Slashdot Mirror
The FBI Software Upgrade That Wasn't
Davemania writes "Washington Post reports that the FBI's attempt to modernize their department has once again failed. The 170 million dollar Virtual case File system, the agency's second attempt to go paperless is reported to be useless. The finger seems to be pointing at the FBI leadership, greedy contractors and bad software management." From the article: "It appeared to work beautifully. Until Azmi, now the FBI's technology chief, asked about the error rate. Software problem reports, or SPRs, numbered in the hundreds, Azmi recalled in an interview. The problems were multiplying as engineers continued to run tests. Scores of basic functions had yet to be analyzed. 'A month before delivery, you don't have SPRs,' Azmi said. 'You're making things pretty. . . . You're changing colors.'"
I love helping you /.ers out. Instead of spending painstaking hours clicking thru multiple page news stories, I sit here and quickly provide you with printer friendly links
And that is how you get rich doing work for the government. The government agency comes up with a half-assed plan, you put in a low bid, they accept and start handing you checks, and you make things look pretty, all the while hiding the flaws. In then end, you've become rich, the goverment runs a deficit, and the American taxpayer foots the bill.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
y'know, when the FBI finally goes up against the Supreme Court
Actually, all the unconstitutional crap is being done by the NSA. The FBI got warrents (over 120) through the FISA courts for every single aspect of the British plane bombers investigation that they participated in.
which goes to prove that the NSA warrentless program is utterly unnecessary to stopping terrorism.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
Spit.
The trouble with project managers (and security people) is that they have a checklist mentality.
PM: Have you done this as yet.
You: No, there is no need for it
PM: But I need to get it checked off on my plan
You: It shouldn't be on the plan in the first place
PM: But it is on the plan, so I need to get it checked off. When are you going to do it.
And so on.
Rereading the summary, the submitter has it wrong - "FBI's attempt to modernize their department has once again failed" implies that Sentinel has failed - which is definitely not the content of the article. Even the snippet quoted is about VCF having problems, not Sentinel.
According to the Google Search Appliance FAQ, it will index PDF. Of course, that'll only work where PDF is comprised of text documents instead of images.
From the original post: the FBI's attempt to modernize their department has once again failed
Failed once again? The article (you have to read the whole thing) says it's on track.
The article is 90% about the Virtual Case File system ("built" by SAIC) and it's eventual demise in early 2005, almost 2 years ago. At the end, they discuss the FBI's replacement for VCF, saying:
"Last year, FBI officials announced a replacement for VCF, named Sentinel, that is projected to cost $425 million and will not be fully operational until 2009. A temporary overlay version of the software, however, is planned for launch next year. The project's main contractor, Lockheed Martin Corp., will be paid $305 million and will be required to meet benchmarks as the project proceeds. FBI officials say Sentinel has survived three review sessions and is on budget and on schedule."
I am a defense contractor, Defense Financial Manager.
.sig) other than the exagerations by the reporter. It could be a case of a badly written contract that the government accepted, but if the terms for payment were met then nobody is on the hook for the money, but should be losing their job.
Actually, the funds are someone's money. The Contracting Officers are legally "on-the-hook" for the things they sign for. If they authorize payment for something that was not delivered and the government does not get it's money back, then they are supposed to be liable for the money they released.
If they continue working for the government a payment schedule is arranged and they have money deducted from their salary. If they get any other money from the government (ex:retirement) that is used toward the debt.
The rules over here at DoD tend to be much more strict than at other agencies, contrary to what some in the media would lead you to believe.
I hear that one of the problems now, with non DoD activities, is that there are not many prosecutions going on for that sort of thing. Also, the way these stories are written, there may not have been any wrongdoing at all (check my
In my case, since I am just a contractor and not a government officer, in this role, (in another position I am sometimes in uniform for the Reserves) I am never on the hook for the agency funds, but my customer is and if his error is due to my doing bad work then I am at risk of losing my job, which can happen with no notice.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
full disclosure: I wrote the "Who Killed the Virtual Case File" story for Spectrum, which ran last September.
Here's some more food for thought about the "reporting" behind the FBI story:
What's the news angle that warrants front page attention in the Post? That the Post reporters obtained the "unreleased" Aerospace report? Not news: the report was released to Spectrum at the end of April after nine months of litigating a Freedom of Information Act Request.
All the Post reporters had to do was google "virtual case file" and voila! the story pops up as number 1, right there for them to rewrite!
But say they are too lazy to bother googling. They just want the summary. The Spectrum article is the basis for the Wikipedia Entry on the Virtual Case File and the only external link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Case_File
The Spectrum article was the first and until the Post article, the only one to mention Matthew Patton, who was unearthed by dint of investigative reporting nowhere acknowledged in the Post article.
The Post article purports to turn a spotlight on SAIC, in part by quoting David Kay, the Iraq weapons inspector, who was a former SAIC VP--but who had absolutely no firsthand knowledge of the VCF project.
The Post article uncritcally takes FBI CIO Azmi's word that the follow up project Sentinel is on-budget and on-time, when other news outlets have recently reported about a growing sense within the FBI that this project is doomed to a fate similar to the VCF's.
This is how big government projects *should* be done. Hire a good contractor, set a minimum and then give bonuses for good performance and penalties for bad. Did the final tally cost a lot in bonuses? Yes. Was it worth it? Yes- they fixed a major problem in amazing time and did it correctly, plus they had a bunch of blue-collar folks make serious coin working triple time, all of which got plowed back into the local economy.
You can argue it wasn't on budget due to the bonuses, but it was assumed from the beginning they'd be paying out. Since the daily economic loss to LA was higher than the daily bonus for finishing early, I'd argue it was actually under budget.
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
Actually, Susan is my boss, but I'm going to assume you paid attention to where I indicated that in my original post, and are addressing your comments rhetorically. For the record Susan's been in journalism for decades, is a frequent judge for journalism awards, lectured at NYU's journalism school, etc, etc., and been the EIC of Spectrum for over six years. So drop the patronizing smarm. Finding your own angle on a story that's going around is one thing: failing to give adequate attribution is another, and is violation of, e.g., the Washington Post's ethics policy:
... It is the policy of this newspaper to give credit to other publications that develop exclusive stories worthy of coverage by The Post.
Attribution of material from other newspapers and other media must be total.
Certainly, for example, digging up Matthew Patton was an element of the VCF story that was exclusive to Spectrum's coverage, as Patton had not appeared in other media outlets before or since Spectrum's coverage until today.
Even when publications are chasing the same story, when one publication gets something unique it is normal to see lines such as "As first reported in the New York Times..." etc in stories in other outlets. A similar attribution in passing in the text was all that would have been required: instead the only attempt at attribution by the Post article is buried in the credits list for the accompanying timeline graphic, where the "Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers" is credited as a source, which is a) insufficient and b) wrong (the source was "IEEE Spectrum Magazine". Crediting the IEEE is like crediting General Electric for information taken from a "Today Show" segment.)
As a concrete example, let's look at the recent Sony-BMG DRM rootkit controversy. I did a story on that, interviewing many of the people involved, people who got interviewed by a lot of media outlets at the same time, but when I found a nugget that had been exclusivey reported by one other news outlet--a video of a DHS offcial talking to a local buisiness group about the issue--I gave credit where credit where was due. To the Washington Post in fact: "One party that cares is the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which includes cybersecurity as part of its portfolio. On 10 November, as reported by the Washington Post, Stewart Baker, assistant secretary for homeland security, made a pointed reference to the Sony BMG protection system..." [Emphasis added]
Speaking personally as someone who hires freelancers, and who's been a staff journalist and editor for somewhat more than a week myself, if your post is indicative of your grasp of the ethical standards of journalism, you can be sure this is one editor who wouldn't call on your abilities as a stringer, or anything else.
"Just once, I'd like to meet an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets." -- The Brigadier, Dr. Who