Occasionally defiant and frequently exasperated, associate deputy Interior secretary Jim Cason took the stand in the Cobell v. Norton case on Tuesday to defend the Bush administration's
handling of the Indian trust.
On day 51 of a complex evidentiary hearing, Cason was cross-examined for several hours about the status of the Interior Department's computer systems. It was his second full day on the stand and his demeanor made it quite clear he would have rather been elsewhere.
But as the administration's point man on the Indian trust, Cason plays a critical role in the case.
More than anyone else at Interior, his efforts to fix the department's security woes will
help determine how U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth rules.
According to Cason, great strides have been made over
the past four years thanks to a $100 million-plus investment.
He previously boasted to the court that the department's
computer network is "basically bulletproof" and
that the number of vulnerabilities has been reduced to "close to zero."
"I think we made substantial progress," he reiterated
yesterday.
Yet there were some glaring failures, the acknowledged.
The Bureau of Land Management, for example, never
segregated its Indian trust data from non-trust
data, a centerpiece of the department's proposal.
"It appears it didn't get done," Cason testified.
And the agency, whose web sites had to be shut down in April
in response to major security holes uncovered by
computer security experts, never installed a network DMZ, or
demilitarized zone, that would have potentially shielded
sensitive data from hackers.
"It was very irritating" to discover the omission, Cason
said.
Cason's own claims were also called into question
repeatedly during the cross-examination. He was
confronted with internal documents showing that
the number of security vulnerabilities
was actually more than 100 at the time he stated,
under oath, that they were "close to zero."
Cason stood by his statement when pressed to justify it.
The vulnerabilities were found in computer networks
for Bureau of Indian Affairs education
and the U.S. Geological Survey, "neither of
which are regarded as trust agencies," he testified.
"If you look at the ones that are trust agencies,
we are close to zero," he said.
Cason then said he based his statement on the
status of the network back in December
2001, when all systems were disconnected from the Internet.
"Everything is relative for what we have to do," he
told the court. "Against the backdrop ... I think this is
pretty adequate."
"We started at almost 1,000 vulnerabilities," he noted.
But the inquiry clearly irked Cason, who often
peppered his responses with the phrase "As I
explained several times."
When presented with more figures that showed
the number of vulnerabilities remained well above 100,
he wondered why anyone would question his original
statement.
"I don't think it's productive to go through
this process. We were on a downward trend for this period,"
he said.
"I don't know why it's important. The numbers are
what they are. Let's move on."
Cason is set to return to the stand today and is one of the
Bush administration's last witnesses.
Throughout the hearing,
the Department of Justice has called more than 20
witnesses to bolster its stance that the computer
systems are safe from hackers.
Once the government finishes its case,
the Cobell plaintiffs, who want the systems disconnected
from the Internet, will get a chance to make a rebuttal.
The proceedings could last a couple more weeks before
the trial ends.
Information technology security has been a big part of
the case since November 2001, when a court official
released a report detailing how billions of dollars
in Indian trust funds could be easily accessed from
the Internet.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals later ruled that
the Interior Department has
a fiduciary obligation to protect the computer data and the computer systems of
the Indian trust. "It is indisputable that the Secretary has current and
prospective trust management duties that necessitate maintaining secure IT
systems in order to render accurate accountings now and in the future," the
court said in December 2004.
Relevant Links:
Indian Trust: Cobell v. Norton - http://www.indiantrust.com
Cobell
v. Norton, Department of Justice - http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/cases/cobell/index.htm
Indian
Trust, Department of Interior - http://www.doi.gov/indiantrust
Stay Connected
Contact Us
indianz@indianz.com202 630 8439 (THEZ)
Search
Top Stories
Trending in News
1 Tribes rush to respond to new coronavirus emergency created by Trump administration
2 'At this rate the entire tribe will be extinct': Zuni Pueblo sees COVID-19 cases double as first death is confirmed
3 Arne Vainio: 'A great sickness has been visited upon us as human beings'
4 Arne Vainio: Zoongide'iwin is the Ojibwe word for courage
5 Cayuga Nation's division leads to a 'human rights catastrophe'
2 'At this rate the entire tribe will be extinct': Zuni Pueblo sees COVID-19 cases double as first death is confirmed
3 Arne Vainio: 'A great sickness has been visited upon us as human beings'
4 Arne Vainio: Zoongide'iwin is the Ojibwe word for courage
5 Cayuga Nation's division leads to a 'human rights catastrophe'
More Stories
House hearings on land title, Native Hawaiians Bush names John G. Roberts to U.S. Supreme Court
News Archive
2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000