What Silicon Valley Can Do For Homeland Security

An anonymous reader writes "Small, agile development firms are just what security in the United States needs, argues an article on Ars Technica. The piece compares the processes used in small Silicon Valley firms to those used in security contractors retained by the U.S. Government. Mr. Stokes' conclusion? The U.S. has a lot to learn from small companies." From the article: "Whether it's nuke detection technology at ports, computer automated wiretapping and data traffic snooping, or massive government data mining operations, our present approach to homeland security is embodied for me in those 14-foot pillars: ponderous, expensive technologies designed by government-funded teams of scientists who're working in vain to outmaneuver not just the terrorists, but the surging global market for technological innovation in which those terrorists thrive. By way of contrast, the Sandia group's DIY nuke detector represents an attempt to fight fire with fire by harnessing the same market forces and entrepreneurial spirit that terrorists have learned to use so effectively."

Comments

yay

[jt418-93]

so now i can code to oppress. yay.

dhs = stasi. not something i really want to support.

i am against secret courts, secret searches and secret police.

i had my chane to code for the gov back in the 90's. i said pass then, i'll pass now.

It's a flawed bueracracy.

[Skynet]

One of the reasons I left government contracting for the commercial software development world.

Government is more interested in your CMMI level (another flawed system but I'll leave that for another discussion) and how many PhD's your company has than the quality of your work and agility of your team.

WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

"...attempt to fight fire with fire by harnessing the same market forces and entrepreneurial spirit that terrorists have learned to use so effectively."

Market forces? Terrorists haven't harnessed any market forces or entrepreneurial spirit! Our Western governments have already lost this so called "war on terror" by sailing our freedoms down the river on the basis that we are all supposed to be terribly afraid! That's the whole point of "terrorism"!! Al'qaida/Taliban/Eye-raq-ees/Space Monkeys won the moment we changed our way of life in direct response to their actions.

but that's not the point

[oohshiny]

The article makes the implicit assumption that the purpose of "homeland security" is actually to reduce our risk of getting injured or killed, but that is evidently not its purpose; it's trivial to see that we could save far more lives per dollar spent by improving traffic safety and preventive health care and just maintain pre-9/11 security. Even if the rate of terrorist attacks ended up being several per year, we'd still be saving far more lives that way.

So, if the purpose of "homeland security" is not actually to save lives, what is it? It's fairly simple: to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the population in order to induce them to vote for certain politicians. After all, what better way to induce FUD in people than to humiliate them when they travel anywhere in the name of security and remind them constantly that they could be blown up at any minute? 9/11 and the terrorist scare was godsent for an administration that had no direction, no plan, no leadership, and no clue. I don't want to suggest that this is a carefully planned strategy of the administration, but when 9/11 happened, Bush had found his calling--raving against the "axis of evil" and terrorists simply doesn't require much intelligence or strategy. Of course, a secondary purpose of "homeland security" is that it's a great pretext to funnel taxpayer money from the government to just those "big, ponderous" companies the article is criticizing.

So, arguing about whether homeland security is well-implemented is pointless if the purpose of homeland security is to be "big, ponderous" and wasteful in the first place.

What people should be talking about is what the point of homeland security as-we-know-it is in the first place. There were doubtlessly some straightforward and overdue changes to airline security that should have been implemented after 9/11, but two wars, hundreds of billions of dollars, and a dismantling of our constitutional rights are going to far.

Should Do Vs. Can Do

[edward.virtually@pob]

What they should do is refuse to assist in improving computer automated wiretapping and data traffic snooping, [and] massive government data mining operations. That the methods "Homeland Security" uses to violate our rights) are currently ponderous, expensive technologies designed by government-funded teams is a good thing for the safety of our democracy.

The borg: "You will assist us."
Hue: "I will not assist you."

Re:Prevent versus Correct

[Grishnakh]

The ONLY way to avoid terrorism is to prevent it. And the way you do that is you find the reason that moves the terrorists in the first place and find a way to remove internal popular support for that sort of action.

Of course, to take another page from even older European history, there's another way to deal with terrorism, and that's the way the Romans dealt with their enemies. When Carthage become a real thorn in Rome's side, they attacked, killed most of the people in the city, sold the rest into slavery, destroyed the city, salted their fields, etc. Utter annihilation. They weren't too kind when their gladiators revolted either, crucifying them all along the main road.

Not that I'm advocating such a course of action, but it is another viable method of dealing with enemies. In fact, I think that this method, and your method, are the only viable ways of dealing with terrorism. The current methods certainly aren't working. If we're not willing to take things to that extent I described, I think we have to do something along the lines of your examples.

Re:The culture is slow to change

[jafac]

The problem is;
Small companies, with "lightweight" processes have traditionally been used as fronts for fraud and waste (a.k.a. "war-profiteering"). (example: ex-Senator Cunningham's dealings with "small contractor" MZM, or Shirlington Limousine, etc.)

With the implicit oversight involved with larger corporations (who tend to shun smaller contracts), this kind of fraud is less likely (though clearly not impossible - see Boeing's tanker-leasing deal). These large, established corporations tend to have established reputations they'd like to protect.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all small companies are red flags for fraud, and I'm not saying all large companies are 100% safe. I'm saying that established oversight and processes common to large companies and larger contracts tend to weed-out the most common fraudulent practices.