Did MS Lobbying Stop NSA Work On SELinux?

inquisitive points to this CNET story on how George Wash Univ. may help Linux gain certification under the Common Criteria, certification required for software to be used in some sensitive government roles. In the same story, though, is an interesting quote from another effort at bringing GPL'd software to the public sector: "'We didn't fully understand the consequences of releasing software under the GPL (General Public License),' said Dick Schafer, deputy director of the NSA. 'We received a lot of loud complaints regarding our efforts with SE Linux.'" Sources familiar with events said that aggressive Microsoft lobbying efforts have contributed to a halt on any further work. 'Microsoft was worried that the NSA's releasing open-source software would compete with American proprietary software,' said a source familiar with the complaints against the NSA who asked not to be identified."

Comments

It's a new concept...

[Demon-Xanth]

...called competition.
'Microsoft was worried that the NSA's releasing open- source software would compete with American proprietary software,'

Apparantly MS is worried that it'll catch on.

Re:It's a new concept...

[paladin_tom]

The issue here that made the U.S. government listen is that the "open-source software would compete with American proprietary software." The article states clearly that "Many complaints criticized the agency for providing the fruits of research to everyone, not just U.S. companies, and thus hurting American business."

This is another example of American government's actions being fuelled by a desire to help American businesses to the detriment of individual freedom, similar to the DCMA.

If I were a rich man.....

[bogie]

It wouldn't surprise me and goes in line with their current effort of "advising" the government on how linux is evil. Remember Corel dropping linux? Yes the linux desktop was a tough market, but really there is no doubt it was a quid pro quo transaction.

Also what's with MS giving its software away for Free to a different government every week? Its a clear pattern designed to make sure noone can possibly compete. How are they even allowed to do this? I mean its not like they are some cash strapped competitor with no market share looking to get an edge. They are a convicted monopolist who somehow continues to walk between the raindrops and "get away with murder" right out in the open!

"American"?

[Wolfier]

Have anyone noticed this buzzword used by every Microsoft lobbying effort after 9/11 just to trying to give the probably fake impression of Microsoft being "patriotic"?

Somebody has to wake up.

Re:Government competition

[EvilTwinSkippy]

I refute your statement thus:

First - there is no product from Microsoft that is in direct competition. There will be no product for the forseeable future.

Second - The NSA would require the source code for whatever system in deploys. It would have to component test all of the subsystems, and ensure that no new bugs are introduced with new features. This flies in the face of the Upgrade Early, Upgrade Often mentalility an M$. (NASA users 486's in the space program, not to be cheap, but because they are a known quantity.)

Third - What the government produces, all competitors share equally. What microsoft produces, it keeps to itself.

Re:No.

[FreeUser]

Shouldn't it be the other way around?

No.

Correct. The NSA shouldn't be telling anyone what to do. Their mandate is to collect information and provide security advice to other agencies and, where authorized, the private sector. They are not a governing body. Ditto on the last sentence for the FBI, the CIA, and various other black-op agencies running around grabbing people out of their homes in the middle of the night and confiscating their material wealth without due process in the name of the ongoing War on [insert your favorite cause here].

On who pays the fiddler orders the tune..

Only partially correct. If we truly believe in democracy and "one person, one vote", then the amount of influence we wield on our government should be proportional to the number of people we represent, not the amount of taxes we pay or, more commonly, the quantity of bribes, relabelled "campaign contributions" we stuff into the pockets of our so-called representatives.

But, even if it were 100% correct that the amount of taxes we pay should dictate the amoutn of influence we wield on our government, it should be pointed out that Microsoft almost never declares a profit on their tax returns (last year it was a 19 cent/share loss IIRC, as for tax purposes they do report those stock options which, conviniently, don't appear on the SEC filings), so Microsoft actually doesn't pay any taxes at all.

Given your reasoning, I should have much more influence on the NSA than Microsoft does. Unfortunately, that is not the case and one of the main reasons, perhaps the main reason, that democracy in the United States is falling to pieces.

To serve and protect whom?

[Dan Crash]

When you think about it, the government's only real job is to defend the rights and freedoms of its citizens.

But wasn't that *exactly* what the NSA was doing by working on Security-Enhanced Linux? Defending your rights and freedoms by making sure the computers on which they depend are more secure? Should they be entrusting this job to corporate America, instead?

Second thing: What should happen to software that the government creates? Should it never be released to the public, left to sit and wallow as a waste of our tax dollars? Aren't we better off by having more choices in the marketplace instead of less?

(Wow -- every sentence a question.)

Re:To serve and protect whom?

[DavidTC]

What the hell is the point of that? The NSA employees hundreds of computer security experts. Outsourcing is possibly the stupidist possible suggestion you could make.

Working on security is half the NSA's job. (The other half being working on encryption.) They chose to work on the security of Linux, because they use it. Because they want to see their changes incorperated into the kernel (So they don't have to keep updating it.), they gave it back to the community. They didn't just decide to start a computer programming business for no reason, they want security in their OSes and they use Linux. (Possibly because that's code they know doesn't have backdoors.)

This isn't the NSA trying to compete with MS, this is the NSA trying to make things simpler for itself by putting security, as default, in the OS it uses, so it doesn't have to patch the source each time, and more people will look at the code and find mistakes. (The NSA doesn't fall for security though obscurity. They are well aware the best way to make something security is to hand a copy to a million people and ask them to break it.)

infrastructure

[SethJohnson]

Therefore, when the government interferes with free enterprise, it's interfering with the rights of its citizens.

By providing a free operating system, the US govt. is NOT 'interfering with the rights of its citizens any more than:

1. The public libraries interfere with the private bookstores' rights.
2. Police officers interfere with private security firms' rights.
3. Public water fountains interfere with bottled water vendors' rights.
4. Free public skateparks threaten private Van's-owned parks.

I think it's high-time the US govt. supported an open-source OS project. Though backwards in its perspective on human rights, China is lightyears ahead in its thinking on this subject. If we had a national open-source OS that was used in every government office and available to citizens for free, it would be a dozen times more powerful of a punishment than any wrist-slapping the DOJ is going to give to MS for it's anti-trust crimes.

Seth

Not the whole story....

[giminy]

I sort of work on SE Linux. Our group is unsponsored by the NSA (thus far). Since we are unofficially working on it, though, we hear birds chatter sometimes. The rumor mill around our office has been saying that it is not the case that Microsoft has done anything. What happened? A party, whose name shan't be mentioned, because we have not been told their name (we shall call them the Party), was given an SE Linux contract by the NSA. The NSA it seems didn't understand the GPL so well (or some lawyer of theirs who hammered out the contract didn't). The NSA contract said that the Party working on the contract could have propietary code, and could patent ideas used to achieve goals on the project. Much work was done on SE Linux in the mean time by the Party, but patents/etc are held on certain parts of the code by the Party, and therefore cannot be released under GPL. The quotes you see in this article heading make perfect sense to me in this context. The NSA didn't understand the GPL. And yeah, I would complain too if I couldn't have the complete source to my kernel...

Yes I hate Microsoft, but this article is kind of ridiculous...it uses some vague quote to make microsoft look bad. This is not the way to win the war.