Slashdot Mirror


$18M Contract For Transparency Website Released — But Blacked Out

zokuga writes "The US government recently approved an $18 million contract for Smartronix to build a website where taxpayers could easily track billions in federal stimulus money, as part of President Obama's promise to make government more transparent through the Internet. However, the contract, which was released only through repeated Freedom of Information Act requests, is itself heavily blacked out. ProPublica reports: 'After weeks of prodding by ProPublica and other organizations, the Government Services Agency released copies of the contract and related documents that are so heavily blacked out they are virtually worthless. In all, 25 pages of a 59-page technical proposal — the main document in the package — were redacted completely. Of the remaining pages, 14 had half or more of their content blacked out.' Sections that were heavily or entirely redacted dealt with subjects such as site navigation, user experience, and everything in the pricing table. The entire contract, in all its blacked-out glory, is here."

40 of 384 comments (clear)

  1. tagged: !change by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Interesting

    To add insult to injury, I wonder if it was a no bid contract?

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    1. Re:tagged: !change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      $18 million dollars is change...

      It's pocket change in the face of billion dollar bailouts.

    2. Re:tagged: !change by ivan256 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not sure how this is "insightful". Because we're spending a ridiculously huge amount of money, we can waste a ridiculously huge (but relatively small) amount of money?

      Startup companies that develop web applications run for 4+ years on $18mil with 30+ developers and a sales and management team. And they turn out products orders of magnitude more complex than this tracking website. I wish I knew about the bid. I could have undercut these guys by about $14 mil, pulled a team together in about a week, gotten the job done quick and retired in style.

    3. Re:tagged: !change by D'Sphitz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It may be, but seriously, what kind of website costs $18 million? I've been designing and programming websites for 10 years full time, hundreds and hundreds of them, put them all together and they're not worth $1million much less $18 million. I'll be interested to see the final product, because I can't fathom what an $18m website looks like.

    4. Re:tagged: !change by CorporateSuit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      An online banking site. Possibly also betting sites. Mostly because they deal with money and any security breach is fatal. That's the only examples I can think of excluding megasites like google, facebook and amazon.

      Those sites could be built for a few hundred thousand + server costs. $18M to make a site that lists sales receipts is a huge middle-finger to taxpayers.

      --
      I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
    5. Re:tagged: !change by shadowrat · · Score: 5, Funny

      You'll never land a government contract with that attitude mister. If you can't build a website for over $16 million, you probably don't even know what you are doing.

    6. Re:tagged: !change by michaelhood · · Score: 5, Funny

      Do you have a government vehicle?

      Yes, I drive a Chevy.

    7. Re:tagged: !change by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Informative

      The DMCA was introduced to the House of Representatives by Howard Coble (R-NC) and passed the Senate unanimously. The only part Bill Clinton had in it was not bothering with a completely meaningless veto.

      So your argument is that Clinton shouldn't have bothered to uphold his oath to preserve and defend the Constitution because the veto would have been meaningless?

      Hint: The DCMA isn't the only thing Clinton fucked up. Remember the CDA? Remember the assault weapons ban? How about the Defense of Marriage Act?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    8. Re:tagged: !change by RenderSeven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, yeah, but you have to admit the irony of it; an $18m website to convince people a $1t expenditure was not wasted, and an apparent cover-up to see if the $18m was wasted. Rarely is cynicism and humor this conjoined, and yet so recursive.

  2. This is not an issue by Itninja · · Score: 5, Funny

    Listen, I worked on the project. This is no big deal. Basically, it's [12 LINES REDACTED]. So I don't know what all the fuss is about.

    --
    I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    1. Re:This is not an issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      [WIND-LIKE SOUND REDACTED]

  3. Well this is certainly change by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Change we can believe in ! Belief being necessary because, you know, you don't get to check.

    Say what were those economic numbers again ?

    1. Re:Well this is certainly change by BobMcD · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can't quite imagine anyone needing any of them for any non-war purposes.

      There are those that believe that Amendment 2 exists to give the populace the means to revolt again, should it become necessary.

      A revolution, being a type of war, would require weapons designed for war purposes.

      Much like any defensive device, you don't own such a thing hoping to use it. You own it praying you never need it, but knowing you can react should you discover you do.

    2. Re:Well this is certainly change by Naturalis+Philosopho · · Score: 4, Informative

      Uh, I think the point is that you can go to war with those weapons. The Constitution was designed so that the people always had the option of bloody, bloody revolution. I wasn't there, so I don't know for certain what the founding father's were thinking, but I'll guess that they left this option in so that the legislators would have reason for pause when considering draconian laws.

    3. Re:Well this is certainly change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Thank you for saying it that way.

      I recently purchased a LAR-15 and a .40 Cal Springfield hand-gun. Both are semi-automatics. I purchased my weapons for a few reasons:
      1) Politics. I'm never sure when Democrats intend to make another go at the 2nd Amendment. In fact, Obama's silence on the subject scared me more than if he came out banging drums about the matter.

      2) Violence in US border cities with Mexico where drug cartels are kidnapping people *in the US*. Their gangs are more and more often using higher power weapons. As are the police departments in those areas. I demand a fighting chance.

      3) Home-grown crime. I recently lived in Tulsa, OK. 2AM home invasions was the modus operandi in that city for ~6 months. People were getting mugged while in their beds. This happened to 3 or 4 families. Then, one night, 2 perps performed a home invasion and the home owner shot and killed both in his home. He was not charged. A few weeks later 2 more perps attempted the same thing - the homeowner shot and killed the two. He, too, was not charged. Surprisingly, home invasions stopped. Completely.

      That being said, I hope I never have to use my weapons to defend myself. That being said, I will *not* be a victim to crime.

    4. Re:Well this is certainly change by introspekt.i · · Score: 4, Informative

      Back then a militia was really comprised of a bunch of randos who brought their own guns from home ala "minuteman". You think the founding fathers would really write "a ragtag buncha dudes?" or "scruffy looking nerfherders with guns?" They just wrote it there to...put lipstick on a pig if you will.

  4. Slashdotted by ionymous · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now that it's slashdotted, it's completely blacked out!

  5. Transparent? How is this government such? by Shivetya · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would hate to see a secretive US Government then...

    Ramming bills through Congress, no five day period, hell five days seems to apply how long a before a thousand page bill is dropped on us before its rammed through.

    One party rule never works and just as before when they were in power they do all the same rotten things they claim the other side did when they had power.

    Apparently they are so wrapped up in knowing whats best for us, because they are so obviously smarter and well... transparency is where they deem we need to have it.

    Now we have a nearly sinister cooperation of the press and government all walking the same line. Calling them out on it is now unAmerican. We get town halls that first tell us everyone is entitled to their opinion followed by statements that those who dare have a differing one need to get out of the way.

    Website, schebsite, its all just more bs for the point column where the score never matters as long as they win.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  6. Re:Surprised? by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ahh, the hypocrisy of our democracy.

    Actually it's a republic rather tha a democracy, but the action is hypocritical anyway.

    If voters had to vote on all bills passed by the legislators and signed by the President before they became law, then it would indeed be a democracy. As it is, considering the power of money and the weakness of a single person's vote, it's closer to a plutocracy than a democracy.

  7. Good Enough For Government by ATestR · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If this is the way that things work in the Government, maybe we should all try it on our 1040's next April.

    --
    âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
    1. Re:Good Enough For Government by winkydink · · Score: 4, Funny

      You mean overpay by an order of magnitude or more? No thanks!

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

  8. Why is cost a secret by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    However, the redactions in the contract are to protect trade secrets, national security concerns...etc

    So what part does cost of the contract fall under for you.

    If they are hiding costs here, how can you assume the website is really revealing all money being spent, when the foundation itself remains obscured.

    Not one cent of government expenditure should be obscured. I can understand something like military spending sometimes being put in a black box (and that only in truly exceptional cases), but you should at least be able to see the cost of the box...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  9. those racists by z-j-y · · Score: 5, Funny

    black out? you guys have new code word everyday. just can't accept an African president can you.

  10. Re:Transparent? How is this government such? by scourfish · · Score: 4, Insightful
    >>Calling them out on it is now unAmerican.
    >>We get town halls that first tell us everyone is entitled to their opinion followed
    >>by statements that those who dare have a differing one need to get out of the way.

    It's not so much that shouting the pledge of allegiance in an overly jingoistic way in a juvenile attempt to disrupt things is unAmerican; it's more a matter of being annoying and counter-productive. It wasn't entertaining when the Dems acted like babies for the last 8 years, and it isn't entertaining now to see Conservatives acting the exact same way. If you want to express a dissenting opinion, then do it in a civil manner, but please, take the dress off before you do.

  11. Re:Surprised? by gnick · · Score: 5, Funny

    ********, * ***** you're ********. The ********** between a ********* and a ******** is **** **** ********** than that.
    [Some content redacted due to FOIA exemptions]

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  12. nothing to see here by mugnyte · · Score: 5, Informative

      The first few redacted pages are the names and histories of the people involved. This is privacy, and nothing new.

      The other pages are management chains used on the project and are part of KPMG's/Smartronix value-added business techniques, and it's their option to not reveal those practices.

      I'm not too concerned. Wait until the site opens up.

  13. Re:Expected by hoppo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    BS. There are no national security concerns around a publicly-facing website, particularly one dealing with dissemination of budget information. If there are, then they need to seriously rethink their strategies. I can envision certain sensitive information that may be blacked-out, but for a project like this, it would be a rarity. Furthermore, there is absolutely no reason to hide the remuneration details from the public.

    It's not unreasonable to ask why this project costs $18 million to implement, when it is mostly a standard CMS with a few extras added on.

  14. Re:Transparent? How is this government such? by IMightB · · Score: 4, Informative

    So far the ones that are being called unMerkin are the ones that seem to be incapable of speaking in any manner other than yelling and screaming about "Death Panels". Rather than contributing to the discussion they are denying everyone else the chance to contribute to the discussion.

  15. Re:Surprised? by Hellhog · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ahh, the hypocrisy of our democracy.

    Actually it's a republic rather tha a democracy

    MYTH. Representative democracy != Republic.

    --
    Your sig sucks and so does mine. Now watch my videos.
  16. Re:Transparent? How is this government such? by BobMcD · · Score: 4, Informative

    Like the one in NH where everyone present was hand-selected by the party?

    He couldn't even FIND a skeptic in that auditorium.

    It may have been civil, but wasn't anything that could pass as debate.

  17. Trusting Government... by jameskojiro · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What amuses me is how many sheeple in this country still Trust the government to do what is best for them and to keep them safe.
    .
    FACT: The Government can only always be trusted to take your money and rights away from you.
    .
    Any government form is flawed as it is composed as many flawed individuals who are not good people. From the DMV clerk with an attitude, the City council member who taking kickbacks from the country clubbers, to the senator who is taking money from PACs, all of the way to the president who is taking money from companies like G.E.
    .
    When will people learn that you need government but you need to be vigilant and limit their powers at every turn. We need to also teach people the common ideal that when you let or expect people to take care of a certain aspect of your life you lose some of your freedom. For every sugar coated promise a politician makes there is a equal price to pay in lost control, money or freedom over our own lives.
    .
    The Instant Gratification ME, ME, ME culture of today's society feeds directly to the politician's sweet saccharine promises of how the government is going to take care of them. There used to be a time when people used to have enough pride in themselves that if you gave someone a free meal they would see to it that they would return the favor because they felt if they didn't they would be viewed a selfish loser. We used to bear the burden of our families and help take care of our grandmas and grandpas, aunts and uncles, cousins and children. These days those responsibilities are dropped upon the government who ends up doing a sub standard job of doing so. The politicians don't mind this, in fact they love this dependency on their special programs, they gain power in political capital which ensures that they get re-elected each term. These guaranteed votes allow them to be as corrupt as they want as they no longer fear reprisal. They no longer fear reprisal because they they have large voting block dependent on them.
    .
    Put it this way, when you were a kid and were totally dependent on your parents and your parents grounded you, did you have the power to stand up against them in any meaningful way? No you didn't.
    .
    Same with the government, the more of your life they control and make you dependent on them, the more they can get away with.
    .
    .
    The Government has so much of this control that they are no longer accountable to their own actions. It doesn't surprise me that they would black out information and manipulate documents even when it comes to a promise of transparency. They are all a bunch of corrupt schmucks because we let them be that way. Maybe if we are to be a ME ME ME generation who acts like children, then we really deserve Big Brother or Father watching over until we grow and wake up. What is the German word for Father again????
    .
    We all have inherent human rights, the government's role is not to GRANT you rights, the role of government is to RESTRICT your actions when they infringe upon other people's rights. But people these days think that the government is their parents handing out things like rights, privileges and safety.
    .
    Maybe we deserve exactly what we got.

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  18. Re:Surprised? by VGPowerlord · · Score: 4, Informative

    And to quote a more credible source, saith the CIA World Factbook:

    Government type:
    Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition

    --
    GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
  19. Re:Surprised? by eugene2k · · Score: 4, Funny

    Fix Wikipedia - it's easier. You can even mention this discussion as a source :)

    --
    Apple has "Mac vs PC", Microsoft has "Laptop Hunters", Linux has recession
  20. Re:Surprised? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We're a Representative Democracy. That's a kind of Democracy. As opposed to a Direct Democracy, which is what a lot of people mean when they say "We aren't a Democracy". Well, we aren't that kind of democracy. But we are a kind of Democracy. So depending on what you mean, it is perfectly valid to say we're a democracy.

    "Republic" fundamentally means "A nation whose leader is not a King or other hereditary ruler" -- the CIA's totally-not-Cold-War-politics-derived definitions notwithstanding. Iraq under Saddam was a Republic. China is a Republic. So are we. Just a different kind.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  21. Re:Surprised? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You could call any country with a constitution, a federal government and indirect representation a "federal constitutional republic", and since just about every country has a constitution of some sort, I'm gonna go with "federal democratic republic" as the title of our type of government.

    Yes, indeed. China is a Federal Constitutional Republic, among other things. The original error in this thread was when someone said "we're not a democracy, we're a republic", as though they are mutually exclusive, or as though either word on its own fully describes a government.

    A Republic is a government which has a leader or chief executive who is not a hereditary monarch. A Democracy is a nation ruled either directly or indirectly by the people. They are not exclusive, and neither term necessarily implies the presence or absence of the other -- though nearly all Democracies are Republics, there is one obvious counter example.

    We are a Republic. A Constitutional Republic. We're also a Democracy, specifically a Representative Democracy, which is to say indirect rule by the people via elections.

    People are trying to be pedantic but are creating extra restrictions that don't exist for the words in question, which is the opposite of pedantry. It's basically arguing "This cat is orange!" and "No! This cat is fuzzy!"

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  22. The U.S. government is corrupt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    By some measures, the U.S. government is the most corrupt in the world. For example, this Rolling Stone article about the extreme financial corruption in the U.S.: The Great American Bubble Machine. (The full article is in the paper edition, available at any library.)

    The U.S. government spends more money on surveillance and war than any country in the history of the world. That taxpayer money partly helps those who want corruption to profit, and hurts U.S. taxpayers, and the entire world. For just one example, see the book, House of Bush, House of Saud.

    The U.S. government has invaded or bombed 25 countries since the 2nd world war. Most or all of the interference was for profit. Quote: '... although nearly all the post-World War II interventions were carried out in the name of "freedom" and "democracy," nearly all of them in fact defended dictatorships controlled by pro-U.S. elites'. The dictators pay the corrupters. In Iraq, those who control the U.S. government want control over the oil, and don't care how many people they kill. In Afghanistan, the corrupters want to build an oil pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to a port where the oil can be delivered.

    The U.S. government has a higher percentage of its people in prison than any country ever in the history of the world, over 6 times higher than in Europe, for example. Wikipedia quote: Approximately one in every 18 men in the United States is behind bars or being monitored.

    U.S. citizens don't want to believe that their government is as corrupt as it is, even though the recent financial corruption has made many of them poor.

  23. Re:Surprised? by xaxa · · Score: 5, Informative

    nearly all Democracies are Republics, there is one obvious counter example.

    Which one?

    United Kingdom (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the rest of the Commonwealth)
    Denmark
    Netherlands
    Belgium
    Norway
    Sweden
    Japan
    Spain
    Luxembourg

    There are lots more...

  24. Re:Not all prices are blacked out by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, I'm still waiting for somebody to explain which part was blacked out that should not have been? So far all I see is a bunch of people having a hissy fit for no apparent reason. As a private company, doing business with the govt. does not mean you have to open your accounting, pricing, and HR database for the world to see - only to a certain degree as proscribed by law. Where are the violations here?

  25. Re:Transparent? How is this government such? by darkmeridian · · Score: 5, Informative

    Dissent isn't un-American. What Pelosi said was that drowning out the other side so that there cannot be any debate is un-American. I agree. The town hall protesters are not interested in a debate. They are showing up, and walking up within a few feet of the speaker to yell at them in a physically-threatening manner.

    Mr. Gingrinch opines that Obama's health care plan has spectres of Nazism. Protesters promptly paint swastikas onto the door of politicians who support the plan and waive signs calling Obama a Nazi. A black politician received death threats, and references to himself and Obama as "niggers". They are standing outside of town hall meetings with guns strapped to their legs with a sign saying it's time to water the tree of liberty.

    The protesters don't even have anything intelligent to say other than, "YOU'RE LYING TO ME!" and "YOU'RE A BUNCH OF SOCIALISTS." That's not debate. That's a hateful mob trying to rule by intimidation. Look up videos of these confrontations. It's freaking terrifying. Tell me that's American.

    For more fun, look up how Republicans and conservatives freely called Democrats un-American or anti-American. For fuck's sake, a few months ago, Republican Senator Inhofe called Obama "un-American" for opposing the war in Iraq. A speech is un-American but showing up threatening physical force and painting swastikas is not?

    --
    A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
  26. Re:Surprised? by Omestes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I mean, seriously - rushing bills through faster than anyone can read them and check them for problems, and now this?

    The new boss is the same as the old boss. This does make me sad, since I was hoping Obama would be better than Clinton (being better than Bush isn't hard, and he easily exceeds at this, as would my cat). But to paint this as a Democrat or Republican issue is rather naive, both parties are only interested in the same thing right now; power. The Republicans are even more laughable than the Democrats though (which again is a very meaningless compliment).

    I'd rather they rush through health care though, which I might see a small benefit from, than the USA PATRIOT ACT, or a silly war, neither of which benefited anyone. Not saying its a good thing, or that I agree with Obama's package here, but just as points of comparison.

    What annoys me more is both parties new found reliance on astroturfing and cheap gimmicks stolen from the advertisement world. And what annoys me even more is that tons of people (who I now no longer feel guilty calling "plebes") buy it and repeat the well bought falsehoods to me, and on the evening news. This crap was especially present during the Sotomayor brouhaha, with the left saying everyone with any doubt was a racist, and the right selecting sound bites to make her sound racist (racism being the the instant taboo of the day), and with the bizarre "birther" morons catering to the absolute morons of the Republican party (not saying the Dems are better, just they haven't catered to any demographic quite so stupid yet, not that they are beyond it).

    It is bizarre that neither party is capable or wanting of a public policy debate, and that none of there members seem to be wanting of one. At least the previous groups of partisan nitwits weren't afraid of waving their agenda about. After this last election, though, the idiots are out in force.

    --
    A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey