Slashdot Mirror
FBI Delays Computer-System Contract
Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "The FBI postponed until 2006 the awarding of a huge computer-overhaul contract, gun-shy after a $170 million failed first effort, the Wall Street Journal reports: 'Much is riding on the project's success. Congress and other overseers pilloried the FBI for its reliance on paper records, forms and file cabinets. The FBI only last year completed the rollout of the Internet to its agents and analysts. And even though the bureau installed a computerized case-management system in the mid-1990s, it relied largely on aging, less-agile technology to do so. And it did little to eliminate the department's notorious number of paper forms -- currently numbering more than 1,000.'"
Government Pork: not just for defense contractors anymore!
They also largely eliminated kidnapping-for-ransom because they have a 100% rate of catching criminals in those cases.
They are the numero-uno agency in charge kidnapping cases, and are very very good at it.
Besides, without them criminals could play hopscotch and avoid effecting law enforcement by skipping across state lines.
Wait, I thought we WANTED them using yesterday's technology and losing efficiency to it? Remember, these are the folks who spy on our emails, who can perform searches without warrants nowadays... we want them at least two steps behind the citizenry.
wasn't something put in with the patriot-act that dumped money in the fbi for a huge database overhall. something to enable crosschecks between agencies. if i'm not wrong, what else are they in need of updating?
I think I just cashed out all my cool points.
Actually, when the FBI started, they were not a police force. FBI agents were not allowed to carry guns, and the FBI was largely a small agency used to coordinate local police forces investigations for crime that crossed state borders. If the FBI was downsized to it's very limited non-law-enforcement role, it would arguably be constitutional.
It's good to know those forms will now be scanned in and turned into 1,000 PDFs. That should lead to an enormous increase in efficiency.
When I watched The X-Files 10 years ago I thought: "this is bullshit, the government is way to incompetent for that kind of stuff".
These kind of screwups are very effective conspiracykillers...
It really is amazing that they can spend that kind of money and have nothing to show for it... All the while, they're hunting criminals trying to screw the government - sounds like they should look inside.
Jerry
http://www.cyvin.org/
Don't Americans have the CIA, the IRS, the Military, MiB and others to deal with?
Yes, there is a covert agency who get jiggy with it whilst protecting the earth from the scum of the universe.
liqbase
We don't need to have every database cross checked. All we need is one FBI database for the dangerous criminals, the murderers and corporate criminals. Before long, states will check other states databases for minor criminal offenses. I'll give one example- try getting a job as a realtor. Arkansas will check their database to see if anyone is behind on payments for state guarenteed loans (like school loans). If you are, Arkansas will not give you a license. Oklahoma has the same law. What will happen the way the system is now, is the guy from Arkansas will move to Oklahoma and get a job there. By having every state cross check every other state, people will not be allowed to start over. Maybe Joe Sixpack went to State U, ran himself into $40,000 in debt, and feels he can never overcome such a large amount of debt.
Or what about minor crimes? What if someone at the age of 20 decided to join the Alabama KKK? That person never broke a crime, just went to protests and meetings. At age 24 the person quits, and two years later moves to New York. Should New York know about his prior membership because of some anti-terrorism database? I know what everyone is thinking, the KKK is bad, so screw that person. I'll give a counter example, same facts as above, but instead of KKK the person is a member of PETA where his cohorts raid a university research center and free test animals.
Are we still a free nation, or a nation where everyone has a history stored in a database?
What is going to happen is some start-up in Cali will offer a service, checking a person through every state and FBI database. Once that becomes profitable, forget about ever trying to get a job for more than minimum wage if you have a blemish on your record. It will be the same thing employers are doing with checking credit reports before hiring workers.
We need less databases, and more privacy laws.
Seriously. It looks like they are stonewalling for MSFT.
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
This was on a sign outside a town in a game I played once and I really liked it:
"Stranger, obey our laws. We have both swords and shovels and doubt anyone would miss you."
Frankly, I think that's how we ought to handle crimnals that move about. I do see a need for Federal agents for things like Immigration. Instead of disbanding the FBI completely, let's just transfer the funding and field agents to "La Migra" & the Customs Service. That ought to give us a nice handle in controlling illegal immigration, looking for terrorists trying to sneak into the country, people trying to smuggle goods, etc. which is basically what the FBI was supposed to be doing in the first place.
2 cents,
Queen B
HDGary secures my bank
The U.S. Constitution has no provision for a federal police force, in fact, it is very against a federal military to be used against the state's citizens
"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"
"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;"
"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
The FBI is an extenstion (specifically the enforcement arm) of the Department of Justice. It is needed for interstate legal issues, that are unable to be covered by individual states (eg wire fraud).
What is the solution for "policing" interstate offense? Primarily it should be left to the individual cities. Offer private security companies to create a secondary network to allow police stations to communicate. The systems are there.
The Constitution specifically addresses interstate issues by placing them under the jurisdiction of the Federal government. You can't just assign them to individual states or municipalities
The great thing about dumping the FBI's powers into the local level is that every citizen can monitor what their government is spending and doing. The FBI hides behind official securities regulations, and the FOIA doesn't help
Because trying to coordinate things would be a disaster. Try running a kidnapping or mail fraud investigation across several states, where each state has to provide resources for the investigation pertaining to their particular state. So instead of one group freely travelling across state lines investigating the issue, you're trying to coordinate multiple groups all with limited knowledge of the evidence.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
Years ago I arrived on Frankfurt airport on a flight from Bangkok. On arrival, it turned out that the local computer systems responsible for running all the gate assignments and platform traffic were down, and were not going to be up in the comming hours. As it turns out, the local airport staff had a complete paper based system in place still and managed to keep the place running with relatively little delay, thanks to tons of paper forms, and an obviously well thought out system that worked regardless of those computers (tho it is probably a lot cheaper and more efficient to run it with computers of course)
In other words, if your system is simply too complex to manage then you may have a problem right there. Throwing computer power at it to better keep track is no alternative to thinking up a better system, it is just a good tool for making it more efficient.
Of course using a more efficient system opens up new possibilities, thats not the point, but no number of computers is going to reduce 1000 forms to a more managable number by itself.
Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
From the article: With a wide variety of investigations, the FBI must be able to collect and store information in several different systems -- top secret, secret, classified, and sensitive but unclassified -- and any given document might contain information that falls into all four categories. Thus, the new system needs strict security controls to prevent information from falling into the wrong hands...
This is a big complicated system" because of the variety of issues the FBI investigates...
High complexity and the need for utmost security is the ideal combination for monumental failure, IMO. The problem with security is not the lack of adequate secure technology. Current techniques do work, otherwise our electronic commerce would have collapsed already. The problem is that hackers and ennemy spies will try to find ways of getting around the security barriers by exploiting defects in the underlying software. Since the number of defects in a software system is proportional to its complexity, there is no doubt that the system's security will be compromised at one time or another. It makes no difference who develops it.
A network's security is thus intimately tied to the reliability and robustness of the network's software. Security companies have no way of guaranteeing that the various software modules used in their systems are defect-free. This uncertainty is the Achilles' heel of the security industry. The solution is to move away from algorithmic software and adopt a non-algorithmic, signal-based, synchronous software model.
How, exactly would that have helped?
"FBI switchboard operator."
"Yes, hello, I need to talk to someone in counterterrorism...?"
"One moment, I'll connect you." *BEEP BOOP BOOP*
"Counterterrorism task force, this is agent Smith, how may I help you?"
"Yeah, this is Mark Chambers with the INS. I'm calling about this guy, Mohammed Atta. He's applied for a visa for flight school, but he keeps raving about jihad and the Great Satan. You know anything about this guy?"
"Maybe. I'll have to look through some files. If you leave your address, I can put together a packet and FedEx it to you. Shouldn't take more than a week."
"A week!"
"Yeah, well, I've got to file the pink half of an A-21 form with the Records office to get access to his file. Then Cheryl will have to check if we've got a file on this guy, plus cross-check any aliases he might have, but Cheryl's out sick today. She should be back Tuesday. Anyway, once Cheryl finds his file, I've got to review it for anything important. Sometimes the guys get sloppy and they leave classified stuff in these files, and I can't very well ship that to some INS guy I don't even know, can I?" *chuckles* "But that's just his main file; those aren't updated with the recent stuff. So after that I have to go to Intelligence Gathering and give them the canary copy of the A-21 with them, and they'll look for anything recent we've picked up about your guy on the wires. And then, I have to Xerox his file, right, and then I send the copy to you. Sorry I can't FAX it; machine's broke. Anyway, I get like fifteen of these a day, and I've got a backlog right now. Cheryl's been sick since last Thursday, see. So give me a good week."
"...okay...um, nevermind...look, I'm sure this Atta guy's okay, just fooling around. Don't bother."
The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
I guess it will have to go back to the "Unexplained" category because there will be no use for filing cabnets.
The U-Files just isn't as catchy.
Reads like a classic project failure, with the classic failed project start: It was managed by someone who created "their own" database. i.e. A manager who thinks he knows better than the experts being hired, who overrides their estimates and recommendations, and who blows off any technical issues they raise because he "did it himself" in less time with an underpowered single-user tool.
I've worked on three similar projects -- only one succeeded. The one success was because the manager in question got yanked half way through and there was still enough time for a competent manager to be hired who'd let the team do their job properly.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.