[Dailydave] The Pentagon Staffs up
dave at immunityinc.com
Tue Jan 29 11:13:59 EST 2013
So yesterday I'm doing this Bloomberg interview, and right before it, a
woman I knew in NY a decade ago talks into my earpiece, and she's like
"Hey Dave! It's Christine, how's the rabbit?" My rabbit died like 7
years ago (sad:<), and my brain is furiously focused on trying not to
forget the names of anyone (once on TV I blanked on Joe Biden's name),
and so it took me a bit to even figure out what was happening to me.
Typically the voice in your ear is just someone asking you to count to
five, which lets them test the microphone without interrupting your
I guess my point is that you are connected whether you want to be or
not. The interview is linked below. Halvar liked it, which means it must
not suck as badly as my other ones. :>
On 1/28/13 8:34 PM, dan at geer.org wrote:
> Irby Thompson writes:
> | It seems to me the Pentagon should consider following a USSOCOM/JSOC
> | model towards Cyber. For example, instead of trying to 'be more
> | effective' by just growing the number of Cyber Command billets, focus
> | instead on creating and deploying small teams of cyber operators who
> | work together on specific offensive or defensive missions. In my
> | opinion nation-state level cyber is (and will remain) a specialty domain
> | due to it's extreme technical nature across a breadth of disciplines.
> | To be truly effective (in either offense or defense) you need small,
> | cohesive teams who offensively and defensively simultaneously, and up
> | and down the stack. Once the mission is achieved, these tiger teams move
> | on to the next mission, and the Command backfills with (easier-to-hire)
> | technical staff to hold down the fort.
> I hope this does not seem trite, but perhaps this history is instructive:
> JANUARY 23, 2013
> Rob Long: Stop Connecting, or why the British Empire was so efficient
> Last week Rob Long wrote a Ricochet post quoting a Bain Consulting
> study that concluded that corporate managers are spending too much
> time "connecting". Rob said:
> "I've often wondered how much better some meetings would be if every
> laptop was shut and every phone switched off."
> This article triggered an idea that I have had for a while, that
> is best introduced by answering this question: why was the British
> Empire so efficient? For there is no doubt about it, it was. A mere
> thousand bureaucrats in the Colonial Office managed an empire so
> large that the sun never set on it, an empire that included a
> subcontinent. How was this possible?
> One reason, I think, is that the colonies weren't informatically
> connected. No phones, no text messages, no Skype, no e-mail, no
> conference calls, no webinars, no meetings. Therefore, no
> micromanagement. For reasons of necessity, all decisions had to be
> pushed down to the lowest possible levels. This not only had the
> effect of minimizing bureaucracy but it also meant that the character
> of the Empire's decision makers was more solid.
> Consider, say, the Governor of Tasmania. Halfway around the world,
> if there was a sudden insurrection or unexpected invasion, it would
> take two weeks for your urgent request for help reach Whitehall.
> That means that the soonest help could arrive is a month, assuming
> the government sends off reinforcements within a day, which it
> wouldn't. So who would apply for such a job? Not a bureaucratic
> manager, content to transport papers from the inbox to the outbox
> and breath heavily at conference calls all day. But a bold leader,
> a man of action, might. Somebody, for whom, the lack of connections
> to the home country would be liberating not enervating.
> The result was an efficient, adaptable and decisively run empire.
> Dailydave mailing list
> Dailydave at lists.immunityinc.com
INFILTRATE - the world's best offensive information security conference.
April 2013 in Miami Beach
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 266 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Dailydave