Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Anonymous Releases 400 MB of FBI Contractor Data

Posted by Soulskill on from the another-day-another-breach dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Anonymous, as they have claimed they would, finally released 400 megabytes of files (NSFW language) allegedly stolen from ManTech, a cyber security firm contracted by the FBI. Anonymous stated, 'The FBI is outsourcing cybersecurity to the tune of nearly $100 million to a Washington-area managed services company. The deal shows a willingness in the federal government to place IT services more and more in the hands of third parties as agencies don't have enough staff on hand to do the job.'"

74 of 130 comments (clear)

  1. No surprise by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well that's embarrassing. Not entirely surprising, and not a big deal to be honest, but yet again we have it demonstrated that short of being physically disconnected from the internet and placed in a lead lined box there's no such thing as 100% security. If you want secure, don't put it on a computer and certainly don't plug the computer into the interwebs.

    (Disclaimer: No, that's still not 100% secure.)

    --
    Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    1. Re:No surprise by Pieroxy · · Score: 2

      The problem is that putting stuff in the hands of third parties is in my view the equivalent of saying "I don't care about it." The problem with that is that IT is at the heart of everything now. If you don't care about it, that's a problem. A big one.

      Of course, that's not just true for government.

      --
      Write boring code, not shiny code!
    2. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Instead of an unaccountable law-enforcement agency, it's an unaccountable contractor. Not much difference for most citizens.

    3. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      But...but it's a contractor. They always know more about, well, EVERYTHING than dumb, stupid government employees who just sit around on my dime and do nothing productive. I'll bet contractors even use THE CLOUD and other really secure mysterious high-tech stuff like that which government people, who might even (gasp!) belong to a union have no clue about. That's what Fox News tells me, anyway.

    4. Re:No surprise by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      That's true, but I don't think this case even rises to that level. This seems more like typical "inept IT contractor". While it's not really possible to have 100% security while your box is connected to the internet, it is possible to at least have better security than is the norm in IT contracting (and yes, that includes "cybersecurity" contracting).

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    5. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Embarrassing? Depends on who's embarrassed. Certainly not the government. It's devolved into a bunch of ladder climbers just like the corporate world. Your boss just wants a shiny red button that says "You're Fired" when you don't fill in all the technological blanks for their personal agenda. Outsourcing is already several steps into that abyss of losing any sort of control.

      As IT centers grow, they become geometrically more complex and expensive to maintain. What do you think the gubbermint will sacrifice first, security or the ability to stalk their political enemies? It's all already over but the eulogies.

    6. Re:No surprise by Thad+Zurich · · Score: 1

      "3. Management Security Policy [...] c. System and Services Acquisition. In accordance with DOJ IT Security Standard – System and Services Acquisition (SA) Control Family, Components shall: [...] (6) Ensure third-party providers are contractually required to comply with this policy to employ adequate security measures to protect information, applications and/or services outsourced from the Department." [http://www.justice.gov/jmd/publications/doj2640-2f.pdf] I've got a banana peel that says the ManTech contract didn't contain such clauses, nor any means of verification if it did.

    7. Re:No surprise by Truekaiser · · Score: 1

      Thank you i needed that laugh this morning.

    8. Re:No surprise by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Original? nope, Fox does lots of things like this.

      However, it is completely accurate...

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
  2. We have these already, and they have a function by Kagura · · Score: 4, Funny

    "a cyber security firm contracted by the FBI. . . . more and more in the hands of third parties as agencies don't have enough staff on hand to do the job."

    No crap, you idiots. They're called contractors!

    1. Re:We have these already, and they have a function by jonpublic · · Score: 1

      contractors that are probably charging $300 an hour too.

    2. Re:We have these already, and they have a function by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Do you have any actual evidence of that? Or are you just repeating GOP talking points. The reason I ask is that everything I've read suggests that working in the public sector typically pays significantly less than what the private sector would offer.

    3. Re:We have these already, and they have a function by anegg · · Score: 2

      Government used to pay less than private industry... now it pays about the same, but with better benefits and job security, at least in the Washington, DC area. That started back when the government said they had to raise salaries in order to "remain competitive" with private industry. They raised the salaries, but kept the excellent benefits and the government union derived job lock-ins. The whole scene is a real mess. A shell of government employees filled with large amounts of creamy contractor filling. [Disclosure: I lived in the DC area and worked for government contractors at a variety of federal agencies for the last 15 years.]

    4. Re:We have these already, and they have a function by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      Government used to pay less than private industry... now it pays about the same, but with better benefits and job security

      Here in California, government jobs not only pay better but have superior benefits; rivaling even the US Government. For example, there are at least several hundred pensioners, retired from state employment, here in California that collect more the $250,000 per year in pension benefits, not including health care which further increases the value of the pension, and pensions of $100,000 and up are not at all uncommon. The vaunted job security has been on the decline in recent years, in tandem with California's credit rating, but it still beats the private sector in most comparable occupations. Many state and local governments are contemplating massive tax increases to pay for these unfunded pension obligations, but I doubt that taxpayers will stand for it. Indeed, if they raise taxes here in California to pay for gold plated government pensions while unemployment hovers in the double digits and people continue to loose their homes, they're going to have a revolution on their hands.

    5. Re:We have these already, and they have a function by Wiarumas · · Score: 1

      You must have misread. I said that the government pays less than the private sector (about 2/3rds of what you can get in the private sector). The difference is that you pay $300 for specialized labor for the duration of the project or system (let's day 2-10 years then you end the project) versus hiring an employee until retirement (2/3rds the pay but for 40 years, plus pension and benefits). So contractors are expensive, but specialized and disposable making them cheaper.

      --
      I will bend like a reed in the wind.
    6. Re:We have these already, and they have a function by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      yeah, ive worked for one. the people doing the work are salary, get 30-40k. some exec get a fat bonus. probably friends with some appropriations asshole in the fbi.

    7. Re:We have these already, and they have a function by thermopile · · Score: 1
      Well said.

      The only other comment I would make is that the government has made a stark change away from hard, technically inclined people to "soft," general-management types ... and by so doing, has lots its ability to properly manage the projects it seeks to execute.

      Stories like yours above, where the DoD was paying 4x your salary for the services of one, are examples of where some government PM didn't know better. I suppose it's also possible that you were working on some super-classified system, for which the pay scale increases significantly.

      I actually pine for the days when 50% of all government GS-15's have to have been prior contractors. Who better to manage the work than someone who has done it before? It has been spun as a bad thing in the press ("Oh Noes! Government official sends money to his prior employer!"), but in my experience, that happens because the government PM is experienced, knows what he or she wants, and the PM usually wrings out a good deal for the government in the process.

      Take, for example, the program management of the F-35 fighter aircraft. The person in charge of managing a $300 BILLION weapon system had better have some serious acquisition chops.

      --

      "Diplomacy is something you do until you find a rock." --Richard Pound

    8. Re:We have these already, and they have a function by elucido · · Score: 1

      contractors that are probably charging $300 an hour too.

      Contractors are hired to save money for the US government. No healthcare. No benefits. The contractor has to buy these themselves.

      There are pro's and con's to being a contractor and the lack of benefits is one of the cons. The pro is you wont have to answer to a boss and you wont be micromanaged.

    9. Re:We have these already, and they have a function by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Trust me, those contracting agencies will just hire the same person the company (or Fed) would've hired. The only benefit is that management can now claim the contractor did it and wash their hands of any blame. The contractor (or at worst, the contracting company) gets fired and another one gets hired with the same or even less qualifications, rinse and repeat.

      The only things it does circumvent is unionization (which is the biggest problem in other departments among large companies and government). That's one thing you don't want, a unionized IT staff. IT people past help desk and management jobs (the actual sysadmins, network engineers) are more like doctor's - you want them to be responsible and be able to get and take the blame and not be shielded.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    10. Re:We have these already, and they have a function by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      You know why most of the gov't positions have pretty good benefits and other protections? Because the gov't uses them as political pawns.

      You know how we're currently paying our bills? By raiding the pensions of retired federal workers. linky

      Seriously, what would you do if your employer raided your 401k to pay it's bills? Moreover what would you do in negotiating your compensation next time you were up for it? You'd demand serious benefits and pay to cover the fact that your employer is stealing from you...

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    11. Re:We have these already, and they have a function by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      The pro is you wont have to answer to a boss and you wont be micromanaged.

      Well assuming you can find a goverment contract who will hire just 'you'. Most contracts are large enough they aren't going to a single person, they are going to a company. That company might sub-contract out some of the work to a smaller company who might do the same thing to hire 'you'.

      Instead of one layer of gov't mgmt, you now have the same gov't mgmt plus 2-3 layers of corporate mgmt. It ain't so 'cheap', nor are you ever likely to work without a boss and micromanagement.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    12. Re:We have these already, and they have a function by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      Seriously, what would you do if your employer raided your 401k to pay it's bills?

      Well, first off they can't because I own the account. Pensions are not always set up as legally separate trusts and so become vulnerable to broken promises. However, pensions also promise relatively high rates of return for what people once perceived (incorrectly) to be essentially zero risk. In a 401k or any other real investment the value goes up and down depending upon the actual or likely future value of the assets contained within it. My point is this: there's risk in any investment, even a "safe" pension and people must learn to accept that . If they don't like that, let them opt out and invest (or not) their own money as they please.

      You'd demand serious benefits and pay to cover the fact that your employer is stealing from you.

      You can "demand" whatever you want, but that doesn't mean that you're in a position to receive it. As I said previously, there is no way that California taxpayers are going to make state pensioners whole for the difference between what's in their pensions accounts and what was "promised" to them. If they try to raise taxes, then there will be another tax revolt ala Proposition 13 to keep the government's hands out of our pockets. Investors won't loan more money to California so that it can continue paying outsized pensions to retired state employees or they will demand punitive interest rates. California has long been on the road towards a massive collision with reality and we are in the first stages already. Mark my words, if it comes down to a choice between paying the bond holders, paying the welfare or paying the pensioners, the pensioners are going to loose that fight and it will be cold day in hell before the taxpayers shell out for those state employee pensions. California state employees and teachers are going to take an investment haircut, just like the rest of us did in our retirement accounts, unless their pension fund managers outperform Warren Buffet himself. So, the only question will be how much less will pensioners get? I cannot say that I will be to sorry to see fewer "public pension millionaires".

      Showdown brewing over CA state employee pensions

    13. Re:We have these already, and they have a function by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Well, first off they can't because I own the account.

      Whoosh. Yes you do own your 401k, feds don't. Which is my entire point. They are pawns in ways you can't be, so yes they do have added protections and benefits because of that.

      You don't seem to understand a 'pension'. The risk is assumed by the *employer*, not the employee. I work for you 20/30 years at lower than normal salary in return you give me a retirement program. Pensions don't offer great returns, it's pretty low, much like Social Security returns are low. It's meant and designed to be 'safe' rather than risk oriented. It's a pretty safe system unless the company isn't putting the money in that they are supposed to when they are supposed to. That's where the problem lies...the "Well we're short this year so we'll pay more next year" just keeps happening.

      I've actually worked at the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp (gov agency) that's tasked with insuring pensions offered by companies. It's not a pretty site, they are all vastly under funded.

      It doesn't have to be that way, the company and the employees signed an agreement. The companies aren't living up to that agreement.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    14. Re:We have these already, and they have a function by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      You don't seem to understand a 'pension'. The risk is assumed by the *employer*, not the employee

      Except that they don't really assume much risk because pension promises are regularly burned in bankruptcy court during Chapter 11 restructurings. The airlines have done it on multiple occasions, United comes to mind, and of course the automakers did it (except that the UAW managed to pin that one on the taxpayers with the bailout). Smart lawyers and private equity buyout groups have turned pension promises, which are rare outside government agencies now in the US anyway, into speed bumps which they drive over at full speed in their legal hummers.

      Pensions don't offer great returns, it's pretty low, much like Social Security returns are low. It's meant and designed to be 'safe' rather than risk oriented. It's a pretty safe system unless the company isn't putting the money in that they are supposed to when they are supposed to.

      The public employee unions in California (especially the prison guards) and in other states have, through political payola and corruption, raised their pension benefits to the point where they substantially outperform (at least on paper) most of the investments available to average investors in the private sector who aren't either especially skillful or wealthy enough to invest in unrestricted securities (aka 'high net worth individuals'). In fact, most of the best returns are reserved for hedge funds and their high net worth clients, courtesy of the SEC and federal regulation which denies these opportunities to ordinary investors "for their own good".

      That's where the problem lies...the "Well we're short this year so we'll pay more next year" just keeps happening.

      It's not unique to the private sector. The state governments, especially California, have been doing this for years. The joke will be on the pensioners when it comes time to pay though. California is broke and it's credit card is maxed out. If they try to raise taxes enough to pay those pensions, along with all of the other outrageous special interest spending, they will drive what few businesses remain out of state. In fact, California business regulations are already so ass-backwards and stupid that Nevada, Texas and Oregon all have state departments dedicated to luring California businesses, successfully in most cases, to relocate.

      I've actually worked at the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp (gov agency) that's tasked with insuring pensions offered by companies. It's not a pretty site, they are all vastly under funded.

      Then you of all people should now how easily these "promises", which were often made in bad faith to begin with, are burned in bankruptcy and dumped onto the PBGC at 30 cents on the dollar (or less). As for public pensions which are "legally mandated" to be paid by taxpayers; that's a political hot potato if ever there was one. The taxpayers won't stand for government employees getting every penny promised to them with no "haircuts"; especially not after what happened to many ex-homeowners and their 401ks during the Great Recession.

      It doesn't have to be that way, the company and the employees signed an agreement. The companies aren't living up to that agreement.

      Oh look an "agreement", how quaint. To quote Achilles from the Illiad, "There are no binding oaths between lions and men".

      At the end of the day, promises are made to be broken. The only thing that matters anymore in our society, the only thing that protects, is ownership of real assets.

  3. Default by kc9jud · · Score: 2

    I'm pretty sure that the government shutting down on Tuesday isn't going to help this at all. :P

    1. Re:Default by KiloByte · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To the contrary. Nothing in this data is really interesting, except for the fact that the FBI is paying mountains of taxpayers' money to their friends for basically nothing. What AnonSec proved here (yet again) is that these "security contractors" have nothing to do with security.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    2. Re:Default by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Nothing in this data is really interesting

      Really? I found it quite interesting that a company called "Man Tech, Inc." can get millions in government funding.

    3. Re:Default by impaledsunset · · Score: 1

      Not only does it prove that the security contractor didn't provide any security, the leaked data also seems to suggest the same. From the comments at TPB: "hey, I was just looking at file 23223140 003.pdf and it looks like someone is getting WAY over billed on the materials. is it just me or are they charging $500 for a $30 wrench?"

  4. But they're Cyber Contractors! by todrules · · Score: 3, Funny
    But they used the word cyber on their website 3 times describing their mission! They must be good!

    Mission and Cyber Support

    We tackle some of the most challenging cyber security problems facing our nation, including identifying and neutralizing external cyber attacks, managing security operations centers (SOCs), developing robust insider threat detection programs, and creating enterprise vulnerability management programs.

    1. Re:But they're Cyber Contractors! by mmcuh · · Score: 2

      Ironically, the word "cybernetic", the original use of the cyber- prefix in English, comes from the Greek ÎÏ...ÎÎÏνÎÏÎÎÏOEÏ (kybernetikos) meaning "skilled in governing".

    2. Re:But they're Cyber Contractors! by FreakyGreenLeaky · · Score: 1

      speak ascii or die.

      utf8 shmutf8 ;)

    3. Re:But they're Cyber Contractors! by rbrausse · · Score: 2

      not only Cyber but they use in the Excel sheets Comic Sans as default font.

      They are so professional!

    4. Re:But they're Cyber Contractors! by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Technically we have Latin-1, you just need to use the æntities—correctly.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    5. Re:But they're Cyber Contractors! by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

      I think it's safe to say font choice is the single least important aspect of their proven unprofessionalism.

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    6. Re:But they're Cyber Contractors! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd love to link to XKCD here, but I can be more original than that. Guess what? Women don't want to be reminded that they are a woman EVERY FUCKING TIME they post something on a tech forum. You are not being funny, you are not being insightful, you are not making women feel any more welcome. So chill, sparky.

    7. Re:But they're Cyber Contractors! by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      I probably shouldn't tell you about Vi Hart's math doodles, then.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  5. Re:from the piratebay comments by rbrausse · · Score: 1

    I don't know, one of the commenters at piratebay wrote "Wow, what a worthless bunch of crap...pictures, purchase orders, resumes, rosters, inventories. *Yawn*."

    probably boring for the sensationalistic bay-crowd but not "nothing" in the sense of "unimportant".

  6. i would download it, but... by FudRucker · · Score: 2

    i wont want a knock on my door, or have it kicked in by a government goon squad, i will wait until someone else downloads sorts through it for all the best parts and read about it on some conspiracy nut's website :)

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:i would download it, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm not a lawyer (I feel compelled to point this out, even though only an idiot would assume I am one without me saying so), but here is what I've learned from other leaks of US government documents in the last few years:

      Downloading it is not illegal, the document has now been released to the public. The public has no obligation to protect the secrecy of documents. 'Classified' simply means, if your job gives you permission to access the document, you can't leak it. That's why Bradley Manning is in trouble: he used the privileges granted by his security clearance to leak classified documents. As a member of the public (assuming you are), you are allowed to access and distribute documents you come across.
      What is illegal, is acquiring documents through illegal means, such as hacking the FBI's servers (what Anon did). If you download it from a torrent, you are not doing anything illegal as far as I understand.

      Depending on your job, it may be a bad idea to download these documents or give them to someone else; for example, if you work for the FBI or military, even though the documents are now public, your superiors probably would not be happy that you help other people access the documents or that you access them yourself without a valid reason. That would still not be illegal, but it could have a bad effect on your career. If you work for the government, but not in a military or law enforcement agency, I doubt your superiors would care about it.

      To keep it simple: it's legal for your to download these documents unless someone told you otherwise.

  7. Lowering Tax by MM-tng · · Score: 1

    So you don't hire enough people to do the job. This to save money. Then you realize, you need some help. You hire a contractor to do the job for 4 times the money. I don't get it. If you don't work with consultants the smart people who like a challenge realize. Hay if I want to do the cool stuff, I need to be in government.

    1. Re:Lowering Tax by kenh · · Score: 1

      The cost of an employee is not 1/4th the cost of a contractor - comparing paycheck to paycheck is misleading.

      A government employee has salary cost (the number on the pay check) as well as employer side taxes & fees, healthcare benefits, and retirement benefits (pension), all of which are owed & paid, but are not reflected on a paycheck. Contractors have all those expenses included in the number on their hourly rate.

      And don't forget, it is infinitely easier to fire contractor as needs/workloads change, it's not so easy to fire a unionized federal worker.

      Finally, some contractors are likely industry experts hired briefly for short projects as needed.

      --
      Ken
  8. Will this lead me to... by kenh · · Score: 3, Funny

    Neil Caffery, the White Collar crimes consultant that works with the FBI?

    --
    Ken
  9. send in mulder and scully by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    and then you can find out the real FBI is like.

  10. ManTech's Friend by poena.dare · · Score: 2

    Apparently ManTech and HBGary work together ( http://publicintelligence.net/hbgary-mantech-internet-and-social-media-reconnaissance-presentation/ ), so this could be more fallout from the HBGary/Aaron Barr/Anonymous story.

    WHICH, as a matter of fact, I just wrote a small journal article about (sorry to shill, but I really think it's relevant!) http://slashdot.org/journal/269108/Aaron-Barr-amp-The-Jester

    One day the complete Anonymous story is going to make a great book and several bad movies.

    1. Re:ManTech's Friend by poena.dare · · Score: 1

      Hey Richard Armitage is on the board of directors!

      http://www.mantech.com/about/board.asp

      We haven't seen that ol' spookette in a while.

  11. significance? by pinkeen · · Score: 1

    Since when we measure significance of a breach by the raw amount of data?

  12. What could go wrong? by HangingChad · · Score: 1

    Faceless corporations with nothing in the way of accountability and very little oversight with the keys to the FBI and other government data systems. I don't see how anything could go wrong with that arrangement.

    Why pay attention to that when you have those darn teacher's unions trying to live high off the taxpayer hog?

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  13. Which gets back to the core problem. by khasim · · Score: 2

    They're outsourcing the IT department ... which leaves them with no one in-house capable of verifying that the outsourcing service is competent or even following data-security processes.

  14. the most pathetic part by sixsixtysix · · Score: 1

    is that the fbi has to contract out for this. all government agencies should be completely self-sufficient. none of these third party money grabs. this is where most of the government waste lies. all those industries jockeying for a piece of the pie while demonizing the poor and disheveled. this is the real problem. no one should profit of the government.

    --
    ...
    1. Re:the most pathetic part by inglorion_on_the_net · · Score: 1

      no one should profit of the government.

      I rather think everybody, or at least most people, should profit from the government. Otherwise, what would be the point? But I think we are trying to say the same thing in different ways: when government money is stuffed in pockets and no service of at least equivalent value is performed, almost everybody loses, and that's a Bad Thing.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    2. Re:the most pathetic part by sixsixtysix · · Score: 1

      i agree, if you mean we should all benefit from government services, but nothing publicly subsidized should be privately profitable. if industries need the money so badly, perhaps the government should just buy-in and reap the rewards. for certain areas, like the military-industrial complex, i'd even let the government go all eminent domain. if we got rid of most of the ways that the government can funnel tax money into private industry, i'd imagine there'd be less backroom deals and greasy handshakes, which is definitely a step forward. it's about time we get our money's worth.

      --
      ...
  15. Over a decade in the making by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Start with the "Re-Inventing Government" initiative under Gore during the Clinton administration, where some idiot decided that government should be run "more like a business." (Protip - Anytime someone says "Government should be run more like a business" you've just received perfect proof they're an idiot. Govt and business aren't the same and cannot/should not be run the same way.)

    Add 8 years of "We hate government. We hate government workers. Government is incompetent at everything it does and, by the way, too-often prevents us from funneling contracts to the big-money corps that help us get elected." under the Bush administration.

    Stir in the fact that IT is in the middle of everything nowadays.

    Bake a while and what do you get? Everything being outsourced, even to people who have no idea what they're doing and don't give two shits about the concept of "public service."

    A couple of months ago, I retired from a once-wonderful IT position with a major U.S. three-letter-agency. I just couldn't stand the whole "Do more with less. Don't worry about all the new, critical changes; they'll be admin'd by contractors, anyway. Bump the efficiency metrics; forget about actually keeping the field guys functioning."

    For the first 20 years I was there, we were allowed to do good work, help officers and agents do their jobs, and serve the public. Over the last 10 years, that whole notion of public service got lost in an orgy of fiefdom creation and repayment of favors.

    U.S. govt IT is going to hell. It's happening slowly but, I fear, inexorably.

    1. Re:Over a decade in the making by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      Fake efficiency.

      that's the scourge of modern way business way of handling things. as things are just bits and bytes, it's easy to lie about the efficiency without anyone noticing and starting to bitch, as the metrics can be chosen and created accordingly, showing advancement even when nothing is being actually done. when holding meetings become checkpoints on the project instead of working pieces solutions. multiple sourcing does nothing to help it, then just that someone thinks for 6 months which company might get the job becomes a checkpoint. it's the new IT-bubble, the illusion that things are expensive. they're not, the guys who are left to implement the things still don't get much of the money - it's just the middle layers and their processes which eat up the money, it wouldn't be SO bad if specifications and what the system is supposed to do wouldn't get lost in that same process - so the guys implementing don't even know what's it supposed to do and the timetable with which they have to work ends up being so tight they don't have a time for rewrite after they've designed what the system should do- because it took so long for the process to even choose these guys who implement things that they're late already when they arrive to work on the first day.

      I really wish IT was more like in late '80s, too bad I was too young to work then. now everyone wants people to spend their time on metrics which tell nothing of what was done or what should be done next.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Over a decade in the making by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's why the people who rant about "Big Government" and that there should be less Government, are barking up the wrong tree.

      It's quality not quantity that matters.

      You could just have the president and everything outsourced and things could still be bad. Or even worse, since the contractor's contractor's contractors might not even pretend to follow inconvenient stuff like FOIA.

      Trouble is the lack of good people at the top. You need to elect better people and convince the good people to run for elections. And keep doing it for a few cycles - I'm sure it'll take a while for whoever gets in to even start building a shortlist of what needs to be fixed and what can actually be fixed first.

  16. This all started with Reagan by mbone · · Score: 1

    While it is certainly true that the US Government has used contractors for a long time, this pernicious reliance on contractors (to the point where many US government agencies have basically no in-house expertise on mission-critical elements of their functioning) started with Ronald Reagan. Remember that he started out with a massive RIF (Reduction in Force), which was followed with (civil service) hiring freezes. If you can't hire permanent employees, and you are tasked with doing more, you have to engage contractors. It's just that simple. I was working for the Government at the time, and the increase in contractors (and the decrease in in-house expertise) was striking.

    Of course, the ironic thing is that

    - contractors are almost always much more expensive than doing the same thing in civil service and
    - contractors can lobby the Congress to get more money what they are doing

    At the time, I thought this was a bug; now I am sure it was a feature.

  17. oh the irony by Sebastopol · · Score: 1

    It is kinda funny how people claim the government is too stupid to get things right (i.e., post office, DMV, roads), but then bitch at them when they try to contract out. Granted, they could do a much better job vetting the contracts, but government is always in a lose-lose.

    --
    https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    1. Re:oh the irony by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Coz the voters are the stupid ones. Most voters don't realize that ultimately they are part of government.

      If the reasoning that less government is always better, than it should also apply to voters: e.g. Fewer voters = better.

      But that's not true right? Quality matters more than quantity.

      --
  18. Great 100M by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    For these asswipes to install norton and upgrade to IE8 on some dell contract pc that will be thrown away next year

  19. I agree... by novar21 · · Score: 1

    If I had mod points, I would give +1 insightful. From a slightly different perspective, I work in IT for a State Government. The Feds and the States are very similar, except that they are reducing compensation at the State level. So recent graduates are not even looking for employment with the State. It is so bad now that we have permanent job postings for IT positions. But the benefits and pay are no where near private sector. They have to have contractors now that so many have retired. The contractors cost far more than State Employees. But you still read articles in the local papers about how over paid State Government workers are. Plus the same mantra over and over that government workers just sit around and do nothing all day. I guess if they keep this crud in the press, then the populace will accept it as fact. I know of many contractors who have failed in the day to day duties, yet they are still employed. Many of the government contracts are poorly written. Add to that management not holding the contractors to the signed contract and properly monitoring progress of the projects. Over all it is very sad to be in government IT unless you are a contractor. And if you are a contractor, your only benefit is in knowing that you are better compensated than the government employees around you. Either way you are still told: "Do more with less" which has never made sense to me. Following those instructions means that you have to loose quality or quantity. There really is no other choice. Throw in the furlough days, bank leave time, and all of the other compensation reducing schemes, and our compensation has been reduced by thousands of dollars per year. All of those savings are going to pay for contracts. In my state the contracts total over 15 billion. That is more than what it costs to pay for the state employees. They privatize different functions more and more. Costing the tax payers more and more. Sorry for the long rant. I will get off the soap box now and let someone else have it.

  20. I'm sure this is shock news if ... by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    ... you're some basement dwelling teenage virgin whose "friends" are other similar losers that he's never met IRL. Which , lets face it, is the demographic that makes up the self righteous bunch of script kiddies that call themselves anonymous, lulzsec or whatever self agrandising name they've thought up this week.

    For your average tax paying adult the fact that government contracts out services is neither news nor shocking. Next...

    1. Re:I'm sure this is shock news if ... by ranpel · · Score: 1

      While I think I understand what you're driving at I'm not quite sure I understand your oversimplification of these events. That and your assignment of a generalized 90's adventure grouping of script kiddies is slightly off the mark. Either you're attempting to suppress your inner child and failing, could truly care less, are quite happy with the nonsense of forced consumer news issue number one that is the debt limit, are a self righteous basement virgin your damn self or you're a perfectly content citizen whose mere existence is naught but a passing nuisance of a thought.

      A 400MB data file (currently available free of charge), another page of the secret ops book possibly revealed, an implication of access and/or possession of a significant horde of similar data, a picture perfect example of your tax dollar at work, a target whose client list is a majority consumer of that dollar no less and you want "Next..."?

      This kind of "Next"?

      * Defense Intelligence Agency,
      * National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
      * National Reconnaissance Office
      * National Security Agency
      * Department of Homeland Security
      * U.S. Navy, Air Force, Army, Marine Corps
      * Missile Defense Agency and DARPA
      * Department of Justice
      * Department of State
      * Environmental Protection Agency
      * NASA, NATO, state and local governments

      Or this kind of "Next"?
      http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/07/30/uk.royal.wedding/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+(RSS%3A+Top+Stories)

      At the very, very least is this not a mildly interesting distraction in the form of entertainment? Perhaps NASCAR or comic book heroes are your cream of the crop? I'm sorry but your passive aggressive brush off of an idea is disturbing at several levels.

      --
      \r
    2. Re:I'm sure this is shock news if ... by Can't+find+a+usrname · · Score: 1

      Blame the government, blame the corporations, blame everyone but yourselves.

      Ultimately (barring voting fraud) the government you got is the one you have chosen. Corporations can step over your rights in pursuit of profit because the government you elect to regulate them is too incompetence and too corrupt to put a stop to it.

      In the end, voter apathy is the root cause. Democracy requires people to active take part in the running of the country.

      You think the Tea Party Jesus Freaks are nuts and voting against their own interest and yours? Well, get out there and start campaigning your point of view, convince and sway the public to your side.**

      Yupe, that means you will have to play politics. Welcome to the real world.

      Oh about CNN ... Do you know why they report rubbish? Because people watch the rubbish !!!

      ** And I don't mean posting to small time sites like Slashdot and reddit with a self-selected user base, effectively preaching to the choir. Nor do I recommend hacking into corporations and government departments, generally being a nuisance and possibly affecting your nation's security.***
      Do you think the general population are going to be swayed but your illegal hacking exploits or just mentally brand you as a terrorist?

      *** But Anon won't leak things like that you say, but how the heck do they know what must be kept secret and what can be release. Accidents won't happen and cause some field agent their life right?

    3. Re:I'm sure this is shock news if ... by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry , but to all of what you posted - yeah and what?

      Christ you must be naive if you think any of this is news sonny.

    4. Re:I'm sure this is shock news if ... by ranpel · · Score: 1

      I would find it difficult to disagree with much of anything you've said. Your starred bits are kinda poinky though.. If the government can hack, lie, cheat and steal... well.. blah blah - gander, goose, feathers whatever. The general population? You're joking right? Hell, anything that can get the general population in motion, for better or worse and I'm interested - however the "branding" does not come from the general population. A not insignificant segment of general populations believe their own governments and law enforcement are the terrorists. And terrorists don't bite - they suck. On field agents - well - it's a job. National Security.... I've taken that oath and will defend your freedom as quickly as my own. I am of the mind however that one equals one and that field agent has the same value to humanity as the child that will be dead tomorrow. The games are played and pieces are lost - wrong game.

      --
      \r
    5. Re:I'm sure this is shock news if ... by ranpel · · Score: 1

      "Christ you must be naive if you think any of this is news sonny."

      Yeah? Well... Well...!! I'm rubber and your glue, bounces off me and sticks on you!

      --
      \r
  21. Re:ManTech colleague sits on his ass -all day- by TheLink · · Score: 1

    I don't know about the rest of you but if I'm going to waste my life, reading Slashdot and surfing the rest of the Internet is still better than counting ceiling tiles...

    So how much more is he being paid? If it's a million dollars a year, I'd skip slashdot and do that job for a year or maybe two :).

    --
  22. Re:When will window admins learn?! by Larryish · · Score: 1

    The new firm will be called WomanTech.

    Every 28 days they will do an intensive audit of everyone else.

  23. Contracting government functions has to stop! by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

    First, the "small government" acolytes, starve regulatory agencies -- and the funding for this, comes from companies that Don't want regulation.

    Then the "big government agency" downsizes, because it cannot afford to keep people on staff.

    For some reason, the Contracting Agency, gets paid about 10 times per employee that we paid for each "big government" worker. You know, like the Mercenaries in Iraq who got $100,000 PLUS to do KP duty and make food for the soldiers.

    Eventually, the lack of oversight, means that the FDA has an inspector visit a company once every few decades -- or the Oil company oversight fails to make BP put adequate devices on their drilling platforms. We certainly "saved" a lot of money, deregulating banks and having them lose $70 Trillion!

    >> Bush and Republicans have increased the SPENDING on government -- the ONLY reductions have come from reducing SERVICES provided from Government, and oversight of Billionaires.

    >> We now have a "feedback" loop with many "profitable" business that contract for Government services. The Prison corporations, make money from more prisoners and by cutting costs -- meaning, a more demeaning life for prisoners -- but also, that they LOBBY for longer sentencing and to make more things illegal.

    It seems to me, that we DON'T want profits to be made in some parts of our economy -- we DO NOT WANT a business approach. If a Corporation makes money on war -- they want MORE war. It's that simple. Anything we want to redistribute, or make LESS likely should be a government function -- period.

    >> And it's CRAZY to have private weapons manufacturers -- what do we do when they set up shop and take their technology to China because the USA is NOT the great source of "War Profits?" We are much less safe, and much less well off because corporations made a bundle on our needless invasion of Iraq -- and the Oil Companies benefitted while lobbying for Tax Breaks. The people BENEFITTING from Government are making it bigger -- that's just doesn't happen to be the working poor.

    --
    >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
  24. Let The Chinese Now Begin... by littlewink · · Score: 1

    to collect information on each and every contractor who deals with the FBI. They'll own the FBI within a year. What an utter clusterf***.

  25. Pfft - nothing to see here by blahblahwoofwoof · · Score: 1
    Nothing of any import in this loadout. Anonymous may have begin righteously, but they're devolving into rancid anklebitery as we watch.

    The only sounds I hear are their death gurgles. Too bad - they could have been so much more. Not the first cadre to burn brightly and carbonize themselves. Not the last, either.

  26. Re:Some things to consider... by Jawnn · · Score: 1

    Perhaps, but I can think of at least a couple of reasons why one do that very thing. Keep in mind that "the public trust" is not always the highest priority.

  27. Learn some history, please by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 2

    No. I'm a very old-timer, one of the few remaining covered under the old Civil Service Retirement System. 100% of my pension is funded by participant contributions.

    Additionally, I will never receive Social Security retirement benefits nor will I get govt-subsidized medical care, though my private group insurance payouts will be limited to Medicare rates, thus making me a far less attractive customer to healthcare providers once I get old.

    People who think U.S. govt retirees are a budget problem or parasites or being paid for by the poor, put-upon taxpayers of today simply don't understand how the system works.

    If you want to find screwed up govt employee retirement setups, you need to look to state, county, and city governments. The fed got its act together and solved all those problems for its own people over 25 years ago.

  28. Not specifying "govvies" == meaningless drivel by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 1

    ...govvies get a lifetime pension and healthcare for life after retirement at the expense of the taxpayer.

    No. You obviously don't know how these things work. You're not distinguishing "govvies" by what level of government at which they worked, meaning any comment you make will be demonstrably wrong for a large percentage of the "govvies" at question.

    Specifically, I'm a fed retiree. The screwed-up retirement setups are found at the state, county, and city level. The fed fixed their problems during the transition from the Civil Service Retirement System to the Federal Employees Retirement System, a transition that occurred over 25 years ago.

  29. NO by novar21 · · Score: 2

    - NO. State Employees get a 401K. There is no pension or healthcare. It has been proven over and over, that contracting in this state costs more.