Being Told What To Do

After analyzing some of my previous works from recent classes here at SLCC as

well as older work from when I was in high school, I have come to realize that when I

have to write anything for school, I like to be told what I need to do. Obviously there are

always going to be some sort of guideline for an assignment no matter what. But what I

am talking about is when Im writing an assignment I not only want my professor to tell

me what topic the assignment is on. But I also want them to tell me what my response is

supposed to look like, I want them to give me a word limit, and a grading rubric, and a

list of what they want me to do and why. I need every gritty little detail on what my final

product is supposed to look like, or else I feel like Im stuck in the middle of nowhere

blindfolded, only to be told to find my way back home.

Throughout all of my education k-12, it was following the guidelines of the

teacher that always yielded the highest results. Growing Up I moved schools more than

most, and by the end of High School I had been through 9 different schools allover

Summit County. No matter who the teacher was, or what style they taught, all of them

had one thing in common. If you followed what they wanted you would get a good

grade. Whenever I chose to write about something that was interesting for me but

possibly pushed the boundaries of the topic, I was rewarded with a less then desirable

grade to match it. In My High School paper about decision making I tried to connect the

topic with something that was relevant to things that were important to me. There were

very little specifications on what we could and couldn't write about for this assignment.

When I submitted this assignment I felt good about what I had written, however when I
got my grade back it seemed like it did not reflect the quality of work that I though I had

submitted. After reading my teachers comments it was clear that my connection hadn't

met his standards. Its because of the way that I was taught growing up as a student

that makes me cringe when I am given an assignment that turns me loose on what to

write about. The education system has turned most students (myself included) into test

taking machines. The system has made the most creative thinkers of all of us into binary

thinkers. The only problem with this is, the real world is not binary. The real world is full

of grey areas, it is not always black and white as the school system had taught us. And

when we find this out we get spooked!

Once I am turned loose on an assignment the fear starts to creep in. The fear

that the topic I decided on is something that the teacher cant connect with, the fear that

I might choose a topic that the teacher personally dislikes, or that the topic that I choose

will make the teacher believe that I wasn't trying to meet the standards of the

assignment. Every time an open assignment is presented to me I find myself standing

dead in my tracks trying to make sense of the guidelines that arent there. As if to

imagine the way that the teacher wants me to write, even if that way truly is up to me.

Because I have all of these writing insecurities that are floating around in the back of my

head, it makes me second guess every word being put down onto the paper.

I have come to find from reading old assignments of mine, if there is a prompt, I

will follow it to the T. With a detailed prompt I know the things I need to research, I

understand what the teacher wants from me. Before I even start the task of writing the
paper, I know what is going to work for me and what isnt. Most of the time I know that

the teacher is my main audience. With that in mind I will focus on the aspects that they

have highlighted as important, just to make sure I do what I need to do so that I get a

good grade. Because after all that is why were in school right? To get straight As?

School has taught us to focus on the outcome, although very crucial and important, the

process that gets us to that final outcome is where all the knowledge and genius truly

come into play. Your final product is just the fruition of alI your hard work come together,

but the difficulties of your work that brought you to your final product is what is really to

be celebrated.

Perhaps I blame the schools system for not teaching me a certain way. Who am I

to say that it doesnt work for others, and Is it really so bad to only be focused on

success? But because this is my paper I am going to tell you how I feel. I think that the

way the schools push students to achieve, also pushes the students creativity further

away. I know my younger self would have much rather chosen what he wanted to write

about, but as I had said at the beginning of the paper, when it come to writing for school

I like being told what to do. I think the way that I learned to be a successful student, has

steered me away from being freethinking student. I hope that people realize that our

education system is making students fear creativity which in turn sets them up for failure

later in life. Because after all there is never one right way to do something, in life there

are no As and Bs or Ds and Fs, life is about finding your own way to do something.

Your path, not the path that someone else told you to go down. I think finally that path is
starting to reveal itself to me. I just hope that our school systems will help guide us to

that path instead of telling us which path to take.

Self study reflection

When having to critically look at your own work you sort of have to look at it as

someone elses work. You have to try and be as unbiased as possible. But thats still

pretty difficult. When critically looking at my own work it was hard to try and pick out

what was wrong with the text. So instead I would try and get an overall tone of the

piece. I would look for the main point and see if what I was writing made sense when

compared to the assignment. I found that the more detailed an assignment was the

stricter I met those lines. It was easier to get out the things that I needed to say when I

knew I only had to say Point A B and C. Before I started writing for the self study I didnt

realize how much I depended on the teacher to give direction. I wasnt one to do the

bare minimum, but the least amount of work for the best grade that seemed to be my

endgame more often than not. When writing the self study I also came to the realization

that I write what I write the way I write it because the schools beat it into me. If you dont

fit into the box they create its not their fault. So instead you have to work to fit their box.

Hopefully after realizing the way I was taught to learn is not going to work in the real

world, I can start to get back in touch with the creative freethinking Zane I used to be.

The Zane that will help me later in life, despite what was our school system may have to

say about it.

 When May Students protect themselves?

On March 6, 2014 legislation was passed in Idaho allowing guns to be carried on

college campuses. When first hearing this, as a student, the idea of other students

carrying around guns can be quite frightening. However, the more time one spends

reading about gun violence, the more that one comes to realize, good guys with guns

are the only effective defense . The article When May I Shoot A Student was written by

Greg Hampikian, Professor of Biology and Criminal Justice at Boise State University, on

February 27. Hampikian wrote, When May I Shoot A student as a facetious letter to

the Idaho State House of Representative to address some of the potential new issues

that may arise (if) when the new bill is passed by them.

Although Hampikian addressed the letter directly to the Chief Counsel of the

Idaho State Legislature, the letter was simultaneously published as an article in the

New York Times, in both their online and print editions. Primarily, he wrote the letter to

appeal to his secondary audience: the readers of the New York Times. Greg Hampikian

knew that the bill was likely to pass, so instead of trying to appeal to the legislature to

change the bill, Hampikian crafted what if scenarios that could be (or are now) a reality

for teachers and students. Guns are now a concrete variable in the college campus

safety scenario.

Having dealt with disgruntled students in the past, Hampikian feared that by

giving those same students access to firearms, it would not help keep the school a safer

place. With that in mind, if students were allowed to carry firearms, he, as a professor,

should have the ability to even the carrying field. Now that there is the threat of lethal

force on college campuses, Hampikian wants to know what his limitations are when a
student uses his weapon in a threatening manner. Hampikian uses humor as a way to

ease the seriousness of the topic at hand. In 2013, there were almost 12,000 deaths in

the United States due to gun violence. Because of to these horrific statistics, Idahos

legislation decided to draft this bill. Hampikian goes on to describe the reasoning behind

it; Bad guys will go where there are no guns, by adding guns to the gunless

environment of schools, it will (faulty logic?) deter the bad guys. He concludes by

explaining that this is no longer the way in which students or people think or act, and

that by adding guns to the stressful school environment, less gun violence on campus

will not be the result.

In Greg Hampikains piece When May I Shoot A Student Hampikian attempted

to establish ethos through his first hand encounters with angry students over the years.

However, his insight was weak and very one-sided, and therefor he did not succeed. His

use of strong word choice and a facetious tone was successful in establishing an

emotional connection in the readers. Due to the fact that Hampikian failed in

establishing his ethos, his reasoning and logic failed to carry legitimacy because he

doesnt really have any experience with the actual matter at hand.

Greg Hampikian wanted to establish credibility to his readers by using his past

professorial experiences with hyper-agitated students as an example of when situations

could get worse if guns were put into a similar situation. His credibility dissipates when

he brings up the specific story of a past angry student. Hampikian felt safe because he

assumed that when they reached into their backpacks they were going for a pencil.

The problem is that even before the bill passed, if a student wanted to bring a gun to

class and shoot the professor, there was nothing there that would actually stop the
gunman from doing just that. Hampikian felt safe because students weren't legally

permitted to carry a firearm. The gun wielding bad guy (or bad student in this case) is

knowingly going to commit a murder, or several. Does Hampikian really believe that

because there is a rule saying they cant carry that gun they wont go through with their

plans to kill?

The truth is that there are bad guys out there. If they want to get their hands on a

gun to commit crimes, then laws, rules, and regulations will not stop them. There is no

way around that. With this new bill in action, responsible law abiding gun owners now

have the ability to legally carry their lethal weapon. Now if there is an armed angry

student, the situation can be de-escalated because someone who is legally licensed

and properly trained how to use a firearm was able to step in and intervene before there

was a hostile situation. Guns dont kill people, people with guns do although this

statement is true, its not complete because everyone trusts certain people with guns to

protect them. People with guns also save lives.

Hampikians descriptive word choice and sarcastic (yet frustrated) tone

compelled the reader to feel some of the same emotions that Hampikian felt while he

was writing the piece. Greg Hampikian phrased his words in a way to pull an emotional

reaction from his audience while also using humor to dilute the seriousness of murder,

the topic at hand, that he goes on to describe. Now that lethal force is an option and I

assumeI am allowed to empty my clip are some of the strongly worded phrases that

give insight on the way that Hampikian uses sarcasm as a diffuser for difficult topics

such as school shootings and murder. Yet his word choice still carries enough weight to

bring the message across that, it is a serious topic that the reader should feel strongly
about. Hampikians frustrations are apparent when he voices his colleagues shared

concerns in relation to putting guns in the hands of college students, or those that are in

the age group most widely associated with felonious activity and drug experimentation.

However Hampikian is able to voice his anger in a way that doesnt deter the reader.

Greg Hampikian was able to successfully use his word choice and tone to create an

emotional connection with the reader and establish pathos.

Because Greg Hampikian was unable to establish a solid ethos understanding

and siding with his logic and reasoning became difficult. His argument that everyone is

safer if there are no guns allowed, no longer carries legitimacy. Because Hampikian

doesnt have any experience with a life or death shooter situation, he wouldn't

understand that banning guns from the campus doesn't stop a bad guy from bringing

guns on the campus. And it also doesnt help anybody if someone decides to commit a

mass shooting and no good guy has a gun. In a perfect world, Hampikians argument

might hold more credibility, but until we can be certain that no bad guys in the world

have guns, putting guns in the hands of the good guys is always a better option than

being a sitting duck.

Although When May I Shoot a Student is an entertaining and humorous story

that voices the opinion of a concerned professor, the author Greg Hampikian struggled

to establish ethos due to lack of credibility. Because there was a lack of credibility taking

the reasoning and logic as truth was difficult. Despite the lack of ethos and logos

Hampikian was able to make the readers connect with him on an emotional level.

Hampikian appealed to his audience emotionally by using strong wording and a

sarcastic tone to cut the harshness of a topic as serious as gun violence. Although the
article was grasping, it didnt carry a strong enough argument to persuade a reader that

Hampikians beliefs were right or that the legislatures bill was wrong.

Unclear Future of Cyberwar and Cyber Defense

Online is the new frontline of the battlefield. In the continuously growing cyber-

world, cyber crime is simultaneously growing and becoming more and more profitable.

Cybercrime has evolved to the point that hackers can shut down entire power grids, and

even exploit nuclear reactors and force them to blow up. Currently there is nothing that

can connect to the the internet, that cant get hacked. What is the United States

Government doing to put an end to cyber terrorism, and what needs to be changed to

make it more effective?

Cohen, Rodgin H., and John Evangelakos. "America Isn't Ready for a 'Cyber

9/11'." Wall Street Journal, 12 Jul, 2017, pp. A.17, SIRS Issues Researcher, https://

sks-sirs-com.libprox1.slcc.edu.

Cyber attacks have become a means of total national catastrophe. Weather the

attack is conducted by a lone wolf or an entire nation state, a global economic force can

now be brought to its knees by a few taps on a keyboard. A new federal office for

cybersecurity can provide the unification, collaboration, coherence, skills and leadership

to implement a comprehensive policy that counters the existential cyber threats America

must confront. With the current 11 government agencies and programs that are all

tasked to deal with cybercrime/cybersecurity there are simply too many jurisdictional

regulations to effectively communicate with each other in order to combat cyber crime.
There is too much at stake for America to not be effective Although coordination

between the federal government and the private economy has improved, it is still not

substitute for a unified defense against a global threat. In order to keep America safe,

we must create a single cybersecurity agency that utilizes all of the best and brightest

minds in a unified force against cybercrime.

In Rodgin Cohen and John Evangelakos article America Isn't Ready For a Cyber

9/11 The authors communicate their fear that the United States Governments current

cyber-combative agencies and programs are ineffective. I Agree with the authors,

currently agencies have competing objectives. Instead of the agencies working together

to stop the problem in half the time, the agencies undermine one another which takes

more time, and hinders the country ability to stop cyber crime effectively. Why does the

United States Government keep this failing system of divided intelligence? If we are

able to create a centralized unified force against cybercrime, the hackers that could

have been the ones crippling world economies, might just be the people on the forefront

of the cybersecurity that saves the worlds economies from cyber attacks instead.

Damouni, Nadia. "U.S. Companies Seek Cyber Experts for Top Jobs, Board

Seats."SIRS Issues Researcher, 30 May, 2014, https://sks-sirs-

com.libprox1.slcc.edu.

Fortune 500 companies have started to hire Chief Information Security Officers

(CISO) recently in a response to a growing cyber security threat. Previously CISOs

would be subordinates to the CIO, however new CISO in the work place are being hired
on as equals to the CIO with direct contact to the CEO and board. These companies are

doing this because they realize that in many cases a business's survival relies on the

security of the technology. With online business growing at an exponential rate, any

business that wants a secure future must keep their technology protected from the

threat of cyber attacks. With the trend of new highly paid CISO you can see that

Corporate America realizes the thereat the cybercrime poses.

Corporate America Has seen an enormous increase in the number of CISO

positions being created and filled. This rapid increase is in response to the growing

threat that companies technology is vulnerable to cyberattack. These Fortune 500

Companies understand the future of business is online, and are investing a massive

amount of time money into finding the people that will keep their businesses safe from

the virtual terrorists that seek to inflict damage.

"Is it Time to Require Companies to Share Information.." Wall Street Journal, 23

May, 2016, pp. R.4, SIRS Issues Researcher, https://sks-sirs-

com.libprox1.slcc.edu.

How are companies able to limit the damage done by cyber attacks, without

loosing their reputation, or damaging their customers confidence in their online security?

Damage from cyberattacks come in layers. Direct harm, in the form of theft and other

losses. Damage to the reputation of the companies affected when news gets out. And

the slow erosion of confidence in overall online security--a malaise that grows worse

with each new breach" (Zheng) If companies were required to report the details of a
major cyber attack and how the attack was executed, It would help strengthen cyber

defense for other companies that may be hacked in the same way. However, If

companies are required to report attacks it may cause serious injury to their reputation

in the process. The risk of the companies reputation is the main opposition to reporting

attacks.

Companies should be required to report major cyber threats once they have

found a successful way of combatting the attack. If companies are given the time to

rectify the issue without being forced to show the vulnerability before they fix it, then

other companies will be able to silently and successfully thwart cyberattacks without

them spreading. If companies are given this opportunity, although their reputation may

loose some credibility for a time, the ability to stop cyberattacks from spreading is much

more important than the reputation of one. As well as, if a company comes out publicly

saying that they messed up and that they fixed it, consumers are more likely to accept

that and move on. However, if a company hides the vulnerability and the attack, and

then consumers find out, their reputation is going to be much harder to salvage.

Maney, Kevin. "Can Hackers be Stopped? the State of Defense in the Private

Sector." Newsweek, Nov, 2016, SIRS Issues Researcher, https://sks-sirs-

com.libprox1.slcc.edu.

We live in an age of technological revolution and innovation, as the world moves

towards being more digitally connected every day, the business of hacking becomes

ever more profitable. One of the newest forms of cyber terrorism is known as
Ransomware: Hackers will hold an individuals or an entire companys (or countrys)

data hostage. The FBI has said more than $1 billion was paid to ransomware hackers

last year. (2015) However there is forms of defense against cyberattack although they

are not completely leak proof. Governments and companies alike spend well over $100

billion a year actively trying to stop cyberattacks from happening to them, but for every

one hundred or two hundred attacks they stop there will be one hack that they've never

seen before that makes its way into their system, and by the time they catch it the

malware has already done its damage. Hackers will always find the most vulnerable

point and exploit itthe more things we connect the more vulnerabilities we create. We

are connecting to the internet with new devices every day and there is still no definitive

solution on the horizon. The worst of cyber crimes have yet to come.

Cyber attacks will continue to become more prevalent as the world continues to

become increasingly digitally connected. Although the threat of hacking is apparent and

growing it doesnt mean that the hackers have all of the power. Companies and

governments are actively creating defenses that stop cyberattacks before they become

a major threat. What can help bridge the gap to stop every cyber attack before it has the

chance to do any damage? The future of cyberspace is unknown, but that doesnt mean

that were all doomed.

Pagliery, Jose. "The Emergence of the 'Cyber Cold War'." CNN Wire Service, 17

Jan, 2017, SIRS Issues Researcher, https://sks-sirs-com.libprox1.slcc.edu.

 The Russian Government has indeed been engaging in cyber espionage and

sabotage in an effort dismantle the trust we have in our national way of life. In the

conventional sense the definition of cyberwar was the same as physical warfare. It only

becomes war when something explodes or someone dies. However, to destroy a

country you dont have to blow it up, all you need to do is make its people question their

current way of living. Russians have been using information and propaganda as tactics

of warfare, the Cyber Cold War is well underway, and the United States is just now

putting the pieces together. The Russian agencies GRU and FSB have been actively

targeting and successfully attacking countries and nations well before they interfered

with the recent U.S. Presidential election. The United States is finally realizing that they

are in a fight; and loosing.

The definition of any warfare was that in order to be considered a war

someone dies or something explodes. The United States has thought this to be true

until recent evidence of Russian interference with our own Presidential Election. The

United States is in the middle of a cyberwar with Russia, and were loosing bad. The

Russians have been mastering the art of hacking governments and nations for the past

decade, leaving a wake of victims so large digital forensic investigators have a

definitive profile, one that the CIA, NSA and FBI agree on. Is America ready to face the

fact that we are fighting a cyber cold war?

Perlroth, Nicole, and David E. Sanger. "Hackers use Tool Taken from N.S.A. in

Global Attack." New York Times, 13 May, 2017, pp. A.1, SIRS Issues Researcher,

https://sks-sirs-com.libprox1.slcc.edu.
 A hacking tool created by the National Security Agency was stolen by unidentified

hackers and used on May 12, 2017. This attack is now the largest ransomware attack

on record, spreading to more than 75 countries around the world by mid day on the

12th. This marks the first global blackmailing attempt, and the NSA shares the blame,

being the creators of the software dubbed Eternal Blue which targeted a key

vulnerability in Microsoft Windows servers. While President Obama was in office the

White House created a process to review software vulnerabilities discovered by

intelligence agencies, and to determine which should be "stockpiled" for future offensive

or defensive cyberoperations and which should be reported to the companies so that

they could be fixed. With this process of review in effect should the N.S.A. have alerted

Microsoft as soon as the software was stolen? We need to face the fact that if our

governments have these cyber hacking tools, that there are going to be people that use

those same tools to attack people. Cyber attacks on a global scale are are already

happening, and the next time in might not be just ransomeware.

Cyber attacks are happening all over the world on a daily basis now.

Governments have started stockpiling vulnerabilities found in software that they could

use in case of an enemy cyber threat. The issue is what happens when hackers gets

their hands on a nations cyber weapon and decide to use it. The N.S.A. is one of the

government agencies that has been stockpiling vulnerabilities they thought could aid

them in future endeavors. Because they kept this particular vulnerability to themselves,

any computer operating on Microsoft windows was at risk. Government agencies need
to be transparent with these sort of vulnerabilities so that the companies can fix these

files when they are found.

Poulsen, Kevin. "U.S. Power Companies Warned 'Nightmare' Cyber Weapon

Already.."SIRS Issues Researcher, 12 Jun, 2017, https://sks-sirs-

com.libprox1.slcc.edu.

On December 17, 2016, Kiev Ukraine was the target of an attack which shut

down the power grid for 250,000 people. After analyzing what caused the blackout It

was confirmed that their power grid wis hit with a logic bomb. With this attack

confirmed, it marks the second time a cyber weapon has been used to shut down power

causing an electrical blackout. The malware that was able to do this to Kiev named

CrashOverride is a genuine cyber weapon that can map out a power station's control

network and, with minimal human guidance, issue malicious commands directly to

critical equipment. The United States is faced with the fact that CrashOverride marks a

significant escalation in the electronic arms race. Once the program is deployed

CrashOverride works autonomously finding its way to the base of the plants network.

Cyber weapons are an imminent threat, and companies are faced with the fact that it is

no longer a matter of if, but a question when a cyber attack happens, will they be ready?

CrashOverride is the first malware of its kind built to target a nations critical

infrastructure and equipment that would affect civilians. The attack seen in Kiev was in

the middle of the night and was very contained. If the Hacker wanted to, they could

have really done some damage to their critical infrastructure, instead the problem was
resolved within a matter of 2 hours. The attack on Kiev was practice for something

much bigger. The malware in its current state would be usable for every power plant in

Europe. This is a framework designed to target other places. The Department of

Energy stated that cyberattacks are an imminent danger that could put the lives of

millions of civilians at risk. We need to plan for such attacks and be able to recover from

them as fast as the hackers can upload them.

Weise, Elizabeth. "What a Real Cyber War would Look Like." USA Today (Online),

28 Sep, 2016, SIRS Issues Researcher, https://sks-sirs-com.libprox1.slcc.edu.

Cyberwar in many ways can be more humane than physical warfare. Instead of

blowing up a cities power grid it can be temporarily disabled and then turned back on

after the conflict is over. Digital conflict is a way countries can engage in war without

having to actually arm people to fight. However most of the time these attacks target the

citizens of the government. That's a very deliberate strategy and one they've been very

effective at. Physical damage can be dealt to critical infrastructure through

vulnerabilities. These types of attacks are the most threatening, but an upside is that

most of the critical infrastructure was created in the U.S. and if we deigned it we can

also find the backdoors that hackers may try and use against us.

A digital apocalypse although possible is not something that America needs to

worry about. Cyberwar has already been a tool that countries have used against each

other, and no one has decided to blow up their enemies nuclear power plant.(yet)

stealth attack on the enemy's military command and control infrastructure, to keep it

from being able to strike is a more likely application for cyber weapons. But as with
everything, bad people use tools built with good intentions to further their evil agenda.

Because we have the ability to stop them form launching and nuke, it also gives them

an in, where they can decide to make us launch a nuke and we wouldt be able to stop

it.

No matter how you look at the future, cyber crime will be apart of it. The more

technology is invented that connects us to the internet, the more vulnerable our world

becomes. Governments realize that cyberwar is the way of the future, and have started

to stockpile cyber weapons in case of attack. Should these vulnerabilities that our

government wants to exploit be kept as safeguard if we get attacked, or should our

government be actively telling companies as the vulnerabilities in their code are found?

Which Option will keep the American way of life protected?

Digital Battlefield

In todays current digital age of technology and innovation, new devices are

bringing the world closer together by connecting them to the internet. The more smart

products that are created to make our lives easier and more convenient, the likelihood

that you devices are vulnerable too, will increase. However, personal information is only

the tip of the iceberg when it come to hackers and what they do best (Hack). With

businesses and companies automating so much of what they do to speed up

production, the automated systems that are currently in use have no sort of protection

on them whatsoever. These systems were created to be as easy and user friendly as
possible to ensure that production goes as smooth as possible. You can switch relays

on and off without any authentication. Everything a hacker would want is a documented

feature of the device.(Peterson,3) It wasn't until recently that these companies realized

just how unsafe their systems really are.

Cybercrime has exceeded its theoretical limit of being just a public nuisance".

These hackers now have the ability to destabilize a cities critical infrastructure, this

means compromising power grids, sewage systems, transportation and more.

Waterways and underground transportation such as subways could be flooded, nuclear

refinement plants cold be set to melt down. The threat of cybercrime is no longer

indirect, these are acts that can have a real world physical effect. Entire cities and

Nations/States can now be victims, People can now be killed by a hacker from across

the world. On December 17th 2016 the reality that hackers are able to destabilize a

cities power grid sunk in. So far this marks the second time an electrical blackout has

occurred due to computer hacking. The malware in its current state would be usable for

every power plant in Europe (Lee,2) The December 17 attack on Kiev Ukraine was

practice for something of a much larger scale. The US Department of Energy has

acknowledged that cyber attacks are now an inevitability that we have to face. Because

we know that critical infrastructure will be targeted, instead of fixing it when something

goes wrong, lets plan for the eventuality of that outcome. Plan for the attack and

ensure rapid restoration should an outage occur, regardless of the cause. (Sachs,3) If

the US is able to succeed in the rapid restoration of power, then the rest of the world

can follow. If large scale hackers cant be stopped from doing damage to a system, then
we need to be able to minimize their effect to the point that their attacks would never

actually affect anything in a critical way.

More recently then the Ukraine attacks, malware that was taken from the

National Security Agency was used in the largest cyberattack in history. The type of

malware known as ransomeware was deployed, and by mid day that malware had

spread to over 70 countries. The malware stolen exploited a weakness in older

Microsoft Windows servers. This raised the question, if the N.S.A. had this malware and

knew that it was stolen why did they not warn anyone when it was stolen? While in

office President Obamas administration created a process that would review

vulnerabilities in software that were discovered and determined which should be

stockpiled for futurecyberopperations and which should be reported to the

companies.. (Perlroth/Sanger,4) The N.S.A. was in possession of the malware, if the

N.S.A. had reported that the malware was stolen to Microsoft when it was initially stolen,

the malware could have been stopped much faster and would not have spread so

rapidly. The N.S.A. has a literal stockpile of vulnerabilities that they have yet to tell the

companies exist.

Leaving these Vulnerabilities un-fixed creates holes in which events like the

N.S.A. breach can occur. If the government wants to keep cyber weapons like this from

getting out, they have to inform the companies of their vulnerabilities before attacks

happen. I can understand the government wanting the ability to unleash such malware,

but if they are not capable of storing these digital weapons safely they need to make the

shift to informing companies when the vulnerability is discovered. Many tech companies

will pay hackers to find their vulnerabilities so that they can go in and fix them before
someone with bad intentions finds them. I believe that if the government agencies

approached companies in a similar good intentions fashion that our nations

cybersecurity would be much stronger than it currently is. Our Government needs to

work with its citizens and corporations instead of hiding their weaknesses from them.

When we are able to work together as a collective unified force only then can we really

start to feel safe from the world of cyber attacks.

Cyberattacks are on the rise and are quickly moving to top priority for our

government organizations that have the responsibility of stopping them. As of current,

there are more than 10 federal agencies that all have the task of tackling cybersecurity.

Agencies that have competing objectives eventually end up undermining the countrys

ability to address security challenges. (Cohen,2) There are too many different agencies

that have this same broad task. These problems would be more effectively addressed

by a single agency, if it had the authority to succeed. (Cohen,2) If we had the capability

to command all of the United States best and brightest cybersecurity experts under a

single authority, our chances of being able to combat future cyber attacks will

dramatically increase.

A new federal office for cybersecurity can provide the unification, collaboration,

coherence, skills and leadership to implement a comprehensive policy that counters the

existential cyber threats America must confront. (Cohen,3) With the inevitable rise in

cyber crime around the globe, the United states must create a new federal agency that

combines all of the cybersecurity forces from the other agencies. With this new agency

devoted solely to cybersecurity, as properly structured government agency, they would

be able to coordinate and execute defensive or offensive strikes against the hackers.
From the state level all the way up, there would be a single force that works to put an

end to cybercrime before it happens. As long as the United States stays divided and

dispersed in the cybersecurity world, the attacks will not stop, they will not get better,

they will get worse. Our only viable option if we want to get in front of the cyberterrorists

is if we can create one single government agency who's only objective is to keep its

citizens safe.

The threat of cyberattacks will grow every day, and in my eyes there is no single

clear answer to the issue, but the things we are currently doing are obviously not getting

the job done. I agree with Kevin Poulsen that cyberattacks are inevitable and that we

need to be ready when they do happen. However I also agree with Cohen and

Evangelakos that our current system of government doesnt have the appropriate

agency to effectively fight against this sort of terrorism. If the United States government

truly wants to insure its citizens safety they need to stop keeping software vulnerabilities

they are aware of secrete from the companies that create the software. If someone from

our government can find the vulnerability the chances are there are hackers that can do

the same. If we really want to protect our people it is time that we work with them.

Cybersecurity is an enormous issue that we all face, there is no clear solution but a

combination of all of these views may be the best and only way America can combat

cybercrime.
 Works cited

Cohen, Rodgin H., and John Evangelakos. "America Isn't Ready for a 'Cyber

9/11'." Wall Street Journal, 12 Jul, 2017, pp. A.17, SIRS Issues Researcher, https://

sks-sirs-com.libprox1.slcc.edu.

Pagliery, Jose. "The Emergence of the 'Cyber Cold War'." CNN Wire Service, 17

Jan, 2017, SIRS Issues Researcher, https://sks-sirs-com.libprox1.slcc.edu.

Perlroth, Nicole, and David E. Sanger. "Hackers use Tool Taken from N.S.A. in

Global Attack." New York Times, 13 May, 2017, pp. A.1, SIRS Issues Researcher,

https://sks-sirs-com.libprox1.slcc.edu.

Poulsen, Kevin. "U.S. Power Companies Warned 'Nightmare' Cyber Weapon

Already.."SIRS Issues Researcher, 12 Jun, 2017, https://sks-sirs-

com.libprox1.slcc.edu.