Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
10 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
from Jeh Johnson's testimony -
States Rebuffed Federal Help on Russian Hacking, Says Former DHS Head
”My staff and I repeatedly encouraged state and local election officials to seek our cybersecurity assistance.”
David Corn Jun. 21, 2017 11:40 AM
<...>
As summer 2016 progressed, my concerns about the possibility of a cyberattack around our national election grew. I probed with the cybersecurity experts at DHS what more we could and should be doing. We developed a plan to engage state election officials to offer our cybersecurity assistance to them. My staff also suggested to me that I could, under my existing authorities, declare election infrastructure to be “critical infrastructure” in this country. There are 16 infrastructure sectors—e.g., financial services, dams, transportation, government facilities, the defense industrial base—that are already considered critical infrastructure. By adding election infrastructure to that list, for cybersecurity purposes it would principally mean two things: (1) that election officials, upon request, would be a top priority for the receipt of DHS’s services, and (2) that, as part of critical infrastructure, election infrastructure would receive the benefit of various domestic and international cybersecurity protections.
On August 3, 2016, in an on-the-record session with reporters, I publicly floated the idea of designating election infrastructure in this country as critical infrastructure.
Twelve days later, on August 15, I convened a conference call with secretaries of state and other chief election officials of every state in the country. I told state officials that we must ensure the security and resilience of election infrastructure, and offered DHS’s assistance to the states in doing that. I also reiterated the idea of designating election infrastructure as critical infrastructure.
To my disappointment, the reaction to a critical infrastructure designation, at least from those who spoke up, ranged from neutral to negative. Those who expressed negative views stated that running elections in this country was the sovereign and exclusive responsibility of the states, and they did not want federal intrusion, a federal takeover, or federal regulation of that process. This was a profound misunderstanding of what a critical infrastructure designation would mean, which I tried to clarify for them.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/06/states-rebuffed-federal-help-on-russian-hacking-says-former-dhs-head/
”My staff and I repeatedly encouraged state and local election officials to seek our cybersecurity assistance.”
David Corn Jun. 21, 2017 11:40 AM
<...>
As summer 2016 progressed, my concerns about the possibility of a cyberattack around our national election grew. I probed with the cybersecurity experts at DHS what more we could and should be doing. We developed a plan to engage state election officials to offer our cybersecurity assistance to them. My staff also suggested to me that I could, under my existing authorities, declare election infrastructure to be “critical infrastructure” in this country. There are 16 infrastructure sectors—e.g., financial services, dams, transportation, government facilities, the defense industrial base—that are already considered critical infrastructure. By adding election infrastructure to that list, for cybersecurity purposes it would principally mean two things: (1) that election officials, upon request, would be a top priority for the receipt of DHS’s services, and (2) that, as part of critical infrastructure, election infrastructure would receive the benefit of various domestic and international cybersecurity protections.
On August 3, 2016, in an on-the-record session with reporters, I publicly floated the idea of designating election infrastructure in this country as critical infrastructure.
Twelve days later, on August 15, I convened a conference call with secretaries of state and other chief election officials of every state in the country. I told state officials that we must ensure the security and resilience of election infrastructure, and offered DHS’s assistance to the states in doing that. I also reiterated the idea of designating election infrastructure as critical infrastructure.
To my disappointment, the reaction to a critical infrastructure designation, at least from those who spoke up, ranged from neutral to negative. Those who expressed negative views stated that running elections in this country was the sovereign and exclusive responsibility of the states, and they did not want federal intrusion, a federal takeover, or federal regulation of that process. This was a profound misunderstanding of what a critical infrastructure designation would mean, which I tried to clarify for them.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/06/states-rebuffed-federal-help-on-russian-hacking-says-former-dhs-head/
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Why would they listen to some "n****r" appointed by some other "n****r"?
unless it comes to things they don't like that Democrats support. Then they are all up in your business! 
