break into locks when the keys are lost, misplaced or destroyed.
This knowledge, once acquired, presents a special sort of dilemma: can the locksmith be trusted to ONLY use these skills to open locks, when asked, and to stay out of other locked areas.
As a hypothetical, let's say that the locksmith is asked to open a lock that, when it opens, releases a deadly gas. The locksmith is protected, paid a reasonable sum, and told to get on with the work.
Now, if the portal on which this lock is affixed is next to a public library, or hospital, or some other location where people gather, is there is an ethical responsibility for the locksmith to assure the premises are clear before proceeding?
One may think this rhetorical exercise may be nonsensical, but the issue is real. In today's 'cyber' world, there are consequences to having the ability to 'open' locks. And it is becoming increasingly evident that the ability for any particular administration to find 'locksmiths' is dependant upon political, more than technical abilities.
Granted, we all realize that politics is a power game, and that being able to play this game requires a different set of skills than merely being a locksmith.
But, the best technicians get to be that way because of a methodical and logical approach to the problems, something that political expedience may negate or modify.
Perhaps that is why it may be difficult for these appointees to function as a 'czar'?
Couple this logical mindset with the typical technologist's need to see results, and it is quite understandable why the position of a technology czar is difficult. Programming produces black and white, near instantaneous feedback, with defined rules. Even if these rules change, they follow logical methods and contain error correction routines.
In the gray, blurred world of politics, with territorial battles, a feudal mindset, slavish devotion to party planks and goals, and the tendency to be ostracized for unpopular decisions, regardless of upon how solid a policy they are set, the czar is faced with an almost untenable and contradictory goal - that of locksmith, and master thief.
There are indeed very real needs to secure the nation's computer-driven infrastructure, and to have policies that keep the 'wrong' people out of our locked secrets, especially if by opening those doors, our enemies unleash the metaphorical equivalent of poison gas into our systems.
However, the problem is far greater than keeping the keys in the 'right' hands.
As with all technology, this is a double-edged weapon that must be wielded by skilled hands.
But, the results of that sword being held in the hands of the locksmith are not necessarily the same as it being held in the hands of the king, are they?
But, the results of that sword being held in the hands of the locksmith are not necessarily the same as it being held in the hands of the king, are they?
This author consults with leading institutions through GLG
Analyses are solely the work of the authors and have not been edited or endorsed by GLG.
