Re: Big Brother Security to the rescue
"What a perfect example of government's heavy influence over the attitudes of the masses. Probably all that government-run early school training. Trust Big Daddy government, kiddies, it's for your own good!"
Hardly. I'm a believer in limited government, but I think the US government should do the things it's tasked to do by the people through the Constitution. I don't want the government to have sole responsibility for my personal cyber-security any more than I intend for the government to provide all of my physical security. Just as while I don't want or need to see tanks protecting my cities directly, I know that if $ENEMY attacks my city or family, there are people and tools equipped to respond with appropriate fury. What I DO want is the knowledge that the people tasked with those duties have the skills and experience to do them. I have no doubt that General Mattis is well-suited to be an outstanding SecDef; his record as a warrior monk speaks for itself. I have significant doubt that Rudy is suited to the task of advising the President on protecting government networks and whatever else fits under "White House Cyber Security Advisor". His company's website is part of his advertisement of capabilities. If it's less secure than my blog, he shouldn't do the job that the President-elect has asked him to do.
As to the question you asked initially, yes, I think the government has a duty to provide some modicum of cyber security. They definitely should protect their own networks. In fact, there's an agency whose putative purpose is just that already. (Or maybe there's No Such Agency.) They've been too busy spying on everyone to prevent someone from stealing all of the personnel records from the OPM, for example. Giuliani's CV is that of a good federal prosecutor, a mediocre mayor who was cast into the national spotlight because of 9/11, and then a few consulting gigs. None of that indicates he has the skills necessary to the task asked.