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

The culture is slow to change

[OakDragon]

I didn't know what to call it, so I just said 'culture.' We could call it defense, we could call it homeland security.

The culture for so long has been so immersed in expensive, bulky solutions, it will change slowly if at all. The government just doesn't feel right unless their dealing with a huge company and huge expenses. For one thing, in a way it justifies politicians existence to the voters. "Hey, look how much we're spending on security!" And truth to tell, there may be other dangers in dealing with smaller, nimbler companies.

On a lighter note, I thought this was amusing:

Whether it's nuke detection technology at ports, computer automated wiretapping and data traffic snooping, or massive government data mining operations...

I know that geeks, /.ers in particular, are lining up to work with the government on wiretapping!

Not the right approach

[Anonymous Coward]

I still think the US should simply pull it's military out of the world and make peace and free trade instead of trying to employ everyone with FUD and wars. It's so much cheaper and simpler.

Here's a dose of reality

[AnyLoveIsGoodLove]

Although I agree with the basic premise that government can learn a lot from start ups small businesses, here's what life's like around the beltway.

Note: I work for a consulting firm based out of the DC area. We have a combination of commercial and Federal / Public sector clients

From the small business side:

You can't imagine the procurement requirements and overhead costs to do business in the Federal sector. Here are some examples:

1) FSO - Security officer to manage the clearances of your employees and company. Can't live with out it
2) Contract Vehicles - GSA Schedules are expensive to maintain or outsource.
3) Contracting Officers - Specialist who deal with government Contracting Officers.
4) Low Rates - Combined with the large overhead requirements above, is a problem. Trying finding competent technical help in DC.
5) Accounts Receivable that can stretch to 180 days without blinking.
6) Can't leverage commerical sales, must hire a dedicated sales force that understands the market.

Again for the big beltway bandits, these are small overhead items, but for a 150 person company, these are significant line items.

From the Government Side:

1) Risk adverse. If you screw up a small project or procurement, you could wind up on the cover of the Washington post. Not a good place to be if you're a GS12 bureaucrat waiting for your GS13.
2) Insane Budget Cycles: If you don't use it you lose it. There's a reason why so much gets done in late August / September around DC.
3) Preference for the "usual suspects" like Lockheed, Booz Allen, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Unisys, Titan etc. With items one and two, why try a new small untested company. Many companies around the beltway have gone out of business and screwed the gov. At least you know they are not going any where.
4) Compliance requirements that make SarbOX look like child's play.

That's just a small hint at the problems with doing business with the federal governement. I sure the UK or other Western Countries have the same issues. ...... but......why might you ask do companies invest at the end of the day....?

There are not too many super enterprises that release contracts on a multi-year basis. Once you get over the moat, you are in.

(Flamebait ;)

[DoofusOfDeath]

What Silicon Valley Can Do For Homeland Security

Not vote Republican? ;)

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.

Re:but that's not the point

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Especially since the most effective anti-terrorist technique is to infiltrate the terrorists, which is cheap and doesn't compromise the rights of the innocent.