In Depth interviews – June 19

This is the In Depth show blog. Here you can listen to the interviews, find more information about the guests on the show each day and links to additional resources.

Today’s guests:

Earl DevaneyFormer chairman, Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board

If agencies shone a little more light on how funding is spent, they could save billions.

But learning where to shine that light to better detect fraud will require changing how your agency thinks about improper payments.

Earl Devaney, the former chairman of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board and now a senior adviser at Reznick Government, discusses the right mindset agencies need to have to not only detect fraud but prevent it.

Think tank points to valuable Recovery Act lessons (related story)

Tom ShoopEditor-in-Chief, Government Executive

It’s no secret public opinion of public servants is low. President Barack Obama has said he’s on a mission to make the government cool again. But that might have to wait for a possible second term.

Tom Shoop, the editor-in-chief of Government Executive magazine, writes in a blog post Obama hasn’t quite succeeded in upping the government’s coolness factor.

Catherine LotrionteExecutive Director, Institute for Law, Science and Global Security, Georgetown University

(Photo: <a href="" target="_blank"></a>)

Stuxnet and Flame are getting lumped into the same category — as viruses that harm computers, software and data.

But the two pieces of software are different, experts say, because Stuxnet was an actual cyber weapon, whereas Flame was an espionage tool.

Catherine Lotriante, the executive director of the Institute for Law, Science and Global Security at Georgetown University, discusses the difference between a cyber attack and cyber espionage — from both a legal and defense perspective.

This story is part of Federal News Radio’s daily Cybersecurity Update. For more cybersecurity news, click here.

Benjamin FriedmanResearch fellow, Cato Institute

(Courtesy Cato Institute)

Across-the-board mandatory cuts have a lot of people on edge, especially those who work closely with the Defense Department. But some of the rhetoric could be overblown, says Benjamin Friedman, a research fellow in defense and homeland security studies at the Cato Institute

In a commentary, Friedman and co-author Veronique de Rugy write that sequestration “prevents intelligence spending cuts.” However, that doesn’t necessarily mean there isn’t room for DoD to make smarter ones.

This story is part of Federal News Radio’s daily DoD Report brought to you by United Health Military and Veterans Services. For more defense news, click here.

READ MORE: Analysis: DoD needs to slice budget with or without sequestration

Analysis: Sequestration would drive contractors over ‘fiscal cliff’ (related story)

Also on the show:

Officials from the departments of Defense and Energy testified last week before the Senate Armed Services Committee’s subcommittee on emerging threats and capabilities. Lawmakers heard testimony on the departments’ proliferation prevention programs and their FY 2013 budgets.

Malware disguised as security app poses threats to Androids

X-37B ends 15-month secret mission