NSA, no. But a non-NSA influenced USG, or some other new agency that should be in charge of cyber-security and not cyber-war (like NSA is) should be responsible

NSA, no. But a non-NSA influenced USG, or some other new agency that should be in charge of cyber-security and not cyber-war (like NSA is) should be responsible for that. Developing strong security policies, finding about loopholes, and then nagging companies and government about fixing those loopholes and implementing those strong security policies (such as: "Go enable HTTPS for your site already god damn it, EPA!!"). NSA doesnt do anything like that right now, yet they keep yelling from the rooftops about "cyber security". The NSA should have absolutely no relationship with this agency. If NSA finds out about some "catastrophic" loophole, then they should disclose it to multiple agencies at the same time, including this new cybersecurity agency, and should have no "special" relationship with it. Also this new agency should be a civil agency, not a military or a spy one. NSA is and has always been a "war-time" agency, even if it has been used for non-war purposes (in my opinion wrongfully). Security is in most cases not about war. So why do we let a war-time agency try to militarize the Internet and treat it as a battleground, with everyone's computers as collateral damage, even if there's no immediate danger of "war"?