Apple has tapped security expert and author David Rice to be its director of global security, several sources have confirmed to me. He’s expected to start at Apple in March.

Apple hasn’t returned calls seeking comment.

There’s no word yet about what precisely Rice’s job will entail, and knowing secrecy-obsessed Apple, there likely won’t be. But it’s not hard to make a reasonable guess.

With iPhones and iPads penetrating the enterprise in ever more impressive numbers, companies want to know they’re secure.

Late last year Apple started working with Unisys to help it sell Apple products to corporations and government agencies, all of which are concerned about the security implications of iPhones and iPads running on their networks.

Those who know Rice describe him as a deeply respected name in IT security circles who not only can speak the kind of language that makes CIOs comfortable, but can also back up that language with the skills and knowledge to match.

Rice hasn’t yet responded to my messages seeking comment, but his bio is fascinating. He’s a 1994 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and has a master’s degree in Information Warfare and Systems Engineering from the Naval Postgraduate School. He served as a Global Network Vulnerability analyst for the National Security Agency and as a Special Duty Cryptologic officer for the Navy.

His LinkedIn profile says he’s executive director of the Monterey Group, a cybersecurity consulting firm. He’s also on the faculty of IANS, an information security research company.

He also works with the U.S. Cyber Consequences Unit, a nonprofit organization that researches the potential for cyber attacks and their impact. Before that he worked for the security firm Neohapsis.

His 2007 book, “Geekonomics,” has been described as the software industry’s equivalent of Ralph Nader’s “Unsafe at Any Speed.” In it he argues that software is modern infrastructure–just like a bridge (hence, the picture on the cover)– and if it’s poorly made or insecure, it constitutes a public hazard.

Those who buy software–consumers, corporations and governments–end up being “crash test dummies” for an industry with no accountability for losses incurred by their customers, he argues.

He goes on to peg the costs of patching faulty software at $180 billion a year, and says that’s probably conservative. Patching software for security weaknesses takes capital that might be used for other, more productive, things.

His solution? Taxes. In a 2008 interview with Forbes, he compared security vulnerabilities in software to the unavoidable pollution emitted by factories. Since software can never be perfect, a “bug tax” keyed to the number and severity of software bugs discovered would create an incentive for better quality control.

Rice would be the latest in a string of high-profile security hires at Apple.

Last March, it hired Window Snyder, the former security chief at Mozilla, as its senior product manager for security, and in 2009 it hired Ivan Krsti?, the former head of security for the One Laptop Per Child project, to work on core security for Mac OS X. Jon Callas, the former CTO of encryption software maker PGP, now a unit of Symantec, joined Apple last year.

The election is not the only event with only days to go–a move in face-off Yahoo and Google are in with the Justice Department over their controversial search advertising partnership will have an outcome, sources close to all sides said, before the next President is chosen.

Thus, I predict news either tomorrow or Monday.

Why? Well, campaign news will surely drown out any attention any development might get, of course.

But, actually, for more obvious reasons: Whoever is elected, the Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust, Thomas Barnett, will be leaving that post sometime after the Nov. 4 election.

Thus, Barnett and his team are likely–after all this noise–to want to take action of some sort before he becomes, in essence, a lame duck.

Of course, it is ironic that, as the clock counts down the last minutes, a regulator not regarded as a very effective trustbuster and who has taken a mostly hands-off attitude toward meddling with businesses, could launch a lawsuit against the most powerful Internet company in the world.

Or not.

Yahoo (YHOO), Google (GOOG) and the Justice Department are still talking, sources said, trying to come to some accommodation.

So, as we wait for the verdict, here’s a short handicap of options:

1. Google and/or Yahoo walk:

It seems far more likely that Google would do this than Yahoo, given its corporate culture is impatient with moving forward illogically (think Spock and you have the right picture of Google’s mindset).

I would imagine Google execs do not want to accept any caps or changes to the deal at all, and might conclude such restrictions make it not as worthwhile.

Yahoo, of course, cannot walk as easily, depending on the deal for revenue and because it must avoid having to then turn to Microsoft (MSFT) to strike a search ad deal from a very prone position.

Thus, Yahoo has to be pulling out all the stops to make something work.

Then again, if a Justice Department lawsuit is the alternative, walking would be the best option.

Prediction: Even odds.

2. Google and Yahoo accept changes:

Whether it be caps or monitoring or forcing Yahoo to strike a similar deal with Microsoft, this option seems like a bad one for the pair, as it hobbles the deal before it even has a chance to be tested.

Plus, the joy of government regulators breathing down your neck 24/7 is, well, priceless, especially after Google CEO Eric Schmidt told regulators he would move forward with or without them.

While Google has now perhaps permanently put the government on notice that is must be more scrutinized than ever going forward with that unfortunate statement, I would be surprised if Google accepted any substantial changes to the deal.

Prediction: If small adjustments, likely. If more, it would be hard to imagine.

3. The Justice Department files a lawsuit:

Ouch. Bad all around.

First, the Justice Department will have a hard time proving this partnership–which has not launched–is damaging. While it is good to have all those nervous advertisers to point to, it will be an uphill slog of a case.

Second, another lawsuit or fight for slap-happy Google? Oh, dear. It just settled the book scanning lawsuit and is still embroiled in a bigger lawsuit with Viacom (VIA) over YouTube copyright infringement. Enough.

Third, a Justice Department lawsuit for Yahoo should be the proverbial straw that breaks Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang’s rule of the company and would get Yahoo stock to the penny-stock level.

Prediction: I witnessed the Microsoft antitrust trial, while working at the Washington Post and I am here to say to all parties involved: Do not go there.

4. Justice waves the deal on through as is:

Wake up, Eric and Jerry, you’ve been dreaming! Also, in this event, the head of Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer would explode.

Prediction: Well, it could happen. Also Ralph Nader could get elected.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

From the folks at Barely Political, whose original Obama Girl video became a political pop phenom, here’s one with Independent Presidential candidate Ralph Nader.

It is done as a spoof on a cheesy sitcom, and it’s oddly sweet to see Nader cracking wise so very badly.

Here’s the video: