Do you think lobbyists contributed to the emphasis on Zero Trust architecture in Biden’s executive order?
Sort by:
The executive order calls out zero trust a few times in the things they're doing now. While I agree with zero trust architecture, having been in the tech sector for a long time, it suggests to me that the tech players who have big public policy lobbying arms inserted that language to give themselves the ability to market to the federal government. I've just seen the public policy arm of various industries influence the language of policy for their own profit motivations. There could have been a different way to describe it that was benign of the labeling that benefits some people.
Is there an argument for not using zero trust architecture? Who would benefit if the government didn’t take this stance?
I don't doubt lobbyists were involved to some extent, but I also know several individual advisors for the administration and associated think thanks who swing around buzzwords just as easily as tech companies in order to sound pithy and relevant when speaking to policymakers. Using industry shorthand in legislative measures may appease certain circles and make policy advisors feel like they're "in the know," but its use in this EO does cause me to wonder whether the government officials using it truly understand it because if they did, why rely on the buzzword? Instead, we should clearly spell out what we mean. <br><br>I've seen a lot of zero trust apostles praising the EO simply for its inclusion of a buzzword they like & little evaluation of whether we've effectively communicated the expectations to those will have to implement them....and whether what we've actually communicated via vague buzzwords will lead organizations down a productive path.
Zero trust is a pretty good approach in some environments. I know there's a lot of investment going into solutions to support the zero trust architecture, but I'm not sure I can judge whether that language was inserted by lobbyists.