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."
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.
If we have this solid evidence, file suit against the government for criminal negligence. Do something that will force them to lay punishment down on the lying son of a bitch.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
When the message decoded to "There's a sucker born every minute."
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.
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
This kind of hoaxes happens all the time. Check out Quadro Tracker and friends...
I realize this is winter..but must we go on with the repeats?"
The C.I.A. never did an assessment to determine how a ruse had turned into a full-blown international incident, officials said, nor was anyone held accountable. In fact, agency officials who oversaw the technology directorate — including Donald Kerr, who helped persuade George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, that the software was credible — were promoted, former officials said.
I worked at one of the 'Agenices' and during my time there (in the last 3 years) I worked with a similar fellow. He was introduced to me as this utter genius. An independant subcontractor who, with his never seen friend, had come up with a software solution that could allow their laptop to snoop on any Internet traffic, anywhere in the world at any time...instantly. "It sees everything, you just look at the part that interests you", he explained to me. Sort of like a machine running Wireshark with the NIC in PROM mode, but for the entire Internet. No one in the Gov questioned him. No a single soul. He was a contractor (like myself) and was being paid so much that he was given two billets to cover the cost. So I sat through his presentation and immediately threw a BS flag. He flipped out, stormed out and no one knew what to do. I did my best to explain the facts that made his claims impossible. I asked the room if they'd ever tested his system in a real world environment. "Call your wife, have her get online and tell her what's going on. Then have Peter look at her traffic". After about a half-hour, they started to realize what had happened, you could see it on their faces. Thing is, this guy had been paid millions in funding a salary. I don't think his business partner ever existed. What did they do about it? Nothing. You see, in order to go after him, they'd look foolish. Not going to happen. Not in the Intel community.
Doh! Should have finished reading the entire article before posting. This went on with contracts being awarded up until the Obama administration, with people likely still around who made some of the decisions.
What's pretty disturbing is that the government is so gullible over such a lie that's ridiculous on its face. Really, secret messages from Al Qaeda in Al Jazeera? Why not hidden messages from Al Qaeda on MTV or CNN? That would be just as plausible.
I'm still mystified by how much neocons despise the channel. No wonder Bush planned to bomb Al Jazeera, he was so quick to jump onto the false notion. Never mind that Al Qaeda hates Al Jazeera and has done so for years (AQ supporters call it "Al-Khinzeera," which means The Pig)
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
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
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.
Yet another way to waste money in the fight against terror.
This one sunk $85M on a bogus bomb detector used widely in Iraq until its export was banned-- ie demand for it was still present and they wanted to continue importing into Iraq! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8471187.stm
Airport body imagers, duct tape and plastic wrap... Is there no end?
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Even before 9/11, they were blowing money on thousand dollar toilet seats and quackery like divining rods to locate land mines.
They're children and need close supervision. As much as I hate taxes and government spending, we need to spend more money on oversight. They need to be watched like hawks.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
I read this article and I have to wonder...the CIA and Air Force believed at some point that his software could detect a black blob as a terrorist from a black blob who's not a terrorist, off of a UAV video feed. So did they incorporate this into their Rules of Engagement (ROE) at some point and actually declare anyone hostile based on feedback from his software? Because if this is the case, then this guy is probably guilty of more than just ripping the government off. If the government admits to wrongfully killing someone based on bogus software, then who is liable and at what level? On another note, he claimed he could decipher hidden messages in Al Jazeera broadcasts. For this to be correct, Al Jazeera would have to be providing some form of communication services for Al Queda. Did anyone believe there was a link? And if this were the case, why would Al Queda telegraph their plans on an open channel given the more secure alternatives. It pretty much fails the common sense test. Oh well... More government buffoonery for our general entertainment.
Guy passing bogus checks to casinos: One point eight million dollars.
Guy defrauds US government: Tens of millions of dollars.
Seeing Guy hanged for treason alongside idiotic government bureaucrats who helped perpetrate this boondoggle: priceless
"A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
The reason these individuals were not fired is because it's a merit-based organization. A meritocracy penalizes failure and rewards success. By penalizing honest mistakes the people who end up on top may not be those with the most merit, but those who hide their mistakes the best. This has the added detriment of not allowing the organization to learn from its failures.
Slashdot wrote about this last year, after Playboy wrote about it. Playboy's story was pretty good.
The moral of the story is anyone who gives good Powerpoint is destined to grow rich
---
http://whitherthenytimes.blogspot.com/
The reason these individuals were not fired is because it's a merit-based organization. A meritocracy penalizes failure and rewards success. By penalizing honest mistakes the people who end up on top may not be those with the most merit, but those who hide their mistakes the best. This has the added detriment of not allowing the organization to learn from its failures.
Two things. One, if the Department of Agriculture made this mistake then I'd say ok, they just got conned, hope they catch the bastard. I wouldn't expect them to be any more difficult to con than any private business or individual. It's different when you have a Department of Homeland Security with all sorts of forensic, investigatory and other law enforcement powers available to it and they're still vulnerable to a common thief. I'm betting that catching the really hardcore terrorists is going to be much more difficult than not falling victim to a common thief. That's the difference, or if you like, that's where there is a demonstrable lack of merit. It calls into question their basic ability to fulfill their stated purpose. A wisely managed organization provides answers to such questions in the form of accountability.
Second, why is it OK for the government to "make an example" of the citizens by handing out extremely harsh penalties that grossly exceed what would fit the crime/tort in the case of things like computer intrusion or copyright infringement, but not OK to make an example of bureaucrats who should know better and then make idiotic decisions that waste our money? The institution can learn from its mistakes by getting rid of people who show such incompetence. The people who remain will understand that they need to get their shit together. Their replacements can be briefed on why there was a job opening for them. Getting rid of the incompetents and allowing the institution to learn from its mistakes are not mutually exclusive.
A third point could be made. The DHS falls under the law enforcement powers of government. It is also a political institution. It is staffed by people who want power and want us to believe that they can be trusted to use it properly. With that power needs to come responsibility and accountability. Therefore, I consider each one of their jobs to be expendable. If they are incompetent, not only should they be fired; they should have never been hired in the first place. I'd be far more sympathetic if this happened to the employees of a company that makes widgets, because none of them are demanding political power.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
That's not as far from the truth as you jokingly suggest. The original "Food Pyramid" promoted by the US government was based more on industry wants than sound nutritional science.