Posted on Oct 15, 2016
What are U.S. officials saying about a potential NSA-CYBERCOM split?
884
3
4
2
2
0
This is Part IV of a four-part series on the underlying issues surrounding the potential split of the NSA and Cyber Command.
A number of lawmakers on Capitol Hill are vehemently opposed to severing the dual-hat position between the director of the National Security Agency and commander of US Cyber Command.
What are the prospects that the NSA and CYBERCOM will split in the final months of President Barack Obama's final term?
“Let me be very clear, I do not believe rushing to separate the dual hat in the final months of an administration is appropriate given the very serious challenges we face in cyberspace and the failure of this administration to develop an effective deterrence policy,” Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee John McCain, R-Ariz., said during a hearing in September. “Therefore, if a decision is prematurely made to separate NSA and Cyber Command I will object to the confirmation of any individual nominated by the president to replace the director of the National Security Agency if that person is not also nominated to be the commander of Cyber Command.”
Part I: What would a CYBERCOM-NSA split mean?
Part II: What would an independent Cyber Command look like?
Part III: Does NSA support of CYBERCOM blur lines?
The Washington Post reported that Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Director of National Intelligence are pushing for the split as to reduce the tension regarding use of resources that are currently shared.
While noting that the close partnership and working relationship made sense at the beginning, Defense Secretary Ash Carter conceded during an appearance at a TechCrunch Disrupt fireside chat in September that “it's not necessarily going to — the right approach to those missions overall in the long run. And we need to look at that and it's not just a matter of NSA and CYBERCOM.”
Carter told the audience that there is no timeline for a decision on a split, noting that Congress is also examining this issue. However, Carter told reporters recently that “ultimately, whenever that decision is made, it will be made by the president, because both NSA and CYBERCOM ultimately report to the president. They're part of the Department of Defense, but that's a decision that only the president can take.”
Going forward, a full, standalone CYBERCOM separated from NSA might not rest on the Title 10 versus Title 50 legalities, Robert Chesney, a law professor at the University of Texas, told C4ISRNET, noting there are significant legal complexities that are glossed over within this context. Rather, he said, the issue on whether to separate should rest upon policy equities.
For one, how things are payed for matters. It doesn’t make sense to spend a lot more money on two separate organizations if there will be a significant duplication of resources and action, he said. However, on the other hand, it might be necessary to split them to better tend these equities.
Former NSA director, retired Gen. Keith Alexander, said last year to FCW that in the near future, CYBERCOM will continue to share a leader with the NSA.
“If we separate them, two years later you're going to put them back together. So don't waste your time."
A number of lawmakers on Capitol Hill are vehemently opposed to severing the dual-hat position between the director of the National Security Agency and commander of US Cyber Command.
What are the prospects that the NSA and CYBERCOM will split in the final months of President Barack Obama's final term?
“Let me be very clear, I do not believe rushing to separate the dual hat in the final months of an administration is appropriate given the very serious challenges we face in cyberspace and the failure of this administration to develop an effective deterrence policy,” Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee John McCain, R-Ariz., said during a hearing in September. “Therefore, if a decision is prematurely made to separate NSA and Cyber Command I will object to the confirmation of any individual nominated by the president to replace the director of the National Security Agency if that person is not also nominated to be the commander of Cyber Command.”
Part I: What would a CYBERCOM-NSA split mean?
Part II: What would an independent Cyber Command look like?
Part III: Does NSA support of CYBERCOM blur lines?
The Washington Post reported that Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Director of National Intelligence are pushing for the split as to reduce the tension regarding use of resources that are currently shared.
While noting that the close partnership and working relationship made sense at the beginning, Defense Secretary Ash Carter conceded during an appearance at a TechCrunch Disrupt fireside chat in September that “it's not necessarily going to — the right approach to those missions overall in the long run. And we need to look at that and it's not just a matter of NSA and CYBERCOM.”
Carter told the audience that there is no timeline for a decision on a split, noting that Congress is also examining this issue. However, Carter told reporters recently that “ultimately, whenever that decision is made, it will be made by the president, because both NSA and CYBERCOM ultimately report to the president. They're part of the Department of Defense, but that's a decision that only the president can take.”
Going forward, a full, standalone CYBERCOM separated from NSA might not rest on the Title 10 versus Title 50 legalities, Robert Chesney, a law professor at the University of Texas, told C4ISRNET, noting there are significant legal complexities that are glossed over within this context. Rather, he said, the issue on whether to separate should rest upon policy equities.
For one, how things are payed for matters. It doesn’t make sense to spend a lot more money on two separate organizations if there will be a significant duplication of resources and action, he said. However, on the other hand, it might be necessary to split them to better tend these equities.
Former NSA director, retired Gen. Keith Alexander, said last year to FCW that in the near future, CYBERCOM will continue to share a leader with the NSA.
“If we separate them, two years later you're going to put them back together. So don't waste your time."
What are U.S. officials saying about a potential NSA-CYBERCOM split?
Posted from c4isrnet.com
Cyber
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 4
1
1
0
Thanks for sharing SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL. Since the Intelligence reform and reorganization act [can't remember acronym] realigned the intel gathering agencies it seems strange that there is a move to decouple NSA and CYBERCOM.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Beyond the CoC challenges faced by a dual hat approach there are as well a host of very challenging concerns needing to be addressed in regards to policy and that of cyberwarfare.
If we look at the law of armed conflict (LOAC) and try to apply it to cyber-security/space, despite the widespread use of terms like ‘cyber warfare’ and ‘cyber attack’, the vast majority of cyber activity does not fit withing the current framework of the law of armed conflict. Think in terms of our current election and claims being made by many that the Russians have been hacking away to undermine the election of our president. From a legal perspective if so is the hacking a military attack and if so what domain does this fall under - intelligence vs. armed conflict. Does the penetration of servers amount to a military attack. Is hacking DNC servers the same as attacking our power grid or a DoD resources. As well I think that the secretive nature of Cybercom further complicates the issue as currently there is no box to put the genie back in to. Think in regards to Stunext and sovereignty and its propagation. Once it was in the wild it found its way to other computers beyond its intended target. As well there were some real world breaches that were required in order to obtain security certificates and then again covert operations to bridge air gaps. While Obama recently signed an executive order that requires the president's authorization for any cyber-attacks this is on our accord. The Russians have been pressing the issues yet little has come of any formal treaties between nations in regards to cyber security as a method of unconventional warfare.
If we look at the law of armed conflict (LOAC) and try to apply it to cyber-security/space, despite the widespread use of terms like ‘cyber warfare’ and ‘cyber attack’, the vast majority of cyber activity does not fit withing the current framework of the law of armed conflict. Think in terms of our current election and claims being made by many that the Russians have been hacking away to undermine the election of our president. From a legal perspective if so is the hacking a military attack and if so what domain does this fall under - intelligence vs. armed conflict. Does the penetration of servers amount to a military attack. Is hacking DNC servers the same as attacking our power grid or a DoD resources. As well I think that the secretive nature of Cybercom further complicates the issue as currently there is no box to put the genie back in to. Think in regards to Stunext and sovereignty and its propagation. Once it was in the wild it found its way to other computers beyond its intended target. As well there were some real world breaches that were required in order to obtain security certificates and then again covert operations to bridge air gaps. While Obama recently signed an executive order that requires the president's authorization for any cyber-attacks this is on our accord. The Russians have been pressing the issues yet little has come of any formal treaties between nations in regards to cyber security as a method of unconventional warfare.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The Department That was designed to keep all these Little organizations in line and coordinated has been perverted into a "Paramilitary Security Farce"... or has someone forgotten their place ...
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google