Slashdot Mirror


Underfunded NSA Suffers Brownouts

An anonymous reader writes "Almost ten years after the an internal report, and a year after a Baltimore sun story warned that the electrical system at the fort Meade NSA HQ couldn't keep up with the growing electricity demand ... the problem has got worse. The 'NSA has had to resort to partial, rolling brownouts at its computer farms and scheduled power outages and some offices are experiencing significant power disruptions'. NSA director Alexander testified to congress about this problem. It is suggested he wanted to add more than $800 million to the 07 budget. A recent public powerpoint presentation suggested 70% of of all intelligence spending goes to contractors. It also included a graph, without numbers, of this spending. It suggests that US intelligence spending is around $60 billion. An internal survey that showed NSA employees have problems trusting each other."

23 of 198 comments (clear)

  1. They spent it already? by Colin+Smith · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ah well, better get the printing presses running again.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:They spent it already? by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It sounds like the problem is a misallocation of funding, not underfunding.

      If you can power X equipment, then why bother to purchase X+Y equipment before you purchase more power capacity first?

      Having more equipment than you can power is a symptom of spending too much on equipment and not enough on power capacity. It says nothing about whether your total budget is too low or too high.

      Wait, I forgot, we're talking about a government agency. They just assume that any money they mismanage can just be used as justification for an additional funding demand the following year.

      Must be nice to be able to get more money because you totally screwed up spending the last round of funding. Too bad it's us giving them the money.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
  2. Toilet seats by gravos · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think they may have bought one too many $40,000 toilet seats. But this is a serious issue: These brownouts are affecting their ability to spy on us! Something must be done immediately or innocent men may go free.

    1. Re:Toilet seats by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think they may have bought one too many $40,000 toilet seats.

      Regarding government overspending:

      1. If it was a zero G toilet seen and the production run was for a handful of space shuttles and a space station then $40,000 is probably a pretty good price. I suspect this is the source of the $40,000 urban legend.

      2. For "commodity" items you can not compare necessarily a military part with a commercial part even when they come off of the same production line, ie. we are not comparing a mil spec part, a radiation hardened CPU for example. Military parts often go through additional testing and this can greatly increase the costs due to a loss of economies of scale. In the field, when a military part is pulled from the box there is an expectation that it will work. In the consumer world it is often cheaper for a manufacture to replace defective parts than to test them. Expecting the customer to return to the store for an exchange is considered acceptable. Alternatively the acceptance standards may be higher. For example no dead pixels being allowed on a flat panel. This requires additional costs with respecting to screening a large batch and cherry picking individual items.

      3. I guess there is also the ever popular urban myth that they pad the price of some items in the public budget to hide spending on secret projects. ;-)

    2. Re:Toilet seats by jandrese · · Score: 4, Informative

      Polygraph Examiners spend the great majority of their time giving polygraphs to people applying for security clearances. Since 9/11 the backlog on security clearances has skyrocketed as people got paranoid and started slapping "SECRET" and "TOP SECRET" labels on previously unclass projects. Also, many contractors saw the writing on the wall and pushed harder for all of their employees to get cleared so they wouldn't be out of the loop on new project opportunities.

      The security guards should have been obvious since all federal buildings stepped up their security after 9/11. There were tons of entrances that suddenly got a real live guard 24/7 where they used to have just a apeaker you would buzz in with after hours. There were also lots of parking lot entrances that got new guard shacks. The "cleaning house" theory doesn't seem the most likely explanation to me.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    3. Re:Toilet seats by Deadstick · · Score: 5, Informative

      First, the sum trumpeted by Sen. Grassley in 1983 for the "toilet seat" was $640, not $40,000. Second, it was not a seat but a shroud for the toilet assembly, made corrosion-resistant because it was designed for Navy airplanes that are used near salt water -- in other words, it was a complete airplane bathroom enclosure. Not a bad price.

      Oh, and the actual seat was included.

      rj

    4. Re:Toilet seats by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Funny

      First, the sum trumpeted by Sen. Grassley in 1983 for the "toilet seat" was $640, not $40,000. And of course, $640 ought to be enough for any toilet seat!
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  3. I wonder by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder how much of these problems are really due to lack of funding and how much are just tactics to yank an even bigger chunk of money from the guys in Washington. After all, the problems that they describe should only exist if the person in charge purposedly screwed up the budget.

    --
    Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
  4. A new kind of DoS attack by TodMinuit · · Score: 5, Funny

    Okay, everyone around the NSA, turn on all your lights, computers, TVs, air conditioners, and appliances. Operation Dark Storm is a go.

    --
    I wonder if I use bold in my signature, people will notice my posts.
  5. How to meet the budget/electicity supply by J.R.+Random · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually obey the Constitution. If the NSA wasn't doing illegal warrantless searches of every American using the telephone or internet it would need about half as many computers and half as much money.

  6. Re:Way to edit, guys! by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Did anyone else notice that the summary consists of several only slightly-related facts about the NSA, and only the first one really matches the headline?

  7. Doesn't sound like underfunding... by RyanFenton · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This doesn't sound like underfunding at all. It sounds like highly misappropriated funds going to prioritized sub-groups with an inherent motivation to see the other subgroups suffering and failing for the sake of their own relative gain. This is completely in keeping with the current administration's modus operandi of finding subgroups in organizations (lobbyists, regulators, etc.), that will play ball, and finding a way to eliminate or functionally undercut everyone else, then blame those who were undercut for the resulting general failure.

    Ryan Fenton

    1. Re:Doesn't sound like underfunding... by RyanFenton · · Score: 4, Informative

      When an organization doesn't have enough money to do something, that is known as underfunding. When an organization _does_ have the money, but spends it inappropriately so they can't deal with the issues they are responsible for (including their own internal upkeep), then that is known as misappropriation.

      The NSA had the money they needed to deal with their infrastructure problems, but did not. Wasn't this the kind of cooperation and organizational problems the whole "post 9-11" reorganization efforts were intended to fix? I will not argue that it is a failure of previous administrations that this did not get fixed earlier - just that these exact kinds of deep organizational failures coming to a dramatic conclusion are exactly in keeping with this administration's practices so far.

      For a small sample of supporting evidence for my arguments, assertions and conclusions, see:

      The Republican War on Science (Book)
      Most of the recent works by John W. Dean (Several books)
      One of many powerfully incisive books by George Lackoff
      Countless other books, including these ...and most political news appearing outside FOX news for the past 4 years.

      Ryan Fenton

  8. Scary! by misleb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And the number one way you know you're being watched is...

    When the NSA can't even find enough electricity to power their surveillance and data processing equipment.

    Scary stuff.

    -matthew

    --
    "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
  9. Oh boo-hoo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So the NSA doesn't have enough electricity to illegally spy on my phone conversations and e-mail correspondence?

    Cry me a fucking river.

  10. Re:No shit.... by Original+Replica · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I don't think it's quite paranoia, more of a problem of dividing evryone into "goodguys" and "badguys". Once you start treating the very citizen you are suppoed to protect like "badguys" you stop trusting anyone.

    ."What we need is fundamental change in the way we manage NSA and what we expect of management and ourselves," concluded the study, which was led by George "Dennis" Bartko, the NSA's deputy chief of cryptanalysis.


    Yeah we need a serious change, like admitting that all this cloak and dagger, sorry that is classified, need to know, bullshit is the cause of most of the terrorist problems we have today. Drop the secrecy, and disassemble these above-the-law organizations. Dealing with policy in the open is the only way to keep it honest. When the government is dishonest with the nation about policy you do not have democracy, you have "democracy theater"
    --
    We are all just people.
  11. NSA (and GCHQ) are shame to mathematics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As a graduate mathematician, I feel ashamed to see so many of my fellow students either going off to the City or to GCHQ (the UK's NSA); while it's true that the cryptanalysis work done by the latter is one of the few non-academic jobs requiring considerable "pure" mathematical skill, that's really not what the huge amount of money spent on infrastructure is for.

    Because the War on Terror/Evil Of The Day really isn't about challenging mathematical genius terrorists to ever more complicated ciphers - yes, GCHQ created RSA a few years before R, S and A, but occasionally beating open academia and having a lot more horsepower isn't ever going to put you beyond the mathematical principles you're faced with (*). Massive horsepower is for statistical analysis of insanely large quantities of data. This might occasionally find you something saucy, but it's mostly going to allow you to profile, and profiling reduces risk - past trends are a useful indicator of future performance, whether you're analysing a financial market or the behaviour of groups of humans.

    None of this will help if some random guy decides, tomorrow, to commit some nefarious deed involving an IED - something I'd say 90% of graduate scientists either have the knowledge to do, or could read up on overnight. Which goes to show that the reason everyone's not blowing everyone else up is not because there are any technological measures in place to stop them, but because by and large, for whatever reason, people don't want to.

    (Oh, and the NSA/GCHQ do have some obvious legitimate uses - such as decrypting messages between known ne'er-do-wells. If that's all they did, I might even like them.)

    Oh, and before people forget, the problem of whether the NSA is allowed to spy on Americans is easily solved in principle by GCHQ and NSA doing the dirty work for their friends across the pond; in practice, an extra-judicial agency couldn't care less anyway: he who is not accused (for there is no-one allowed to witness the crime), is not judged.

    (*) This is why I love my discipline. Men can only discover mathematics, never beat it!

  12. Bake Sales! by rueger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To paraphrase an old favorite,wouldn't it be nice if we lived in a world where daycares and hospitals had all the money they needed and the NSA had to hold a bake sale to buy servers?

  13. Re:All I can say is this.. by rm999 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The opposing argument is that September 11th happened because agencies like the NSA were underfunded at the time.

  14. Rolling brownouts? Uh, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    There is no such thing as an intentional rolling brownout.

    A brownout is usually caused by a short or a transformer melting down which results in an under-voltage leading to a blackout. A brownout is when you still have electricity but it's not at the required voltage or power level.

    I think they mean rolling blackouts.

  15. Re:Doesn't matter. by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They're supposed to have some VERY smart people on staff there.

    Except they're working for Google now. It's a big problem that a lot of IT outfits are running into. ;)

  16. NSA is not the problem by HangingChad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is the real problem:

    A recent public powerpoint presentation suggested 70% of of all intelligence spending goes to contractors.

    The NSA is subject to Congressional oversight, contractors are not. 70% of our intelligence spending is unaccounted and unregulated. It's not the NSA you need to worry about spying on you, it's AT&T. When questions started surfacing about their role in spying on Americans, they responded by asking Congress for a liability shield. AT&T doesn't depend on Congress for their budget, the NSA does.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  17. Re:No shit.... by Short+Circuit · · Score: 4, Informative

    To illustrate, let me describe something about military secrecy. (I read it years ago, so I paraphrase, but it'll give you a rough idea.) If you have one "level 1" document, the classification of your collection is merely "level 1". If you have one hundred "level 1" documents, your collection is actually "level 2".

    Why? Because inferences can be made from collections of documents. With enough data, one can read between the lines.

    So it's in the military's best interest to keep as much "innocuous" information as concealed as possible. You may only know when a SEAL training operation is happening on your beach, but with knowledge of enough occurrences of such operations, analysts in Russia, North Korea or Iran can realize when they need to be more watchful of their coasts. You may only overhear mention of different lot numbers of 20mm cannon rounds, but analysts could use that knowledge to know if the US is ramping up production of aircraft ammunition.

    That's why.