The government should move swiftly to put in place trusted personalities to lead the cyber security efforts as the Chief Information Security Officer. It is particularly important because cyber security is such a critical issue that cannot be entrusted with any qualified individuals. In fact, the Congress has discussed the idea twice and each time the issue of promoting cronyism came up. Although the idea of trusted personalities in a public institution seems to promote cronyism, it is the only way that cyber crime can be rooted out. For instance, there are possibilities that appointed security officer could abuse his or her powers to hack into private businesses and destroy critical information (Csonka, 2000). It would ruin all the gains that the government would have made to protect its citizens from cyber crime. It’s why the constitutional provisions on appointment of persons to public offices have to be bent a bit to ensure that the public is assured of their cyber security. If anything, the constitution is meant to serve the people and not to harm them! Due to the fact that a single cyber security office cannot adequately serve the whole country, it may be necessary to have an office in every state. This would imply that the state government through the governor will be responsible for the appointment of a security officer. Although this will eventually lead to different levels of cyber security for different states, it will certainly reduce the number of cyber crimes to manageable levels in the entire country (Brenner, 2007).
This must be followed with a comprehensive plan for cyber security as it would demand that a panel of experts are contracted to draw a comprehensive plan that would then be used by the security office to implement security policies. The comprehensive policy should ideally take care of the regional differences because cyber criminals get trickier day by day (Grimme, 2006). As such, the technology that they use to manipulate computer systems in one state would certainly be different from what they use in another state. In light of this, the security plan should be regionally tailored, so that it does not become a flop. This is particularly true considering that most companies in the United Kingdom usually contract cyber security companies from the United States to clean up their systems. They never do this with the native companies not because their cyber security companies in the United Kingdom lack the prerequisite technology to fight cyber crime, but because the criminals have opted to using newer techniques that they would not adequately respond to. Conversely, companies in the United States and the rest of the world have had to contract cyber security companies from other continents (Goldman, 2012). Such instances justify the need to have a region-tailored national cyber security system. Ideally, such a move will not only save small and big companies but will also protect government’s secret information. For instance, the damage done by revealing the secrets of the government like it happened with Wikileaks could be completely avoided. This would essentially avoid diplomatic strains that come with such revelations. Understandably, it has been hard for the government to adequately bridge up diplomatic gaps that resulted from Assange’s revelations of its best kept secrets. A case in example was the Pakistan government that was already engaging the government in serious talks that might have resulted in mutual trust. However, they have been colder in their engagements with the government in the recent past as mutual trust that was already being built has been completely eroded (Gorell, 1998).