Talk:Critical Infrastructure Protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This page was substantially different than the alleged copyright infraction. It was in the midst of being edited further when it was flagged. Further paraphrasing is required.

A Temp page has been generated with editing of the orignal text that should fix the problems noted.

Contents

[edit] Cycle looks like straight process

How oes it close and repeat? Midgley 03:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The cycle is a continuous process that can end and begin at regular or irregular intervals.FrankWilliams 20:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page needs rewriting

This article is, partly, in need of re-writing. Several sections are not very encyclopedic at all, with a constant use of the first person (especially "we") and opinions written as if they were lifted from a third grader's persuasive essay on the subject.

First of all whoever wrote the above statements should sign their discussions. Second, I don't think a third grader has any notions of the subject which are highly complex. Third, why not contribute and fix that which you think is broken. Not personal just business. FrankWilliams 15:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US Centric and lots of waffle

The article makes statements as though they apply to the whole world when they only apply to the US. "In order to establish just such a partnership, PDD-63, mandated the formation of a national structure for critical infrastructure protection" - which national strucure? There are other countries in the world... Also the section entitled "The Importance of CIP" is mostly waffle with little substance Giles.hogben 14:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is about the U.S. CIP initiative not the entire world. No, the article does not insinuate that it applies to the whole world. It very clear says that this is a U.S. initiative. It uses examples that has world implications such as "Terrorism". If you read the article carefully the national structure is definted as all the agencies; Federal and State, that participate in the CIP initiative. If by "waffle" you mean equivocally, yes this is true. There are many possible reasons for the importance of the program. The paragraph gives very good examples. Thanks for your constructive criticism in making this article better. FrankWilliams 13:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

But the article is entitled Critical Infrastructure Protection - maybe you should change the title to US Critical Infrastructure Protection. We have similar programmes in Europe too under the same name. See [1] [2] Giles.hogben 13:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Lets WP:AGF! I note this topic is driven by presidential decree so I suppose many aspects will remain ambiguous and obviously US-centric. I came here looking for some clarification of the various infrastructure categories, and noted it could do with reworking, as it has the potential to be a very helpful and significant piece... Frank, if you want some constructive criticism:

  • change the use of the 1st person to 3rd person (e.g. 'threats to our critical infrastructure...'), drop the amateur dramatics ('the military has been at the forefront of monitoring and warning of potential dangers since the founding of the country.') and take out the Powerpoint language
  • remove the jargon. For example, para 1, section: 'Phase 1 Example in the Real World' is all unexplained acronyms and jargon, not encyclopedic at all.
  • cut, cut, cut it to about half the size. Section: "Infrastructure Sectors" appears to duplicate "Sectors", whose constituents are probably already in WP somewhere. Section: "The Importance of CIP" probably has duplicates of events already documented elsewhere, and could be merged into the intro once they've been linked & extracted. Do the Phase-by-phase descriptions really help to further describe what's going on beyond the bulleted sections before? Etc...
  • Add useful links where jargon is necessary
  • Right now it reads more like a process than an object. What will folks come looking for? ... I'd like some pointers or a linked list of what Crit.Infr. is, and is not. What info in the public domain. What is contentious - e.g. how does it tie in to the claims of pork-barrel politics and hot-dog stands being given grants under [Areas Security Initiative grants]? Does it relate to other programs or other foreign national systems?
  • And how does it relate to other WP articles such as Public infrastructure??
  • Use verifiable references. Private course material isn't encyclopedic or verifiable and is probably copyright. If its not in the public domain then it shouldn't be here
  • Add some links - a few relevant DHS pages or documents would be helpful
  • Add citations - e.g. "Most experts expect the frequency and severity of critical infrastructure incidents..."

I'd be bold myself, but I suspect that I would end up drastically restructuring the article - some of the editors here might prefer to have a go first and do a better job than I. Though I'm willing to help. Ephebi 15:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


Lets WP:AGF! I note this topic is driven by presidential decree so I suppose many aspects will remain ambiguous and obviously US-centric. I came here looking for some clarification of the various infrastructure categories, and noted it could do with reworking, as it has the potential to be a very helpful and significant piece... Frank, if you want some constructive criticism:

  • change the use of the 1st person to 3rd person (e.g. 'threats to our critical infrastructure...'), drop the amateur dramatics ('the military has been at the forefront of monitoring and warning of potential dangers since the founding of the country.') and take out the Powerpoint language

Response: Ok, on 1st vs. 3rd person. amateur dramatics??? (sounds like a personal attack; but I'll assume good faith). The statement about the military was intended to be just a fact. Powerpoint language?? Not sure what you mean; no example given.

  • remove the jargon. For example, para 1, section: 'Phase 1 Example in the Real World' is all unexplained acronyms and jargon, not encyclopedic at all.

Response: Ok, agree (we/me) should explain all acronyms.

  • cut, cut, cut it to about half the size. Section: "Infrastructure Sectors" appears to duplicate "Sectors", whose constituents are probably already in WP somewhere. Section: "The Importance of CIP" probably has duplicates of events already documented elsewhere, and could be merged into the intro once they've been linked & extracted. Do the Phase-by-phase descriptions really help to further describe what's going on beyond the bulleted sections before? Etc...

Response: No, the sectors are not duplicate. "Infrastructure Sectors" are the National sectors. The "Sectors" paragraph are sectors that are protected by DOD specifically. I agree there is overlap but they do differ. If there are duplicates of events they may need to be deleted unless they are making a point in the paragraph itself. The "bulleted sections" were intended as a summary of the 6 phases. Each of the phase by phase descriptions were intended to go into more depth about each phase. Again, agree there is some overlap; but I'm assuming not everyone want to read the entire article so the summation "bulleted" part is there just before the detailed descriptions.


  • Add useful links where jargon is necessary

Response: Agree

  • Right now it reads more like a process than an object. What will folks come looking for? ... I'd like some pointers or a linked list of what Crit.Infr. is, and is not. What info in the public domain. What is contentious - e.g. how does it tie in to the claims of pork-barrel politics and hot-dog stands being given grants under [Areas Security Initiative grants]? Does it relate to other programs or other foreign national systems?

Response: Well, the CIP is a process. I don't know of any links or pointers but I agree some could be useful if someone wants to added them.


Response: Not sure, I don't have a detailed list of what WP articles are out there. Certainly appropriate ones should be listed in the "See Also" section.

  • Use verifiable references. Private course material isn't encyclopedic or verifiable and is probably copyright. If its not in the public domain then it shouldn't be here

Response: The course material is was NOT private and is attainable. But, I also disagree even if it were. Private course material can be encyclopedic. Verifiability can be ascertained through many avenues and not necessarily just thorough the source, especially if the information happens to be true.

  • Add some links - a few relevant DHS pages or documents would be helpful

Response: Agree more links would helpful (see above). DHS is not an acronym I'm familiar with; didn't you just accuse me of using acronyms without definitions :)


  • Add citations - e.g. "Most experts expect the frequency and severity of critical infrastructure incidents..."

I'd be bold myself, but I suspect that I would end up drastically restructuring the article - some of the editors here might prefer to have a go first and do a better job than I. Though I'm willing to help. Ephebi 15:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Response: Thanks for your comments and suggestions. They have been better and more informative then others. FrankWilliams 13:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Frank, I have re-inserted my earlier comments - its not WP etiquette to edit other's entries on the talk page. Not only does it destroy the record but it also makes it hard for others to follow the thread - and I do hope that other editors see this and act on it as well, as WP is a collaborative project. PS: the mysterious DHS = US Department of Homeland Security, and they have published lots of literature about this topic, but I thought you'd know that Ephebi 15:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I have reworked the wording in the Overview section and tweaked the section/subsection headers. Although there are fewer words I don't believe I have removed any content. Ephebi 22:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The importance of CIP

Having examples is no bad thing but this section is referencing a 12-year old hack on Citicorp's infrastructure with no broad infrastructure impact and only a fairly small financial sum involved (comparatively speaking!). I don't see it as a relevant example of an infrastructure threat. I think Titan Rain is a better example to use, as this is fairly-well documented and is a relevant as a hostile attack that spanned several sectors and networks with potentailly significant consequences. Ephebi 13:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hacking the financial sector is major threat as money is at the heart of everything done. Stopping or deviating funds can have major consequences throughout the infrastructure. I agree that this particular example was not that noteworthy in of itself however it does exemplify that the financial sector is vulnerable (if a 12 year old can hack a major financial institution) what does this say for well paid and motivated professional hackers? Perhaps the citicorp paragraph needs to be expanded to say these things. I also agree that the Titan Rain examples may also be beneficial in being added as a paragraph. Thanks FrankWilliams 14:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Finding a good example from the financial sector is tricky - resilience in Wall St's terms means avoiding a crisis of confidence/contagion and making sure that clearing & settlement can still function by keeping the key central systems and counter-parties available. The Citigroup example doesn't reflect this, its just a hack with very local consequences. Even after 9/11 the loss of several important counter-parties caused Wall St to shut down for nearly a week but this damage was, to the best of my knowledge, contained within the immediate finance sector. Titan Rain came to mind as a real example of a broad-based hostile hack, but there may be others which are in the public domain Ephebi 17:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I haven't sorted out a good example yet, but have managed to source the relationship between HSPD-7 & PDD-63, & reference the wierd security grant stories which I added in a 'Controvosy' sub-heading. I hope this article now presents itself in a better context. It could still do with a bit of tidying up, with some of the prose moving from 1st person plural to 3rd person, but I'm running out of time at the moment. Ephebi 12:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


I think that this page needs to be rewritten from scratch, and that it needs to stick to the science, engineering, and history (non-political I hope), of policy initiatives. Because CIP as an issue (at least in the US) really emerged after Y2K and 911, may be that would be a good starting point for an updated presentation of issues. I am willing to take a crack at a re-write if others are willing to help. It makes sense, for example, to have subsections on specific critical sectors - defined in a way that allows people from different countries to contribute. David Mussington, 13 April 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.45.88 (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other perspectives: EU

Gents, I would like to add a section to the CIP page to explain what's going on on the other side of the ocean. This would give a more balanced view on CIP around the world. I would keep it as a separate section, but I would rephrease some of the other paragraphs so it is clear we are talking about US. An example is the "Sectors" section. I will work on this in the next few weeks, any comment and suggestion are welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrea.rigoni (talk • contribs) 16:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)