We Need Our Best as Cybersecurity Agents

   Headline on a story from Reuters, May, 2015: "FBI warns Russians hacked hundreds of thousands of routers."

   The trail of Russian hacking American computers is impressive. The Democratic National Committee during the 2016 election and the large hacking uncovered weeks ago are two of the more dramatic incidents. 

   The point is: When will stop them? When will we get serious about stopping them? When will we say, We've got to do better at defending ourselves? When do we take this off the back-burner?

   Our current cybersecurity personnel have failed? Bless them, surely they are doing their best. But, we need improvement in our efforts. We need to search out the best cybersecurity personnel in the nation, from those already in our agencies and those in the private sector. We need to put our best on the job, and start making a dent at stopping the Russians. 

That no Charges Were Filed Underscores the Need to Change the Law

    This underscores the need to correct our laws. No charges will be filled in the August shooting of Jacob Blake. In the video, Blake is shown walking around the front of his car, tailed by police. As he reaches his car door and gets in, an officer shoots him.

   Officers say they believed he was reaching for a weapon, perhaps a knife. 

   I do not say officers should not protect themselves, should not shoot when necessary. But, I don't believe that point in the confrontation had been reached. If it is a weapon Blake is going for, wait till he has it in his hand before you shoot. You have your gun pointed at him, you are ready to shoot an instant notice. Why shoot before you know whether he even has a weapon? And, if it is a knife he is going for, all the more reason to wait to ensure that he is, indeed, fetching a weapon. As soon as his fingers touch the weapon, shoot. But, not until.

   If our laws should be corrected, so while they still allow you to defend yourself, they do not allow for those such as Blake to be killed prematurely.  

We Need Our Best Cybersecurity People Fighting the Russians

   With the Russians having hacked into some of our most delicate computer systems without being caught for eight months, we should consider turning over personnel that failed to discover the breaches. If a coach has a 1-10 record, you let him go. If you put someone on a project and they fail, you consider replacing them.

   The cyber security of the nation is vital. This was perhaps the greatest breach ever. It is not that you want heads to roll just to be laying blame. You need your finest people in these positions. And, this failure suggests we haven't achieved that. These are not positions to grant based on the spoils system, or on whether they will be loyal to you, or as a return for supporting you in the election, or any of that.

   You search the nation for the best, because you desperately need the best.

    The day of the election, Gen. Paul Nakasone said he felt "very good" at where the U.S. was in cybersecurity. Nakasone is one of the nations top officials, presiding over both the National Security Agency and the military's Cyber Command.

   Likewise, Christopher Krebs, head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) lauded our cybersecurity efforts in the election. And, then this.

   None of our government sleuths saw it coming. It was a private firm, FireEye, that spotted the Russians.

   We should search for the best of our talent. We should consider J. Alex Halderman, the University of Michigan computer science guru, and others who have shined in the private industry. And, we should not just ensure that our top people are leading our cybersecurity efforts, everyone on the team should be among America's most talented. 

Russian Hacking is a Big Story Gone Silent

    Push this story back to where it belongs at the top of the news. It has been a couple weeks now since we've heard much about the Russian hacking of America's computers. What should continue to be a big news story has gone silent. 

   Why? They plug into information from our Treasury Department and other departments. They steal it. This is not a story that should go away so easy. It is not a happening our government leaders should not be making noise about. Where, the out-going president offering any comment, or calling out the Russians? Where the new president doing the same?

These Senators and Representatives Should Not be Grabbing for Power

    The Constitution offers no provision for Congress voting on whether to accept the election. It doesn't offer that option. It says the electors shall transmit their votes sealed to the president of the senate, the president of the senate shall then open the sealed envelopes in the presence of the senate and house of representatives, and all the votes shall be counted. 

   It doesn't even say the senate and the house are the vote-counters. It would appear they are there simply as poll watchers. Now, what an open-door for corruption that would be. If poll watchers in some states in this election had the authority to vote on whether to accept the election results, they would have. 

   If this is to be a matter of upholding the Constitution, the 12 senators and 140 house members (all Republicans) should not be taking authority nor taking action that the Constitution does not give them. 

Trump is Literally the Textbook Case of a Person Who is Unethical

   Yesterday, I heard one of the most-damning things about Donald Trump you will ever hear. I had a worker over. While he worked, we got discussing politics. And, this is what he told me . . .   

   Way back before the turn of the century, he took a business ethics class at Southern Utah University. . . . And, they had a whole chapter on Donald Trump. Now, when I say a whole chapter on Trump, I do not just mean a chapter on the type of things Trump does. No, they were discussing Trump, the person. The chapter referred to him by name. He was the case history. He was the poster child, so to speak, of a person who is unethical. 

   Trump is literally, then, the textbook example of a person who is unethical. How about that?

Screening Out Bombers, Suggests We Should also Screen Out Shooters

    If a bomber in Nashville, Tennessee, shouldn't have been allowed to keep and bear arms, neither should a shooter in Parkland, Florida.

    The National Firearms Act restricts ownership of bombs. You need an explosive handler's permit. We can see that owning a bomb is not something the average citizen should claim as a right. But, there can be just as much criminal intent -- just the same tendency to terrorism -- with a person using a gun. If we can see the need to screen out those who would use explosive devices, should we not also see the need to screen out those who would use assault weapons?