Computing Research Policy Blog

PITAC Cyber Security Subcommittee "Town Hall" Highlights

The President's Information Technology Advisory Committee's (PITAC) Subcommittee on Cyber Security met today "town hall" style at the GOVSEC conference here in DC today to hear from ITAA head Harris Miller, Joel Birnbaum, head of the CSTB study on "Improving Cyber Security Research in the US", and to take public input as it continues its work towards producing a report on the current state of Federal cyber security R&D.

I was pleased to hear Miller's enthusiastic endorsement of the Federal role in supporting long-term IT R&D (and cyber security R&D). One of my perpetual frustrations in dealing with the lobbying arms of the various IT companies is that they recognize the importance of federal funding for basic research, but don't often incorporate that message very prominently in their own lobbying efforts. I think Miller and ITAA are an exception to that as they've been very involved in a number of efforts to see federal research efforts increased -- their work on the Cyber Security R&D Authorization Act of 2002 was very important in getting it enacted, for example. Miller made the point that industry does devote a lot of effort to R&D, but it's almost all focused on the "D" -- development -- side. The research that underpins all that "D", he said, takes place primarily in universities.

Joel Birnbaum gave a short summary of the work he expects his committee to focus on in the coming months. He says the committee, which held its first series of meetings this week, is comprised of a remarkably diverse set of academics and industrial researchers -- and "not just computer scientists" (though there appear to be quite a few of those...and that's a good thing). The committee will look 5-10 years out, assume computers are pervasive and critical, and try to understand the threat models, economics, and other impediments to their "vision of the way life could be."

CRA submitted written testimony (pdf, 284kb) to the committee, citing our concerns about the current state of cyber security research, particularly with research efforts at the Department of Homeland Security and DARPA. In a nutshell, we're concerned that the federal effort is under-funded and poorly balanced between short and long-term efforts. Additionally we are concerned that current law has a chilling effect on some research efforts in cyber security, and that current agency policies at odds with the basic research practice appear to be driving university-based researchers away from research funded by critical mission agencies.

But get the full scoop here.

Forbes on Supercomputing

Matthew Swibel covers federal funding for supercomputing today in Forbes (and quotes CRA).

U.S. Plays Supercomputer Catch-up.

(I usually don't link to the print version of articles, but Forbes is using some sort of ad displaying script that isn't playing nicely with my Safari browser on the Mac...)

DARPA's Strong Angel II

The San Jose Mercury News' Dan Gillmor has an interesting piece on DARPA's "Strong Angel II", a program aimed at developing techniques for "critical information management within austere environments." From the article:

KONA, HAWAII - They were soldiers and sailors, doctors and relief workers, technologists and managers. Over the course of a few days, they transformed a barren lava bed into a cutting-edge test bed of communications and collaboration.

Their overarching goal, in a project dubbed ``Strong Angel II'' (http://strongangel.telascience.org) was humanitarian: to help create a way for military and civilian disaster-relief people to deal more efficiently with each other -- and with the people who need assistance -- in the turmoil that follows catastrophes.

Read the rest here.

More Detail on NSF Cuts in House Approps Bill

I've managed to get my hands on the as yet unreleased committee report for the House VA-HUD-Independent Agencies appropriations bill, which contains some additional detail about the nature of the cuts planned for NSF in FY 2005 (first covered here).

The committee has included some accounting changes in addition to the cuts proposed, which makes it a little tricky to compare the committee recommended levels to the FY 2004 appropriation and the President's FY 2005 request. First, the committee moved $26.0 million in "administrative costs" that were included in the R&RA FY 2004 budget to the Salaries and Expenses (S&E) budget line. The committee also decided to leave the President's Math and Science Partnerships program ($80 million) in the Education and Human Resources directorate (EHR) rather than move them to the R&RA account, as proposed in the President's budget. As a result, the adjusted level for R&RA would be $4.152 billion for FY 2005, $73.7 million below the comparable FY 2004 level and $194.3 million below the comparable FY 2005 budget request.

To reach that level, the appropriators targeted three new programs: the Workforce for the 21st Century program ($20 million), the proposed new class of Science and Technology Centers ($30 million), and the proposed Innovation Fund ($5 million). The remaining $18.7 million in cuts will have to come from existing programs in R&RA -- a cut of less than half of one percent to existing programs. Not good at all, but a little better than it first appeared.

Additionally, the committee included some language supporting continued research to "further productivity growth in the information economy."

From within the Engineering, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, and Computer and Information Science and Engineering Directorates and the National Nanotechnology Initiative, the Committee remains concerned that researchers are reaching the physical limits of current complementary metal oxide semiconductor process technology and that this will have significant implications for continued productivity growth in the information economy. The Committee commends NSF's examination of the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors and its initiation of the Silicon Nanoelectronics and Beyond program and encourages NSF to consider increasing research support, where feasible, through this program.

The Committee doesn't provide directorate by directorate breakouts for its funding recommendations, instead it takes NSF to task for not providing its FY 2005 budget justification in the form the committee requested (not detailed enough). The Committee directs NSF to submit a revised plan within 30 days of the enactment of the bill that

addresses the Foundation's highest priority research requirements. In developing this plan, the Foundation is urged to be sensitive to maintaining the proper balance between the goal of stimulating interdisciplinary research and the need to maintain robust single-issue research in the core disciplines.

Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction would see an increase of $53.2 million over FY 2004, but $5 million less than the President's budget request. Included in the increase is an extra $9.5 million for the IceCube Neutrino Detector Observatory, which the committee calls and "acceleration of the funding profile" to enable certain economies in the overall project cost, and a transfer of $12 million for the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) to the R&RA account, reflecting the recommendation of the NRC's recent review of the project that it wasn't yet ready for MREFC status.

The Appropriations Committee is expected to approve the bill by voice vote on Friday, but it will likely be some time before the bill reaches the House floor. Congress goes on "recess" next week through August.

New PITAC Health and IT Report Available

Just posted. (pdf, 868kb)

INDUCE Act Hearing Tomorrow

The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on Chairman Orrin Hatch's INDUCE Act -- a dangerous piece of legislation that ostensibly protects copyright by making liable anyone who "intentionally aids, abets, induces or procures" a copyright violation. As Intel VP Les Vadasz writes in today's WSJ:

Sen. Hatch and others argue that the bill will protect kids from porn and punish those who "intentionally induce" piracy. In reality it will do neither. But it will do serious harm to innovation.

(Thanks to Ed Felten for the pointer).

Here's the witness list for tomorrow's hearing.

NSF and NASA Lose in House VA-HUD Approps Markup

NSF and NASA would both suffer significant cuts under legislation approved in a House Appropriations Subcommittee. Here are the first NSF numbers from the subcommittee committee markup of the House VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations bill. Apparently the full committee will move the bill on Friday:

NSF Funding Levels From the VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee Markup (in millions of dollars)
	FY 2004	President's FY 2005 request	FY 2005 House VA-HUD Approps	Change vs. Request	Change vs. FY 2004
Research and Related Activities	4,250	4,450	4,200	-5.6%	-1.2%
Education and Human Resources	939	771	843	9.3%	-10.2%
Major Research Facilities C&E	155	213	208	-2.3%	34.2%
Total NSF	5,580	5,750	5,470	-4.9%	-2.0

I don't yet have similar numbers for NASA, but the committee "highlights" indicates a $229 million cut to the agency vs. the FY 2004 funding level, $1.1 billion below the President's requested level. Here's the rest of the NASA highlights:

NASA is funded at $15.1 billion, $229 million below last year and $1.1 billion below the request. The bulk of these savings come from the elimination of funding for new initiatives. The reductions include $30 million for technology maturation efforts; $230 million from Project Prometheus related to Jupiter Icy Moon Orbital; $438 million resulting from delaying the Crew Exploration Vehicle; and $100 million from Space Launch Initiatives by accelerating the termination of activities. The bill fully funds shuttle operations at the requested level of $4.3 billion. The committee fully funds Mars programs at the requested level of $691 million.

As soon as the committee report is available (which will include detail and rationale for the cuts) I'll excerpt the information here.

Needless to say, NSF's funding level is a long way from the 15 percent per year increases authorized by Congress and approved by the President in December 2002. In thinking about why R&D has been de-emphasized, it's hard not to juxtapose the decrease with the news that scientists and engineers are increasingly organizing and involving themselves in the political campaigns. Maybe the recent attacks of some notable scientists and engineers on the Bush Administration science policy are affecting the will of the majority to spend political capital on pushing for R&D increases? I don't know, but I'm not sure the new "Scientists and Engineers for Johnson/Humphrey Kerry/Edwards" (sub. req'd) will help make the case any easier....

Anyway, as always, as more detail emerges check here for details.

Update: Here's more from USA Today.

Science Committee to Look at Efforts to Develop Cybersecurity Workforce

The House Science Committee will review efforts by industry, academia and the government to develop the Nation's cybersecurity workforce at a hearing tomorrow. Here's the committee's press release with details on the witnesses invited. The hearing charter (pdf) is also available.

Some Say U.S. Supercomputing Needs a Jump-start

CRA plugged in this article that ran in Computerworld today.

ITAA Accuses Security Researchers of Waging "Religious War" in Opposing E-voting Systems

Computerworld has an article today with quotes from ITAA's Harris Miller complaining that IT security researchers are opposing e-voting systems because they're pushing a political agenda on behalf of the open-source software community.

Some choice quotes:

"It's not about voting machines. It's a religious war about open-source software vs. proprietary software," Miller said in an interview with Computerworld. "If you're a computer scientist and you think that open-source software is the solution to everything because you're a computer scientist and you can spot all flaws, then you hate electronic voting machines. But if you're a person who believes that proprietary software and open-source software can both be reliable, then you don't hate electronic voting machines."

Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, called Miller's characterization "nonsense."

"Every technologist that I have worked with believes that even if we had open-source software, we would still need a paper [audit] trail," said Alexander. "There would be no guarantee that the software that was inspected by the public would be the same software that is running on every machine in every jurisdiction in the country."

Eric Raymond, president of the Open Source Initiative (OSI), a nonprofit organization that promotes standards and criteria for open-source software, said Miller has the issue wrong. "Most [e-voting] critics, including me, aren't focusing on open-source vs. closed-source at all, but rather on the lack of any decent audit trail of votes -- one that can't be corrupted by software. Open-source would be nice for all the real reasons but is less important than the audit trail."

It's an interesting article.

Update: Spaf e-mails:

[O]ne thing left out of all the press accounts is that ITAA and Harris Miller are being paid by the voting machine vendors to help them establish a better image. Thus, Harris's comments should be viewed with a very strong filter in place.

CAPPS II Cancelled

From Declan McCullagh's Politech list: Plan to collect flier data canceled; Color-coded system seen as privacy threat from USA Today

Update from Andy Bernat: "Don't believe everything you read in USA Today. From the Washington Post Friday morning:

New Airline Screening System Postponed
Controversy Over Privacy Leads to CAPPS II Paring, Delay Until After Election

Somehow this seems more likely to be accurate."

Catching Up: NIST Appropriations

The House passed it's version of the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill on Thursday which includes funding for National Institute of Standards and Technology. The good news is that the bill includes an increase of funding for core programs at NIST -- though it's still below the President's requested level -- and includes language urging the increase to be used on programs related to national security, including cyber security and biometric work, as well as urging NIST to continue to work on Help America Vote Act work. Here are some quick snippets from the committee report:

The Committee recommendation includes $375,838,000 for the Scientific and Technical Research and Services (core programs) of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which is $35,095,000 above the current year, and $47,030,000 below the request.

The Committee recommendation includes $338,657,000 and 1,831 positions to support the full base operating costs of the core NIST programs, as requested. In addition, the Committee recommendation includes programmatic increases totaling $37,181,000 for this account. The Committee expects NIST to prioritize funding for programs associated with standards and guidelines relating to the national security of the United States, including efforts relating to biometric and cyber security and programs relating to improvements to the nation's manufacturing and services sectors. The Committee strongly urges NIST to give priority consideration to Help America Vote Act outreach to the election community; expediting work on a new voting standards accreditation program; and its work with the Technical Guidelines Development Committee working with the Election Assistance Commission. NIST is directed to provide in advance of the fiscal year 2006 hearings a report detailing what steps must be taken to bring its activities in line with the timetable established by the Act. Further, the Committee directs NIST to provide all necessary equipment for the Advanced Measurement Laboratory in Gaithersburg, Maryland.

Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program.--Recent economic downturns have had a devastating effect on the manufacturing sector. In an effort to ameliorate some of these effects, the Committee recommendation includes $106,000,000 for this program in fiscal year 2005, which is $66,810,000 above the request and the current year. Federal support for the MEP program, combined with State and private sector funding, have translated into more jobs, more tax revenue, more exports, and a more secure supply source of consumer and defense goods.

Rubbing It In.

The view from Snowbird.

Update:

Snowbird Keynote Speaker Vint Cerf discusses his interplanetary network ("InterPlanet") at Sunday dinner.

Posted by PeterHarsha at 02:41 PM | TrackBack
Posted to CRA | Misc.