Obama vs. Romney on cybersecurity

In their respective platforms, the Republicans and Democrats each briefly touch on what they both describe as a paramount threat facing the U.S.: cybersecurity. In keeping with the partisan divides that prevented lawmakers from passing cybersecurity legislation this year, each side offers a different – but decidedly familiar – take on the issue.

While neither party goes in-depth in its platform summary addressing cybersecurity, they both include plans that include basic tenets that were part of  cybersecurity bills that failed in Congress. While there isn’t much in the way of cyber-policy revelations, there are hints of action that could come – including a possible executive order.

The platforms include a handful of similarities: Both sides recognize the significance of the issue, the importance of collaboration within government and with industry, and the need for investment in cyber research and development.

Like proposed legislation that came before, that’s about where the parallels end.

The Republicans call for a hands-off approach that echoes the SECURE IT Act championed by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) earlier this year. The emphasis is on the public and private sectors working together, allowing for “the free flow of information” between network managers and the within industry. It also places the onus on the government to better protect their own systems.

The GOP platform also takes swipes at the current cybersecurity policies, saying that the Barack Obama administration is “overly reliant on the development of defensive capabilities and has been unsuccessful in dissuading cyber-related aggression.” The Republican plank criticizes Obama’s approach as “costly and heavy-handed” and says it will “increase the size and cost of the federal bureaucracy and harm innovation in cybersecurity.”

On the other hand, the Democrats’ platform notes some of the cybersecurity steps taken in Obama’s term, and includes vows to continue by investing in research and development, promoting awareness and strengthening public-private partnership.

“The President and the administration have taken unprecedented steps to defend America from cyber attacks, including creating the first military command dedicated to cybersecurity and conducting a full review of the federal government's efforts to protect our information and our infrastructure,” the Democrats’ platform states.

The platform also notes that “going forward, the president will continue to take executive action to strengthen and update our cyber defenses.”

Many, including cybersecurity expert Jim Lewis, say the statement is a strong suggestion of an executive order in the works.

Lewis, director and senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said a presidential directive from Obama likely would aim to compensate for the Congress’s failure to pass legislation protecting critical infrastructure.

But which party’s approach would be more effective? Lewis had criticism for both sides, noting that neither offers any novel ideas.

“The Democratic plank says the right things; it just doesn't say anything new other than the [executive order] hint. The Republican plank also doesn't say anything new, but we know what they propose won't work,” Lewis said, noting that the Republican references to deterrence and information-sharing, among others, are particularly troublesome.

“Cyber deterrence doesn’t work. This is a creaky retread from the Cold War,” he said. As for voluntary information-sharing, central to the Republican approach, “it’s legislation, not regulation, that blocks sharing, and Congress failed to fix it.”

But the Democratic approach could be costly – and not necessarily effective, given the government’s notorious bureaucracy and the rapidly evolving nature of cyber.

“The Democratic platform calls for greater government engagement and involvement, but the imposition of mandates would be less effective because the government is not nimble enough to regulate in this area,” said Paul Rosenzweig, visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation. “How much would the Democratic platform cost? Nobody knows. The Democrats couldn’t tell you before when [the bipartisan Cybersecurity Act of 2012] was being considered, and the same questions are being asked now.”

About the Author

Amber Corrin is a former staff writer for FCW and Defense Systems.

FCW in Print

In the latest issue: Looking back on three decades of big stories in federal IT.


  • Anne Rung -- Commerce Department Photo

    Exit interview with Anne Rung

    The government's departing top acquisition official said she leaves behind a solid foundation on which to build more effective and efficient federal IT.

  • Charles Phalen

    Administration appoints first head of NBIB

    The National Background Investigations Bureau announced the appointment of its first director as the agency prepares to take over processing government background checks.

  • Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.)

    Senator: Rigid hiring process pushes millennials from federal work

    Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) said agencies are missing out on younger workers because of the government's rigidity, particularly its protracted hiring process.

  • FCW @ 30 GPS

    FCW @ 30

    Since 1987, FCW has covered it all -- the major contracts, the disruptive technologies, the picayune scandals and the many, many people who make federal IT function. Here's a look back at six of the most significant stories.

  • Shutterstock image.

    A 'minibus' appropriations package could be in the cards

    A short-term funding bill is expected by Sept. 30 to keep the federal government operating through early December, but after that the options get more complicated.

  • Defense Secretary Ash Carter speaks at the TechCrunch Disrupt conference in San Francisco

    DOD launches new tech hub in Austin

    The DOD is opening a new Defense Innovation Unit Experimental office in Austin, Texas, while Congress debates legislation that could defund DIUx.

Reader comments

Fri, Sep 7, 2012

Deregulating is just as difficult as regulating, the consequences for errors are just as disasterous. However, deregulating is a nobler end. In general: deregulate

Fri, Sep 7, 2012

Lets get this straight. If I want to buy a product it has to be made the way the Government says it should be - not the way I want it to be? When did "private sector" start to mean corporations? Are history books written by left-wing academics who worked little, if any, in the private sector and believe that socialism is a great form of government (yes, they are that based on what my kids bring from school - and it is obvious to them as well) really provide expertise on the cause of recessions? Just how can deregulation of business who want to have a strong economy cause a recession? Just asking, but do not expect to get a straight, honest, or logical response from those who obviously do not have a very high opinion of the private sector.

Fri, Sep 7, 2012

I would beg to differ about corporate responsibility. We've seeen the negative impact of deregulation too many times (think EVERY time we have a recession). If you don't agree, I suggest you pick up some history books. That said, I believe the role of the government should be limited to providing a minimum set of guidelines on what's expected and let the companies work out how they want to achieve that. I agree that corporate entities can often times get things done more efficiently but they have to be held to a minimum set of standards and be able to be prosecuted for failing to meet those standards.

Thu, Sep 6, 2012

For Mike: If the "expert from CSIS" is really just a liberal political hack, first and foremost, claiming to be an expert (and I have seen this done many, many times no matter what their level of expertise) then their comment is just political nonsense. Minimizing the role of Government has been shown to work better than maximizing the role of Government in nearly all activities that are often done in the private sector. Unfortunately, too many are so interested in growing the government or having the government of control of things that they will believe otherwise no matter what evidence is provided to the contrary.

Thu, Sep 6, 2012 Mike Va

If the expert from CSIS says about the Republican approach, "we know what they propose won't work", why claim that is the better route to take?

Show All Comments

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above

More from 1105 Public Sector Media Group