This is a preview of how your content will look on export. To export the complete content in DOC format, click the blue export button in the upper right corner of this page.
3.2 Introduction to Domestic Governing and Regulatory Bodies
Purpose: To provide an overview of U.S. regulatory bodies that influence and shape the cyber-domain both domestically and throughout the world.
  • 1 3.2.1 Overview

    Provide an understanding of the overall structure of the U.S. response to the cybersecurity issues.

    • 1.1 Lawrence B. Solum, Models of Internet Governance, Illinois Public Law Research Paper No. 07-25, U Illinois Law & Economics Research Paper No. LE08-027, September 3, 2008

      This article takes a broad view of Internet governance, presenting three central ideas regarding Internet governance and five different models to Internet governance.

    • 1.2 Jeremy Ferwerda, Nazli Choucri, and Stuart Madnick, Institutional Foundations for Cyber Security: Current Responses and New Challenges, Working Paper CISL# 2011-05, May 2011

      This article examines the institutions responsible for addressing the security of cyberspace and international relations in the cyber-domain. It highlights emerging challenges while evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the current institutional framework.

    • 1.3 Paul Rosenzweig, The Organization of the United States Government and Private Sector for Achieving Cyber Deterrence, Proceedings of a Workshop on Deterring Cyberattacks: Informing Strategies and Developing Options for U.S. Policy, pp. 245-270, 2010

      This discusses the general taxonomy of deterrence structures and U.S. efforts to develop organizations to provide capabilities amongst the different aspects of deterrence. It also discusses difficulties in cyberspace that give rise to the organizational challenges and provides recommendation for the U.S. government on how to approach these issues in the future.

    • 1.4 Abraham D. Sofaer, David Clark, and Whitfield Diffie, Cyber Security and International Agreements, Proceedings of a Workshop on Deterring Cyberattacks, pp. 179-206, 2010

      This piece discusses how the threats to cybersecurity are currently being approached at the private, national, and international level, then demonstrates the potential for increased international cooperation. It also covers how to fashion effective international initiatives and the difficulties in such negotiations.

  • 2 3.2.2 Relevant Domestic Organizations, Policies, and Strategies

    Provides an introduction and broad overview of the major organizations, policies, and strategies involved in domestic cybersecurity policy-making and approaches, including: The White House (WH), Congress, The Department of Defense (including CYBERCOM and National Security Agency), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

    • 2.1 The White House

      The White House’s interest and involvement in cybersecurity has grown and evolved since President Clinton issued Presidential Decision Directive 63 (PDD-63) in 1998.

      • 2.1.1 The White House, International Strategy for Cyberspace, May 2011

        This document outlines how the United States will work internationally to promote an open, interoperable, secure, and reliable information and communications infrastructure to support international trade and commerce, strengthen international security, and foster free expression and innovation.

      • 2.1.2 Eric Chabrow, The Cybersecurity Czar Who Wasn't, GovInfo Security, 2 June 2012

        This piece provides a retrospective on the tenure of Howard Schmidt (White House's first cybersecurity coordinator). It also provides insight into the cybersecurity coordinator’s role in the administration, as well as challenges inherent to the position.

    • 2.2 Department of Defense

      The DoD encompasses much of the U.S. government’s technical expertise to both respond to cyber-incidents, as well as conduct and defend against cyberattacks; it includes both the NSA and CYBERCOM.

      • 2.2.1 Department of Defense, Strategy for Operating in Cyberspace, July 2011

        This is an overview of the DOD’s five strategic initiatives regarding cyberspace: to treat cyberspace as an operational domain; to employ new defense operating concepts; to partner to enable a whole-of-government cybersecurity strategy; to build robust relationships allies and international partners; and to leverage ingenuity through an exceptional cyber workforce.

      • 2.2.2 Department of Defense Cyberspace Policy Report, November 2011

        This document identifies five distinct, but interrelated strategic initiatives to support DoD’s cyberspace operations and its national security mission: Treating cyberspace as an operational domain; employing new defense operating concepts to protect DoD networks and systems; partnering closely with other U.S. Government departments and agencies and the private sector; building robust relationships with U.S. Allies and international partners to enable information sharing; leveraging the Nation’s ingenuity by recruiting and retaining an exceptional cyber workforce and enabling rapid technological innovation.

      • 2.2.3 The Secretary of Defense, Establishment of a Subordinate Unified U.S. Cyber Command Under U.S. Strategic Command for Military Cyberspace Operations, 23 June 2009

        This document from the Secretary of Defense directed the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command to establish the subordinate unified command, U.S. Cyber Command.

      • 2.2.4 Statement of General Keith B. Alexander, Commander, United States Cyber Command, before the House Committee on Armed Services, 23 September 2010

        This testimony describes what is happening at US Cyber Command by providing an overview of the current status of the command and by describing the plan for moving forward in accomplishing the assigned mission.

      • 2.2.5 William A. Owens, Kenneth W. Dam, and Herbert S. Lin, editors, Committee on Offensive Information Warfare, National Research Council; Technology, Policy, Law, and Ethics Regarding U.S. Acquisition and Use of Cyberattack Capabilities; Pages 161-187, 2009

        This document discusses cyberattacks in the context of U.S. military doctrine, the DoD’s organization, rules of engagement, operational planning, human capital, and weapons systems acquisition. It also provides both historical perspective (1999 and on) and hypothetical examples to support its arguments.

    • 2.3 Department of Homeland Security

      The DHS is responsible for responding to domestic cybersecurity incidents and has made cybersecurity one of its five most important mission areas. Most versions of cybersecurity reform envision greatly expanding DHS’s cyber responsibilities.

      • 2.3.1 National Cyber Incident Response Plan, Interim Version, September 2010

        This document delineates the responsibilities among U.S. agencies in the event of a domestic cyber-incident. It demonstrates the number of agencies involved and the detailed interplay between them.

      • 2.3.2 Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 , 28 February 2003

        This directive establishes the DHS as the lead agency to respond to domestic incidents, including acts of terrorism and disasters.

      • 2.3.3 Blueprint for a Secure Cyber Future, DHS, “How We Will Protect Critical Information Infrastructure” and “How We Will Strengthen the Cyber Ecosystem”2, December 2011

        This document provides a path to create a safer, more resilient cyber environment, and describes two areas for action: protecting critical information infrastructure and building a stronger cyber ecosystem. The goals for protecting critical information infrastructure are reducing exposure to cyber risk, ensuring priority response and recovery, maintaining shared situational awareness, and increasing cyber-resilience. The goals for strengthening the cyber ecosystem are empowering users to operate securely, implementing trustworthy protocols, building collaborative communities, and establishing transparent processes.

      • 2.3.4 Memorandum of Understanding Between the Department of Homeland Security and the National Security Administration Regarding Cyberspace, October 2010

        This MoU sets forth terms for the sharing of resources between DHS and NSA to support the U.S. Cybersecurity effort, including the co-locating of both NSA and CYBERCOM units within DHS’s National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center.

You've reached the bottom of your content preview.
To view the rest in your browser, click here.
To export the complete content in DOC format, click the blue export button in the upper right corner of this page.

(Note: If you view the entire playlist, any changes you've made to export settings will be lost. Large playlists may temporarily freeze your browser while loading, as well.)