Donald Kerr, principal deputy director of national intelligence, created a stir last year when he opined about "privacy" in a way that redefined the concept as congenially to the intelligence community as possible.
I put it this way in a critique at the time:
"If you’ve identified yourself to your ISP," he appears to think, "you’ve identified yourself to me." The folks in his world may think that way, but that’s not the way the rest of us look at it, and it’s not consistent with a sound interpretation of the Fourth Amendment or life in a free society.
Now he's back at it with "cybersecurity."
Walter Pincus of the Washington Post reports on two recent Kerr speeches that have "called for a radical new relationship between government and the private sector" in this area:
One approach would have the government take equity stakes in companies developing technical products, in effect expanding the practice of In-Q-Tel, the CIA entity that invests in companies.
Another proposal is to provide the same protective capabilities applied to government Web sites, ending in .gov and .mil, to the private industry's sites, ending in .com, which Kerr said have close to 98 percent of the nation's most important information.
* * *
"We have a responsibility . . . to help those companies that we take an equity stake in or those that are just out there in the U.S. economy, to protect the most valuable assets they have, their ideas and the people who create them," he said.
The government-ownership-of-private-assets train is rolling out of the station and Kerr wants his agency to be on board. But he's wrong. It's the responsibility of private owners to secure their assets.
This is big-think we do not need. Just like with his contortion of "privacy," Kerr would upend the roles and responsibilities of government and the private sector by giving government an ownership stake, for "cybersecurity" reasons or any other.