Let me start by saying that I was wrong. Yep. That’s the best way to begin this post. This morning I read on Wired.com that Google had officially stopped censoring search results inside the People’s Republic of China. They ignored the naysayers and have stopped doing searches inside mainland China, instead asking users to go to their Hong Kong site for searches. Of course, it’s not likely that people inside mainland China will be able to get unfiltered search results from Hong Kong, but that’s beside the issue.
Most importantly, Google is risking their China business to meet their stated goal of unfiltered search. The g-men stood on principle and took action in favor of Internet freedom. Bravo.
Just as the issue itself had strong cultural overtones, (see my earlier post) anyone reading the post from outside the USA may wonder about the title. We have a euphemism inside the US for anyone who has to retract a statement or admit that they were wrong. It is called “having to eat crow.” A crow is a particularly obnoxious bird that tastes like a rat. It’s hard to catch and very hard to stomach. So it’s an appropriate comparison for having to admit that you’re wrong. In this case, I’m contrite and happy to see that my original skepticism has been upended.
Right or wrong, the leadership team at Google made a particularly tough decision. It’s nice to see that they stood on principle in the face of opposition. And to CEO Eric Schmidt and everyone in the company, please accept my heartfelt apology for doubting your ability to execute on the plan.
Jim Molini, CISSP, CSSLP
Two days ago, President Obama announced that Howard Schmidt would be the new Whitehouse Cybersecurity Coordinator. Howard deserves our thanks for taking the job. It’s arguably the biggest information security job in the world, although it’s neither the most lucrative, nor the most rewarding job in our business. His responsibility will far outweigh his authority, so it will be a miracle if he’s thanked for the job he’s done in 3 years, after the next presidential election. He’s not a cabinet member or a secretary or even a director – he’s a coordinator. He will be tasked with developing a national security plan that also respects individual privacy; something akin to building a perpetual motion machine. Personally, I wondered if I should send him congratulations or condolences for this move.
So why would he do it? Why would anyone do it?
Personally, I would guess that he wanted to serve his country again. Imagine that. After a prestigious 40 year career, spanning government and industry, when he should be settling down, this guy volunteers to go into the political viper’s den (the beltway, not the Whitehouse) and do an impossible job that has no promotion potential. He knows how bad it can be, because he’s been there before, but he signs up anyway. As they say in Philadelphia – go figure.
In these difficult times, there is no shortage of heroes. The spectacular feats of heroism by people fighting against the narco-trafficers in Mexico or those bringing peace and security to other parts of the world might make it hard for people in the technical community to feel like they’re making a difference. In fact, I don’t know of anyone who would compare themselves to these protectors of the free world. But we should also talk about the other people who have shown courage, dedication, and a sense of duty that would bring tears to your eyes.
The next time I think of courage, dedication, and service, I’ll be looking in the direction of Washington, D.C. and remembering a guy named Schmidt, who took on a massive national security problem just because the President called.
Thanks, Howard.
