tl;dr -- the article is lightweight technically but touches on important and potentially flawed aspects of the government's relation to IT security industry. F

tl;dr -- the article is lightweight technically but touches on important and potentially flawed aspects of the government's relation to IT security industry. Formatting aside, the content is relatively important in a non-technical way. It is detailing the manner in which the USG is experiencing some brain drain due to both its policies and image. I wish the author had contextualized the Miami conference a bit better (and the Fedora comment is hardly forgivable, I hear Windows 8 is used in China too). There really is a need for some US cyber policy but I fear that in its current incarnation that the government is not well suited to bring on the kind of infosec talent that it needs. Yes there may have been excesses (I think I saw one or two Snowden articles on HN) but there are real attacks going on against both USG networks and those of prominent US companies. With all the people on here who are US based entrepreneurs (aspiring or succeeding) I think we want some level of government protection against foreign government attacks, in the same manner as brick and mortar businesses don't want tanks rolling through their walls. I just hope that the US as a country consisting of both public and private sector can reach a point where petty (rather outdated) regs don't prevent willing top talent from helping the government while simultaneously ensuring that US tech companies don't fall into being simple fronts for USG collection.