I don’t know why everyone is so worried about who hacked Sony in Hollywood. Does it really matter who hacked a movie studio or even an entertainment company? I’m more concerned about my local water provider.
The truth is that every day thousands of cyber-attacks hit our country from either government sponsored hackers or private sector hackers. And while they are hacking us, we are hacking them. It’s more likely that we hacked them first.
Where the actions of the movie company to pull the movie from public release is being represented as an affront to someone’s First Amendment rights, I don’t agree. On the one hand, every business that operates today is forced to consider political correctness in how they interact with people at every level. Business decisions regarding risk management take place every day. The way we allow people to litigate everything makes the lawyers and insurance companies the power brokers as usual. If you want to talk about violating rights, lawyers and insurance companies are the biggest violators. The decision to not release the movie is not subject to judicial review.
There is no connection between an act of cyber-theft and our Constitutional rights. Unless we can definitively identify the individual or individuals who did the deed, we don’t know whether North Korea was a player or not. It’s most likely that China is the guilty party since they attack us so frequently but we really don’t know.
If hacking networks in cyber-space is the battleground of the future then our brightest minds should be working on both defensive and offensive tools. I have no doubt that they are already and their success may well be protecting some government installations now. The problem in our country and around the world is that the potential of the internet has expanded faster than our ability to control it.
For some reason we thought we could develop the productivity aspects without the corresponding defensive measures. All these companies that sell us software to protect our personal computers could very well have come from people who created the viruses in the first place. First you create a peril then you offer protection from it for a price. It sounds like racketeering to me.
It could be that businesses should reconsider how they are connected to the net. If there are aspects of your business you don’t want exposed to hackers, keeping the proprietary data on a physically separated network may be necessary.
The fact that it took an attack on a do-nothing entertainment company to get the headlines about cyber-attacks is both disappointing and not a bit surprising. It just exposes the shallowness of the press. This topic has been a story for quite a while. It will be interesting to see if the national media companies are still covering this topic in six months.
What I want our governments to do is develop plans to protect the public infrastructure from cyber-attacks just like they do to plan for disasters. At every level of government, the needs are a little different and the efforts to address them should be tailored appropriately. If protection comes from newer more effective firewalls then that’s where the resources should be focused. If the protection comes from removing the power grid from the public internet then that should be done. Since the impact of cyber-warfare is likely to affect us all, it should be a good opportunity to have a cooperative dialog between the parties and a plan developed.
Private companies need to make business decisions based upon the best available science and technology to protect their individual interests.
If the internet as we know it is the only way to conduct business today then we’re screwed.
No Loss for Words 
Koster, You’re Outa Here!
by Steve DanaThe Snohomish County Council decided this week to not retain John Koster as the County Ombudsman after Executive John Lovick recommended that Koster be canned because of his political views pertaining to a campaign document Koster put his name to that was characterized as anti-union.
In what I would view as a bit strange, the vote of the council was two votes FOR and two votes AGAINST with one ABSTENTION. The abstention being the strange part. As predicted, Stephanie Wright and Brian Sullivan opposed Koster’s appointment. That left Dave Somers, Ken Klein and Terry Ryan to likely vote FOR. The mystery is the decision by Terry Ryan to abstain from voting. I didn’t see that coming. I think of Ryan as being a moderate like his predecessor Dave Gossett. Typically the left leaners who depend on unions for campaign support do whatever they have to to support their patrons. There must be some other issue at play between Koster and Ryan I am unaware of. (Which shouldn’t be too surprising)
On the whole, I was more surprised that Koster was appointed in the first place. With a predictably liberal Lovick as the appointer, it didn’t seem likely that a predictably conservative Koster would even be in the zone of consideration. There is no question that Lovick knew the politics of Koster prior to the appointment and still spoke in glowing terms about him at the time. That alone signified to me that Lovick had confidence in Koster’s ability to be impartial as he advocated for the clientele. So what changed?
In all the years that I’ve been involved in public service and the politics of Snohomish County John Koster has been in some capacity as well. We haven’t crossed paths too often, but often enough to know that people of both political persuasions respected Koster for his fairness and integrity.
I suspect that the rub with Lovick was Koster’s willingness to aggressively advocate for citizens in disputes with the county that may well have their basis in the Executive’s own administration. Not Good for the Administration. That might sour Lovick’s perception of Koster.
The bigger question in all this affair is the reason for Ryan’s abstention.
This is where the politics of Snohomish County might come into play. An abstention is a NO vote when you need three YES votes to make the appointment. A NO vote without saying NO. Was it a political favor? John Lovick is a former Mill Creek city council member as is Ryan. Did Lovick go to his old council colleague and make a deal for an Executive consideration down the road? Since he didn’t vote, he’s not hung with the record of a NO while he still accomplished Lovick’s goal.
The other consideration is the interaction between Lovick and Somers. I get the feeling that Somers is working up to a run for the executive’s job and he needs Lovick to look as bad as possible. If he can create turmoil in the Lovick administration by stirring up the Mark Ericks controversy, lead the budget fight and now oppose the firing of Koster along with a few other happenings that point toward Somers’ efforts to “bad mouth” Lovick and create a continuing tension between the executive’s office and the council suggesting a carry-over of the Reardon style of heavy handed government. I suspect that Somers’ goal is to depict Lovick as just another Aaron Reardon to diminish his attractiveness in the next election cycle enabling him to step forward as the conciliator ready to carry the party banner.
And while I’m touching on possible Executive candidates, John Koster might decide to throw his hat into the ring as well. The turmoil might paint Koster as a victim to the point where he appeals to county voters as an alternative to the fighting Democrats.
At the end of the day, Koster may well have been a great Ombudsman but was a casualty of a political system he was a player in for so many years.
As far as the Ombudsman’s job is concerned, let’s see if Lovick appoints someone who is non-partisan if that is possible anymore or more accurately, someone who doesn’t have political biases.
I guess time will tell.
Merry Christmas!
Posted in Snohomish County Council, Snohomish County Political Commentary | Leave a Comment »