Slashdot Mirror


Feds Pay Millions For Bogus Spy Software

gosuperninja writes "The US Government paid tens of millions of dollars to Dennis Montgomery because he said he had created software that could decode secret Al-Qaeda messages embedded in Al-Jazeera broadcasts. Even though the CIA figured out that his software was fraud in 2003, other defense agencies continued to believe in it. To date, the government has not prosecuted Montgomery, most likely to save itself the embarrassment."

8 of 221 comments (clear)

  1. Likely more prevalent an issue than we realize.. by intellitech · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Mr. Montgomery is about to go on trial in Las Vegas on unrelated charges of trying to pass $1.8 million in bad checks at casinos.

    I'd say he has more than a "penchant" for gambling, it sounds like this guy genuinely has a problem.

    Gambling issue aside, the sad thing regarding his behavior is that it's probably more commonplace than we're aware of. After 9/11, government officials were and still are under serious pressure to produce results, and often all too eager to sign a few papers here and there if it would magically solve their problems. The government trying to save face is merely a symptom, and should be treated as such. The only things I can think of that would discourage this behavior is active prevention through transparency and follow-up enforcement when that fails. One way or another, these charades must not be allowed to continue. I'm sure there's a lot more where that came from which fell into the well along the way, and it's going to add up. After all, it is the taxpayer that will shoulder the weight of these transactions.

    --
    vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
  2. Re:Likely more prevalent an issue than we realize. by causality · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The government trying to save face is merely a symptom, and should be treated as such.

    It certainly does make them look stupid when they're supposed to be protecting us from a big, determined, ruthless threat like Al-Qaeda and it ends up that they can't even protect themselves from simple fraud. It makes them look unnecessary, too, and that's the part they can't stand. It's the sort of thing that can make the political pressures no longer operate in their favor. Until this event they had the whole "be afraid!" thing working well for them.

     

    The only things I can think of that would discourage this behavior is active prevention through transparency and follow-up enforcement when that fails.

    In any kind of merit-based organization that would mean firing and replacing every decision-maker who chose to invest in this software. That's how they could regain credibility, by showing that they won't tolerate such gross incompetence within their ranks. Otherwise the question remains valid: how do they propose to protect the entire country from shadowy underground terrorist organizations bent on our destruction if they cannot even protect themselves from a common con-man?

    --
    It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  3. Embarrassment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This kind of hoaxes happens all the time. Check out Quadro Tracker and friends...

  4. Re:Likely more prevalent an issue than we realize. by bcmm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is another tech story which doesn't really involve tech: humans can get paid a lot to tell people what they want to hear too. Feds would really like to believe that Al-Jazeera is somehow connected to terrorism, even though it's a preposterous idea, and they're happy to pay someone for that information so they don't look like frauds themselves.

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
  5. Sure, we've got the money for that... by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This month, our government has proposed a budget in which we confess that we're so fucking poor that we cannot afford to subsidize nutritional supplements for babies born with low birth weight. And yet there seems to be a whole parallel word of government, where insane shit like this must still look insane, but fuck it, we'll fund it anyway, because we're rich and we don't give a fuck. I mean seriously, who could possibly make the decision "Yeah, that's worth paying for" when they hear a sales pitch like this? Only an organization that's so flush with money that they're experimenting with using it for toilet paper. It's a little shocking, given the nature of all the sacrifices the government is forcing on normal people.

    1. Re:Sure, we've got the money for that... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Given the assorted delightful cognitive deficiencies associated with malnutrition in infancy and childhood, there is a strong argument to be made that such a policy is simply pragmatic(even if one has no ethical qualms with letting children suffer for their parents' positions).

      Nutritional adequacy is cheap, a cognitively dysfunctional underclass is not...

  6. Re:AJ by Nemyst · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's the thing, don't you see? That their agenda is not incredibly obvious, that they're not spouting hate and misinformation every 10 microseconds. The US govt can't help but think they're hiding something. Any self-respecting news outlet should be biased and trollish on the edges!

  7. Re:File suit against the government by osgeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Blaming a woman for the way she dresses in a rape trial would be attacking her freedom of expression.

    Blaming the government for spending millions of our tax dollars on a blatant scam would be attacking the government officials for being abjectly stupid.

    The former is not okay. The latter is responsible and should be expected.