Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Navy messaging on cryptology continues...

I don't think it's an accident that the news keeps reporting on VADM Rogers and RADM Tighe as CRYPTOLOGISTS.
Tighe Tapped to Lead 10th Fleet

USNI News, 14 February 2014

The current deputy commander of the Navy’s cyberwarfare arm — 10th fleet — will be promoted to commander of the services cyber enterprise, the Pentagon announced on Friday.

Rear Adm. Jan E. Tighe has been appointed to take over 10th Fleet and be promoted to vice admiral for the command based in Ft George G. Meade, Md. Her predecessor — Vice Adm. Michael Rogers — was selected to run the National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command.

Prior to being 10th Fleet’s number two, Tighe was the interim president of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif.

Tighe is a 1984 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and a career cryptologist.


Anonymous said...

I like it, and I've never broken my own habit of referring to myself as a "Cryppie." But if all of the references to cryptology in the media, etc., is in fact "Navy Messaging," why don't we hit the issue head-on and formally rename the 1810 community back to Cryptology? We never fully developed or embraced IO/IW anyway (with the exception of CNO)....

Anonymous said...

The whole Information Dominance thing is over cooked and silly. Titles and labels should provide clarity, not fog the terrain. Go back to Cryptology!

Anonymous said...

Using the term 'cryptology' is clarifing??!!... lol ... Can you find a live 'cryptologist' that actually did/does cryptology. (Look up cryptology in a dictionary before you respond)

Gary Olivi said...

@ Anon 3:47. If you are in the Maryland area feel free to contact me. Would be happy to show you cryptology in action that is being performed from both Navy cryptologists and Civilian cryptologists. Lots of great work being done by cryptologists who are alive.

Anonymous said...

What? rename the 1810 community back to Cryptology? really? Anon@12:08, this comment shows your age. wake up!

Gary, I can't disagree with you that we might still do Cryptologic work n the Navy...but this reference no longer describes the core of the IW Community. Are you in MD? go do a survey of how many IW officers do Cryptology?...not many.

I wonder how much Cryptology does ADM Rogers and Tighe do? I bet that 90% of the issues nowadays in the IW Community has to do with Cyber. Intel + comms == Cyber. it's a domain since 2010, in case you all been in a cave sleeping.

You don't have to be programmer to be part of cyber...even most of the dam signals that we received, get converted to IP packets at some points nowadays.

I think that we need to embrace change, and look ahead to the future. Change is always hard, and many people will fight it because is unknown and our of their comfort zone.

Please, let the "Cryptology" term rest in peace. This is not what we do anymore....it's time for change!

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 10:09 PM

Intel + comms = cyber

WTF, who taught you how to add?

Anonymous said...

Anon @10:09,

Your acerbic tone and comments provide some insight on your ability to engage in mature debate.

Regarding my comments at 12:08.... Yes, I show my age in that I was a "Cryppie" for many years before we shifted to "IW." Aside from that, you missed (or perhaps I wasn't clear in getting across) my underlying point. The title of the thread is "Navy messaging on cryptology continues..." Why are we tiptoeing around our community's name, functions, and/or future? Why do we need to execute a "messaging" campaign to shift away from our current "IW" title? About two years ago, a document was produced and disseminated entitled "Cryptologic Community Foundational Principles" - and it was signed by ALL NINE of our Flags at the time (seven Active and Reserve Admirals, plus our two Senior Executive Service civilians). So why are we still formally designated as "IW"? I see this as a "say-do gap" within our community. The document lists our core competencies as SIGINT, CNO, and EW. Does that group of functions correlate to "Cryptology"? To "IW"? To "Cyber"? To something else? You could argue for any of them. My point is simply that the community's vision/mission must be clearly articulated and then all "messaging" (to include the title of our community; the title of our commands; how resources are divided among our functions; etc.) should be fully aligned to that vision. I proudly support any title, as long as we are internally and externally aligned. We're not there right now.

Anonymous said...

We are in the process of transforming into the 'IDC'. Can you accept some ambiguity as we figure out what that means?

Anonymous said...

You may want to start another thread about the five tribes...


Anonymous said...

If we merge the various officer community's into a single Information Dominance Corps, and possibly become URL officers in the process, what should our new title become?

Some have argued that IW would have been a great new title, but now others in the IDC perceive it as an 1810 thing. Guess we jumped the gun on that one.

Before you accuse me of reaching too far, allow me to point out that the flag officers have already merged into the 1860 IDC flags.

Anonymous said...

Based on the Federal News Radio article linked above, it appears that our new TYCOM will be named the IDFC or Information Dominance Forces Command.

So, all indications at this point seem to indicate that we might become ID officers. \\\

For the latest on Cryptanalysis, check out this article.