Lecture by James Clapper, former US Director of Intelligence, 12-1pm Fri. Oct. 6 at UMBC

James R. Clapper, former US Director of Intelligence, will give a public lecture on Friday, 6 October 2017 in the lecture hall (room 132) of the Performing Arts & Humanities Building at UMBC.

The Honorable James R. Clapper served as the fourth US Director of Intelligence from August 9, 2010 to January 20, 2017. In this position, Mr. Clapper led the United States Intelligence Community and served as the principal intelligence advisor to President Barack Obama.

Mr. Clapper retired in 1995 after a distinguished career in the U.S. Armed Forces. His career began in 1961 when he enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve and culminated as a lieutenant general in the U.S. Air Force and Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. His intelligence-related positions over his 32 years in uniform included Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence at Headquarters, US Air Force during Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm, and Director of Intelligence for three combatant commands: US Forces, Korea; Pacific Command, and Strategic Air Command. He served two combat tours during the Southeast Asia conflict, and flew 73 combat support missions in EC-47’s over Laos and Cambodia.

Directly following his retirement, Mr. Clapper worked in industry for six years as an executive in three successive companies with the Intelligence Community as his business focus. He also served as a consultant and advisor to Congress and to the Departments of Defense and Energy, and as a member of a variety of government panels, boards, commissions, and advisory groups. He was a senior member of the Downing Assessment Task Force which investigated the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, was vice chairman of a commission chaired by former Governor Jim Gilmore of Virginia on the subject of homeland security, and served on the NSA Advisory Board.

Mr. Clapper returned to the government two days after 9/11 as the first civilian director of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA). He served in this capacity for almost five years, transforming it into the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) as it is today.

Prior to becoming the Director of National Intelligence, Mr. Clapper served for over the three years in two Administrations as the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, where he served as the principal staff assistant and advisor to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary on intelligence, counterintelligence, and security matters for the Department. In this capacity, he was also dual-hatted as the Director of Defense Intelligence for the DNI.

Mr. Clapper earned a bachelor’s degree in government and politics from the University of Maryland, a master’s degree in political science from St. Mary’s University, San Antonio, Texas, and an honorary doctorate in strategic intelligence form the then Joint Military Intelligence College.

His awards include three National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medals, two Defense Distinguished Service Medals, the Air Force Distinguished Service Medal, the Coast Guard’s Distinguished Public Service Award, three Department of Defense Distinguished Civilian Service Awards, the Presidentially-conferred National Security Medal, and many other U.S. civilian and military, as well as foreign government awards and decorations.

He is married to the former Susan Terry, and they have two grown children and four grandchildren

The post talk: James R. Clapper, former US Director of Intelligence, 12-1pm Fri. Oct 6, 132 PAHB, UMBC appeared first on Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering.

Having grown up right outside of D.C., Women’s Center student staff member Hannah has spent most of her life following politics, and uses that passion here to reflect on its lack of gender parity.

Did you know that if you say “women in politics” three times while looking in a mirror, Hillary Clinton appears behind you? Okay, maybe that theory isn’t 100% accurate, but she is the first person many people think of when hearing that phrase, and it’s easy to see why: as a former Senator, First Lady, Secretary of State, and presidential candidate, she has had a long career in the public eye, and with that has come the added burden of being one of a few successful women in a male-dominated field. With the release of her new book about what happened in the 2016 election (aptly named What Happened), this seemed like the perfect time to reflect on how we talk about women in politics and why it matters. From blatant sexism to the demonization of women’s ambition, the double standards and stereotypes these women face all serve to perpetuate misogyny and exclude women from some of the highest leadership positions our country has to offer.

~Disclaimer: This post is not a commentary on or endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s (or any other politician’s) stances. People on both sides of the aisle have perpetuated sexism in politics, and we are all responsible for taking steps to combat it.~

The Biggest Red Flag

It’s easy to see blatant sexism being used against Hillary in many parts of the 2016 election,  the most obvious of which being pro-Trump merchandise. Slogans like “Trump that bitch,” “Hillary sucks, but not like Monica,” and “Life’s a bitch; don’t vote for one” were worn proudly by many Trump supporters. Now, attacking one’s opposition–no matter what side of the aisle they are on–has been a part of campaigning since this country began, but criticism of policy ideas, voting records, and political experience is entirely different from pointedly gendered attacks. What’s troubling about this kind of rhetoric is the way it normalizes harmful gender stereotypes and makes people believe that this is an acceptable way of talking about others.

When I mentioned one of these slogans to someone I knew, he laughed and said that he “hates Trump,” but the slogan was funny. In my opinion, if you claim to hate a man who brags about sexual assault, you should also hate the misogyny that many of his supporters have no problem perpetuating.

The Demonization of Women’s Ambition

Men–especially those in positions of authority–are rarely pigeonholed as sex objects or domestic figures and then labeled as too aggressive or domineering when they seek positions that don’t fit those labels. There are lots of examples of male actors who have ran for or contemplated running for high-level elected office (Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Dwayne The Rock Johnson), and very few people have said that they’re too shallow or inexperienced to hold these executive positions, nor have I seen commentary This is not the case with women. In fact, Hillary Clinton’s openness about her ambition caused such a backlash that it spawned a cookie-baking contest between the two potential First Ladies. Seriously. During the 1992 primary race, California Governor Jerry Brown accused Bill Clinton of using his time in office as Arkansas’ governor to help his wife’s legal practice. Hillary Clinton then fired back by saying “I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession, which I entered before my husband was in public life.” This struck such a chord with the American public–among both men who viewed her comment as “bitchy” and women who took offense to the notion that she viewed herself as being above domestic work–that the magazine Family Circle saw a way to capitalize off the controversy. Thus began a cookie-baking contest that has survived the last 25 years of politics. Oh, and another fun fact: Even though Hillary Clinton was the candidate in the 2016 election, she was still the one competing against Melania Trump. While I have nothing but respect for those who bring cookies into this world, we’re not living in the 1950s; domestic work should not be the only option available to women.

Most of the men I know would probably agree with that stance, but there is still a pervasive fear of powerful women. Many social psychologists attribute this to a phenomenon called precarious manhood. Essentially, men are afraid of being emasculated and consequently losing their manhood, and ambitious women can invoke such fears. Case in point: Hillary Clinton’s favorability rating has historically always been lower when she runs for office and demonstrates this ambition compared to when she is in office and less in the public eye.

What’s more important: Hillary Clinton’s policies or her appearance?

Finding a Solution

If you’re reading this and thinking “I voted for Hillary Clinton so I can’t be sexist” or “I didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton, but that’s not because I secretly hate women!” then slow your roll. The point of this post is not to call all Hillary supporters perfect advocates for women or to claim that everyone who voted against her did so because of misogyny. In fact, people on the left are just as capable of perpetuating sexism as people on the right. Take Sarah Palin: while many people during her 2008 candidacy for Vice President had concerns about her experience and choices as Alaska’s governor, their criticism quickly blended with misogynistic commentary about her appearance and her more typically feminine persona (I wouldn’t recommend spending too long looking at google image results for “Caribou Barbie”). The point is to raise awareness about the way we as a society view women in politics, and why they are treated so differently than men. Double standards are everywhere: If a woman is too traditionally feminine, then she is too stupid to do the job, but if she demonstrates such capacity, then she is too aggressive. If she isn’t  domestic enough, then she is forced to release a chocolate chip cookie recipe, but once she does, then she is seen as fake and trying too hard to be likeable. If she shows emotion, then she is too sensitive, but if she doesn’t, then she’s too robotic. If she doesn’t have much political experience, then she should let someone more qualified do the job, but if she has the experience, then she should step back because her time in politics has gone on too long. With all of these sentiments weighing so heavily on the conversation, it’s hard for a woman winning an election to feel like much of a victory.

Even SNL recognizes that there are women all along the political spectrum: maybe their ideas aren’t the reason why there are so few women in politics

If we want to improve representation in politics and promote women’s empowerment, then we have to improve the way we talk about the few women who are already in the public eye. This is about more than just “girl power.” Representation in politics–and in every other institution–does more than just make a prettier picture; it allows for everyone to feel that their voices are heard and their experiences matter. The Women’s Center here was founded in part to meet the unique needs that many women in college have, and the same principle applies in government. By listening to women’s voices, the UMBC community was able to better provide services that had been previously overlooked. If women are heard in local, state, and federal governments, imagine what can be accomplished. There is no one ideology held by all women in elected office, just as there is no one monolithic voice of all American women: when I talk about wanting equal representation in politics, I don’t want people to vote for a candidate simply because she’s a woman; I want there to be enough women running so that they don’t have to.
Further Reading:

• More on precarious manhood and how it relates to Hillary Clinton’s campaign
• Some fast facts from Emerge America about women in politics
• An NPR piece on why so few women hold elected office 

At UMBC:

• Check out Women Involved in Learning and Leadership (WILL) –specifically the Elect Her program hosted every spring
• The Women’s Center and WILL have whole page on Women and Leadership Experience

The Service-Learning Team added new community partners to increase choices for UMBC students through the 096 Community Service & Learning Practicum. This includes the Path Before Me at UMBC/The Choice Program, UMB CURE Scholars, U.S. Dream Academy at Pimlico Elementary/Middle School, Student Ambassadors (on-campus), and Baltimore Teacher Supply Swap. Some sites have already filled for this fall, others could use just 1-2 more students to help schools and/or non-profits reach an ideal capacity. To review the chart, go to https://umbc.box.com/s/rf74mdlogxiyvxorivm5aj27eb26giix.

TODAY, 9/26 and NEXT TUESDAY, 10/3 - utilize the "Goodnight Sarge" - EXTENDED HOURS at The Shriver Center. The FINAL day to enroll in our Fall 2017 096 Prac is Wednesday, 10/4.  Also available during "Goodnight Sarge," Peace Corps Recruiter Jaleel Johnson is available to share more about the Peace Corps, as well as UMBC's Peace Corps Prep. Stop by Tuesday, 4-6pm or email him directly at jaleelj1@umbc.edu. 

The 2016-17 numbers are in! The 096 Community Service & Learning Practicum is a unique transcript notation for applied learning through The Shriver Center. Through UMBCworks evaluations, participants reported their cognitive and skill development, as well as their engagement with their site. To learn more, see the attachment.

Equifax breach is a reminder of society’s larger cybersecurity problems

Richard Forno, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

The Equifax data breach was yet another cybersecurity incident involving the theft of significant personal data from a large company. Moreover, it is another reminder that the modern world depends on critical systems, networks and data repositories that are not as secure as they should be. And it signals that these data breaches will continue until society as a whole (industry, government and individual users) is able to objectively assess and improve cybersecurity procedures.

Although this specific incident is still under investigation, the fact that breaches like this have been happening – and getting bigger – for more than a decade provides cybersecurity researchers another opportunity to examine why these events keep happening. Unfortunately, there is plenty of responsibility for everyone.

Several major problems need to be addressed before people can live in a truly secure society: For example, companies must find and hire the right people to actually solve the overall problems and think innovatively rather than just fixing the day-to-day issues. Companies must be made to get serious about cybersecurity – at a time when many firms have financial incentives not to, also. Until then, major breaches will keep happening and may get even worse.

Finding the right people

Data breaches are commonplace now, and have widespread effects. The Equifax breach affected more than 143 million people – far more than than the 110 million victims in 2013 at Target, the 45 million TJX customers hit in 2007, and significantly more than the 20 million or so current and former government employees in the 2015 U.S. Office of Personnel Management incident. Yahoo’s 2016 loss of user records, with a purported one billion victims, likely holds the dubious record for most victims in a single incident.

In part, cybersecurity incidents happen because of how companies – and governments – staff their cybersecurity operations. Often, they try to save money by outsourcing information technology management, including security. That means much of the insight and knowledge about how networks and computer systems work isn’t held by people who work for the company itself. In some cases, outsourcing such services might save money in the short term but also create a lack of institutional knowledge about how the company functions in the long term.

Generally speaking, key cybersecurity functions should be assigned to in-house staff, not outside contractors – and who those people are also matters a lot. In my experience, corporate recruiters often focus on identifying candidates by examining their formal education and training along with prior related work experience – automated resume scanning makes that quite easy. However, cybersecurity involves both technical skills and a fair amount of creative thinking that’s not easily found on resumes.

Moreover, the presence (or absence) of a specific college degree or industry certification alone is not necessarily the best indicator of who will be a talented cybersecurity professional. In the late 1990s, the best technical security expert on my team was fresh out of college with a degree in forest science – as a self-taught geek, he had not only the personal drive to constantly learn new things and network with others but also the necessary and often unconventional mindset needed to turn his cybersecurity hobby into a productive career. Without a doubt, there are many others like him also navigating successful careers in cybersecurity.

Certainly, people need technical skills to perform the basic functions of their jobs – such as promptly patching known vulnerabilities, changing default passwords on critical systems before starting to use them and regularly reviewing security procedures to ensure they’re strong and up to date. Knowing not to direct panicked victims of your security incident to a fraudulent site is helpful, too.

But to be most effective over the long term, workers need to understand more than specific products, services and techniques. After all, people who understand the context of cybersecurity – like communicating with the public, managing people and processes, and modeling threats and risks – can come from well beyond the computing disciplines.

Being ready for action

Without the right people offering guidance to government officials, corporate leaders and the public, a problem I call “cyber-complacency” can arise. This remains a danger even though cybersecurity has been a major national and corporate concern since the Clinton administration of the 1990s.

One element of this problem is the so-called “cyber insurance” market. Companies can purchase insurance policies to cover the costs of response to, and recovery from, security incidents like data breaches. Equifax’s policy, for example, is reportedly more than US$100 million; Sony Pictures Entertainment had in place a $60 million policy to help cover expenses after its 2014 breach.

This sort of business arrangement – simply transferring the financial risk from one company to another – doesn’t solve any underlying security problems. And since it leaves behind only the risk of some bad publicity, the company’s sense of urgency about proactively fixing problems might be reduced. In addition, it doesn’t address the harm to individual people – such as those whose entire financial histories Equifax stored – when security incidents happen.

Cybersecurity problems do not have to be just another risk people accept about using the internet. But these problems are not solved by another national plan or government program or public grumbling about following decades-old basic cybersecurity guidelines.

Rather, the technology industry must not cut corners when designing new products and administering systems: Effective security guidelines and practices – such as controlling access to shared resources and not making passwords impossible to change in our “internet of things” devices – must become fundamental parts of the product design process, too. And, cybersecurity professionals must use public venues and conferences to drive innovative thinking and action that can help fundamentally fix our persistent cybersecurity woes and not simply sell more products and services.

Making vulnerability unprofitable

Many companies, governments and regular people still don’t follow basic cybersecurity practices that have been identified for decades. So it’s not surprising to learn that in 2015, intelligence agencies were exploiting security weaknesses that had been predicted in the 1970s. Presumably, criminal groups and other online attackers were, too.

Therefore, it’s understandable that commercialism will arise – as both an opportunity and a risk. At present, when cybersecurity problems happen, many companies start offering purported solutions: One industry colleague called this the computer equivalent of “ambulance chasing.” For instance, less than 36 hours after the Equifax breach was made public, the company’s competitors and other firms increased their advertising of security and identity protection services. But those companies may not be secure themselves.

There are definitely some products and services – like identity theft monitoring – that, when properly implemented, can help provide consumers with reassurance when problems occur. But when companies discover that they can make more money selling to customers whose security is violated rather than spending money to keep data safe, they realize that it’s profitable to remain vulnerable.

With credit-reporting companies like Equifax, the problem is even more amplified. Consumers didn’t ask for their data to be vacuumed up, but they are faced with bearing the consequences and the costs now that the data have gotten loose. (And remember, the company has that insurance policy to limit its costs.)

Government regulators have an important role to play here. Companies like Equifax often lobby lawmakers to reduce or eliminate requirements for data security and other protections, seek to be exempted from liability from potential lawsuits if they minimally comply with the rules and may even try to trick consumers into giving up their rights to sue. Proper oversight would protect customers from these corporate harms.

Making a commitment

I’ve argued in the past that companies and government organizations that hold critical or sensitive information should be willing to spend money and staff time to ensure the security and integrity of their data and systems. If they fail, they are really the ones to blame for the incident – not the attackers.

A National Institute of Standards and Technology researcher exemplified this principle when he recently spoke up to admit that the complex password requirements he helped design years ago don’t actually improve security very much. Put another way, when the situation changes, or new facts emerge, we must be willing to change as necessary with them.

Many of these problems indeed are preventable. But that’s true only if the cybersecurity industry, and society as a whole, follows the lead of that NIST researcher. We all must take a realistic look at the state of cybersecurity, admit the mistakes that have happened and change our thinking for the better. Only then can anyone – much less everyone – take on the task of devoting time, money and personnel to making the necessary changes for meaningful security improvements. It will take a long time, and will require inconvenience and hard work. But it’s the only way forward.

Richard Forno, Senior Lecturer, Cybersecurity & Internet Researcher, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The post Equifax breach is a reminder of society’s larger cybersecurity problems appeared first on Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering.