SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
We already have significant information sharing avenues, which makes the new center redundant. (ITU Pictures/flickr/cc)
This week the Obama administration is releasing its second Executive Order in as many years on computer ("cyber") security, which reports are saying will create a new department in the intelligence community to handle computer security threat information sharing. Officials are hailing the center as "new" and unprecedented.
It's not. We already have significant information sharing avenues, which makes the new center redundant. Companies can definitely look forward to more red tape when it comes to sharing computer security threats. And it's not just a question of seemingly unnecessary bureaucracy. We're concerned that the whole point of the new center is to be IN the intelligence community, and thus all but eliminate any transparency and accountability. And even if the center is housed in the Department of Homeland Security there is a potential for redundancy.
In a press release the Administration lauded the center, formally called the Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center, saying:
No single government entity is responsible for producing coordinated cyber threat assessments, ensuring that information is shared rapidly among existing cyber centers and other [government] elements, and supporting the work of operators and policymakers with timely intelligence about the latest cyber threats and threat actors
The description looks awfully familiar. It should; the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has an entire department called the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) that seems to do pretty much everything the Administration thinks needs doing. NICCIC is a bridge between government, private sector, and international network defense communities. It's About page states that the "NCCIC analyzes cybersecurity and communications information, shares timely and actionable information, and coordinates response, mitigation and recovery efforts."
Digging deeper, NCCIC in turn houses US-CERT (United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team) and ICS-Cert (Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team). Both teams also handle computer security information sharing and threat analysis. Specifically, US-CERT "leads efforts to improve the nation's cybersecurity posture, coordinate cyber information sharing, and proactively manage cyber risks."
The descriptions speak for themselves.
Current Public Sharing...
More confusing is trying to reconcile what this new center will contribute to the current public and private information-sharing regime. In 2012 the President signed EO 13636, which created the Enhanced Cybersecurity System, or ECS. The ECS focuses on sharing computer security information from the government to critical infrastructure and other "commercial service providers." At the time, it was hailed as a critical step to improving information sharing and coordinating cyberattacks since the private sector owns about 85% of the America's critical infrastructure. Two years later, we've heard little about its implementation.
The bottom line is that ECS, US-CERT, ICS-CERT, NCCIC, and other departments appear to be tasked with doing exactly what this new "Cyber Threat Agency" will be doing. And there's more--the DHS programs complement DOD programs like the DIBNET, or Defense Industrial Base Network, where defense contractors share computer security information between themselves and with the government.
Current Private Sharing
All of this is on top of private-sector hubs known as Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISACs). ISACs are often sector specific and facilitate information sharing; they've been noted as working "very well" and are supplemented by public reports and private communications, like the recently launched ThreatExchange. Private sharing was further encouraged when the FTC and DOJ stated they would not prosecute companies under antitrust law for sharing computer security information. Combined, these private centers facilitate sharing and are core parts of the already current information-sharing regime.
What's New About the New Center?
Given the apparent redundancy of the new center, it's hard not to believe that its main reason for being is its location: inside the intelligence community and shrouded in near-impenetrable secrecy. Keep in mind that it's long been settled that a civilian agency should lead the country's computer security--so settled that even former NSA chief General Keith Alexander declared that civilian agencies should take the lead on government computer security.
If the government wants more information sharing then it should expand the ECS or utilize the already current information sharing regimes in US-CERT and the private sector--or explain why it can't be done in DHS. And of course, as we've often said, it's not at all clear that information sharing is where we should be putting our security dollars and attention. Many of the past years' breaches were due to low-hanging fruit like encrypting personal information, making sure passwords aren't sent in unencrypted emails, and that employees don't download malware. For instance, the New York Times reported the JP Morgan hack occurred due to an un-updated server.
Devils are in the Details
The exact details of the center will be released later this week, but as of now the new center seems redundant. If we want to improve computer security and the sharing of threat information we must encourage companies and the government to use the already existing information sharing regimes. Creating another new bureaucracy inside the intelligence community will probably hinder, not help, the computer security landscape.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
This week the Obama administration is releasing its second Executive Order in as many years on computer ("cyber") security, which reports are saying will create a new department in the intelligence community to handle computer security threat information sharing. Officials are hailing the center as "new" and unprecedented.
It's not. We already have significant information sharing avenues, which makes the new center redundant. Companies can definitely look forward to more red tape when it comes to sharing computer security threats. And it's not just a question of seemingly unnecessary bureaucracy. We're concerned that the whole point of the new center is to be IN the intelligence community, and thus all but eliminate any transparency and accountability. And even if the center is housed in the Department of Homeland Security there is a potential for redundancy.
In a press release the Administration lauded the center, formally called the Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center, saying:
No single government entity is responsible for producing coordinated cyber threat assessments, ensuring that information is shared rapidly among existing cyber centers and other [government] elements, and supporting the work of operators and policymakers with timely intelligence about the latest cyber threats and threat actors
The description looks awfully familiar. It should; the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has an entire department called the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) that seems to do pretty much everything the Administration thinks needs doing. NICCIC is a bridge between government, private sector, and international network defense communities. It's About page states that the "NCCIC analyzes cybersecurity and communications information, shares timely and actionable information, and coordinates response, mitigation and recovery efforts."
Digging deeper, NCCIC in turn houses US-CERT (United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team) and ICS-Cert (Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team). Both teams also handle computer security information sharing and threat analysis. Specifically, US-CERT "leads efforts to improve the nation's cybersecurity posture, coordinate cyber information sharing, and proactively manage cyber risks."
The descriptions speak for themselves.
Current Public Sharing...
More confusing is trying to reconcile what this new center will contribute to the current public and private information-sharing regime. In 2012 the President signed EO 13636, which created the Enhanced Cybersecurity System, or ECS. The ECS focuses on sharing computer security information from the government to critical infrastructure and other "commercial service providers." At the time, it was hailed as a critical step to improving information sharing and coordinating cyberattacks since the private sector owns about 85% of the America's critical infrastructure. Two years later, we've heard little about its implementation.
The bottom line is that ECS, US-CERT, ICS-CERT, NCCIC, and other departments appear to be tasked with doing exactly what this new "Cyber Threat Agency" will be doing. And there's more--the DHS programs complement DOD programs like the DIBNET, or Defense Industrial Base Network, where defense contractors share computer security information between themselves and with the government.
Current Private Sharing
All of this is on top of private-sector hubs known as Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISACs). ISACs are often sector specific and facilitate information sharing; they've been noted as working "very well" and are supplemented by public reports and private communications, like the recently launched ThreatExchange. Private sharing was further encouraged when the FTC and DOJ stated they would not prosecute companies under antitrust law for sharing computer security information. Combined, these private centers facilitate sharing and are core parts of the already current information-sharing regime.
What's New About the New Center?
Given the apparent redundancy of the new center, it's hard not to believe that its main reason for being is its location: inside the intelligence community and shrouded in near-impenetrable secrecy. Keep in mind that it's long been settled that a civilian agency should lead the country's computer security--so settled that even former NSA chief General Keith Alexander declared that civilian agencies should take the lead on government computer security.
If the government wants more information sharing then it should expand the ECS or utilize the already current information sharing regimes in US-CERT and the private sector--or explain why it can't be done in DHS. And of course, as we've often said, it's not at all clear that information sharing is where we should be putting our security dollars and attention. Many of the past years' breaches were due to low-hanging fruit like encrypting personal information, making sure passwords aren't sent in unencrypted emails, and that employees don't download malware. For instance, the New York Times reported the JP Morgan hack occurred due to an un-updated server.
Devils are in the Details
The exact details of the center will be released later this week, but as of now the new center seems redundant. If we want to improve computer security and the sharing of threat information we must encourage companies and the government to use the already existing information sharing regimes. Creating another new bureaucracy inside the intelligence community will probably hinder, not help, the computer security landscape.
This week the Obama administration is releasing its second Executive Order in as many years on computer ("cyber") security, which reports are saying will create a new department in the intelligence community to handle computer security threat information sharing. Officials are hailing the center as "new" and unprecedented.
It's not. We already have significant information sharing avenues, which makes the new center redundant. Companies can definitely look forward to more red tape when it comes to sharing computer security threats. And it's not just a question of seemingly unnecessary bureaucracy. We're concerned that the whole point of the new center is to be IN the intelligence community, and thus all but eliminate any transparency and accountability. And even if the center is housed in the Department of Homeland Security there is a potential for redundancy.
In a press release the Administration lauded the center, formally called the Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center, saying:
No single government entity is responsible for producing coordinated cyber threat assessments, ensuring that information is shared rapidly among existing cyber centers and other [government] elements, and supporting the work of operators and policymakers with timely intelligence about the latest cyber threats and threat actors
The description looks awfully familiar. It should; the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has an entire department called the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) that seems to do pretty much everything the Administration thinks needs doing. NICCIC is a bridge between government, private sector, and international network defense communities. It's About page states that the "NCCIC analyzes cybersecurity and communications information, shares timely and actionable information, and coordinates response, mitigation and recovery efforts."
Digging deeper, NCCIC in turn houses US-CERT (United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team) and ICS-Cert (Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team). Both teams also handle computer security information sharing and threat analysis. Specifically, US-CERT "leads efforts to improve the nation's cybersecurity posture, coordinate cyber information sharing, and proactively manage cyber risks."
The descriptions speak for themselves.
Current Public Sharing...
More confusing is trying to reconcile what this new center will contribute to the current public and private information-sharing regime. In 2012 the President signed EO 13636, which created the Enhanced Cybersecurity System, or ECS. The ECS focuses on sharing computer security information from the government to critical infrastructure and other "commercial service providers." At the time, it was hailed as a critical step to improving information sharing and coordinating cyberattacks since the private sector owns about 85% of the America's critical infrastructure. Two years later, we've heard little about its implementation.
The bottom line is that ECS, US-CERT, ICS-CERT, NCCIC, and other departments appear to be tasked with doing exactly what this new "Cyber Threat Agency" will be doing. And there's more--the DHS programs complement DOD programs like the DIBNET, or Defense Industrial Base Network, where defense contractors share computer security information between themselves and with the government.
Current Private Sharing
All of this is on top of private-sector hubs known as Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISACs). ISACs are often sector specific and facilitate information sharing; they've been noted as working "very well" and are supplemented by public reports and private communications, like the recently launched ThreatExchange. Private sharing was further encouraged when the FTC and DOJ stated they would not prosecute companies under antitrust law for sharing computer security information. Combined, these private centers facilitate sharing and are core parts of the already current information-sharing regime.
What's New About the New Center?
Given the apparent redundancy of the new center, it's hard not to believe that its main reason for being is its location: inside the intelligence community and shrouded in near-impenetrable secrecy. Keep in mind that it's long been settled that a civilian agency should lead the country's computer security--so settled that even former NSA chief General Keith Alexander declared that civilian agencies should take the lead on government computer security.
If the government wants more information sharing then it should expand the ECS or utilize the already current information sharing regimes in US-CERT and the private sector--or explain why it can't be done in DHS. And of course, as we've often said, it's not at all clear that information sharing is where we should be putting our security dollars and attention. Many of the past years' breaches were due to low-hanging fruit like encrypting personal information, making sure passwords aren't sent in unencrypted emails, and that employees don't download malware. For instance, the New York Times reported the JP Morgan hack occurred due to an un-updated server.
Devils are in the Details
The exact details of the center will be released later this week, but as of now the new center seems redundant. If we want to improve computer security and the sharing of threat information we must encourage companies and the government to use the already existing information sharing regimes. Creating another new bureaucracy inside the intelligence community will probably hinder, not help, the computer security landscape.
"Children dying first in a famine Israel caused by restricting food aid also had comorbidities and preexisting conditions," said one jourtnalist. "Of course they did. That is who dies first, as any child can tell you."
Using terminology that's all too familiar to the U.S. public—and treated by the for-profit health system as synonymous with those who are entitled to less care—the Israel Defense Forces on Tuesday released an "in-depth review" of widespread reports that Israel has killed hundreds of people in Gaza so far through its deliberate starvation policy.
The military claimed the analysis found that many Palestinians who have died of malnutrition so far had previous illnesses.
"Most 'malnutrition' deaths were due to severe preexisting conditions," said the IDF in a post on social media. "The expert review concluded that there are no signs of a widespread malnutrition phenomenon among the population in Gaza."
The fact that a number of people who have died had health conditions before Israel began bombarding Gaza in October 2023—decimating its healthcare system, among other civilian infrastructure—is hardly a surprise, said journalist Ryan Grim of Drop Site News.
"Children dying first in a famine Israel caused by restricting food aid also had comorbidities and preexisting conditions," said Grim. "Of course they did. That is who dies first, as any child can tell you."
The IDF and its top military funder, the U.S. government, have persistently denied that Israel is intentionally starving Palestinian civilians with its near-total blockade on humanitarian aid.
"It took an 'in-depth IDF review' abto determine that children with preexisting conditions will be the first victims of a man-made famine?"
As the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) has warned that famine is now unfolding in Gaza, experts have called the starvation crisis that's killed at least 235 people "entirely man-made," and Amnesty International has gathered extensive testimony from healthcare workers and civilians describing how Israel is using starvation as a "weapon of war," the Trump administration has continued to claim that any malnutrition in Gaza is the result of Hamas "stealing aid."
Last month, even IDF officials were forced to admit previous claims that Hamas was stealing humanitarian aid deliveries could not be verified.
With that claim debunked, the "in-depth review" focused instead on dismissing the starvation victims themselves.
The IDF presented the case of 4-year-old Abdullah Hanu Muhammad Abu Zarqa, who had a genetic disease that caused "deficiencies, osteoporosis, and bone thinning."
It also posted on the social media platform X the medical records of a 2-year-old named Abed Allah Hany Muhamad Abu Zarka, which showed the toddler had hair loss and rickets—a bone disease caused by vitamin D deficiency. The document showed he had a "positive family history of similar cases" and was shared in the apparent hope that disclosing the information would tamp down outrage over Israel's blockade on humanitarian aid.
"I can't understand how anyone thinks 'We're only starving the SICK kids to death' is any kind of justification, even if it were true?!" said New York Times columnist Megan K. Stack.
The in-depth review, which Israel said verified "only a few cases" of starvation, came weeks after the Times appeared to bow to pressure from the Israeli government and media after it reported on Mohammed Zakaria al-Mutawaq, an 18-month-old who was born with cerebral palsy and had also been suffering from starvation. Israel claimed the use of photos of the toddler in media coverage was misleading because outlets like the Times didn't disclose al-Mutawaq's previous medical condition, and the Times issued an editorial note pointing out his diagnosis soon after.
The editors' move provoked outcry from progressive observers, who called the addendum "ghoulish" and "depraved."
One noted that an institution that took pains to "clarify" that "some portion of Nazi death camp victims had preexisting conditions" would rightly be accused of denying the impact of the Holocaust.
"It took an 'in-depth IDF review,'" one critic asked Wednesday, "to determine that children with preexisting conditions will be the first victims of a man-made famine?"
"If implemented, the plans would amount to transferring people from one war-ravaged land at risk of famine to another," the Associated Press said.
Israel has reportedly discussed pushing the Palestinian population of Gaza to another war zone in South Sudan.
The Associated Press reported Tuesday that Israeli leaders had been engaged in talks with the African nation and that an Israeli delegation would soon visit the country to look into the possibility of setting up "makeshift camps" for Palestinians to be herded into.
"It's unclear how far the talks have advanced, but if implemented, the plans would amount to transferring people from one war-ravaged land at risk of famine to another," the AP said.
Like Gaza, South Sudan is in the midst of a massive humanitarian crisis caused by an ongoing violence and instability. In June, Human Rights Watch reported that more than half of South Sudan's population, 7.7 million people, faced acute food insecurity. The nation is also home to one of the world's largest refugee crises, with more than 2 million people internally displaced.
On Wednesday, the South Sudanese foreign ministry said it "firmly refutes" the reports that it discussed the transfer of Palestinians with Israel, adding that they are "baseless and do not reflect the official position or policy."
However, six sources that spoke to the AP—including the founder of a U.S.-based lobbying firm and the leader of a South Sudanese civil society group, as well as four who maintained anonymity—said the government briefed them on the talks.
Sharren Haskel, Israel's deputy foreign minister, also arrived in South Sudan on Tuesday to hold a series of talks with the president and other government officials.
While the content of these talks is unclear for the moment, the Israeli government is quite open about its goal of seeking the permanent transfer of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip to other countries.
In addition to South Sudan, it has been reported that Israeli officials have also approached Sudan, Somalia, and the breakaway state of Somaliland, all of which have suffered from chronic war, poverty, and instability.
On Tuesday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in an interview with the Israeli TV station i24 that "the right thing to do, even according to the laws of war as I know them, is to allow the population to leave, and then you go in with all your might against the enemy who remains there."
Though Netanyahu has described this as "voluntary migration," Israeli officials have in the past indicated that their goal is to make conditions in Gaza so intolerable that its people see no choice but to leave.
Finance minister and war cabinet member Bezalel Smotrich, who has openly discussed the objective of forcing 2 million Palestinians out to make way for Israeli settlers, said in May: "Within a few months, we will be able to declare that we have won. Gaza will be totally destroyed."
Speaking of its people, he said: "They will be totally despairing, understanding that there is no hope and nothing to look for in Gaza, and will be looking for relocation to begin a new life in other places."
Contrary to Netanyahu's assertion, international bodies, governments, and human rights groups have denounced the so-called "voluntary migration" plan as a policy of forcible transfer that is illegal under international law.
"To impose inhumane conditions of life to push Palestinians out of Gaza would amount to the war crime of unlawful transfer or deportation," said Amnesty International in May.
Israeli human rights organizations, led by the group Gisha, explained in June in a letter to Israel's Defense Minister, Israel Katz, that there is no such thing as "voluntary migration" under the circumstances that the Israeli war campaign has imposed.
"Genuine 'consent' under these conditions simply does not exist," the groups said. "Therefore, the decision in question constitutes explicit planning for mass transfer of civilians and ethnic cleansing, while violating international law, amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity."
The plan to permanently remove Palestinians from the Gaza Strip has received the backing of U.S. President Donald Trump, who has said he wants to turn the strip into the "Riviera of the Middle East."
The U.S. State Department currently advises travelers not to visit Sudan or Somaliland due to the risk of armed conflict, civil unrest, crime, terrorism, and kidnapping. However, the United States has reportedly been involved in talks pushing these countries to take in the Palestinians forced out by Israel.
After Israel announced its plans to fully "conquer" Gaza, U.N. official Miroslav Jenča said during an emergency Security Council session on Sunday that the occupation push is "yet another dangerous escalation of the conflict."
"If these plans are implemented," he said, "they will likely trigger another calamity in Gaza, reverberating across the region and causing further forced displacement, killings, and destruction—compounding the unbearable suffering of the population."
Under Kennedy's leadership, Defend Public Health charged, the federal government "is now leading the spread of misinformation."
A grassroots public health organization on Wednesday took a preemptive hatchet to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s upcoming "Make America Health Again" report, whose release was delayed this week.
Health advocacy organization Defend Public Health said that it felt comfortable trashing the yet-to-be-released Kennedy report given that his previous report released earlier this year "fundamentally mischaracterized or ignored key issues in U.S. public health."
Instead, the group decided to release its own plan called "Improving the Health of Americans Together," which includes measures to ensure food safety, to improve Americans' ability to find times to exercise, and to ensure access to vaccines. The report also promotes expanding access to healthcare while taking a shot at the massive budget package passed by Republicans last month that cut an estimated $1 trillion from Medicaid over the next decade.
"In 2023, 28% of Americans had to delay or forgo medical or dental care due to cost, a number that will increase thanks to the recent reconciliation bill," the organization said. "Health coverage should be expanded, not reduced, and the U.S. should move toward a system that covers all."
Defend Public Health's report also directly condemns Kennedy's leadership as head of the Health and Human Services Department (HHS), as it labels him "an entirely destructive force and a major source of misinformation" who "must be removed from office." Under Kennedy's leadership, Defend Public Health charged, the federal government "is now leading the spread of misinformation."
Elizabeth Jacobs, an epidemiologist at the University of Arizona and a founding member of Defend Public Health, explained her organization's rationale for getting out in front of Kennedy's report.
"Public health can't wait, so we felt it was important not to let RFK Jr. set an agenda based on distortions and distractions," she said. "Tens of thousands of scientists, healthcare providers, and public health practitioners would love to be part of a real agenda to improve the health of Americans, but RFK Jr. keeps showing he has no clue how to do it."
She then added that "you can't build a public health agenda on pseudoscience while ignoring fundamental problems like poverty and other social determinants of health" and said her organization has "put together strategies that could truly help children and adults stay healthier, and that's the conversation Americans need to be having, not Kennedy's fake 'MAHA.'"
Kennedy has been drawing the ire of public health experts since his confirmation as HHS secretary. The Washington Post reported this week that Kennedy angered employees of the Centers for Disease Control after he continued to criticize their response to the novel coronavirus pandemic even after a gunman opened fire on the agency's headquarters late last week.
Kennedy also got into a spat recently with international health experts. According to Reuters, Kennedy recently demanded the retraction of a Danish study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine journal that found no link between children's exposure to aluminum in vaccines and incidence of neurodevelopment disorders such as autism.