Slashdot Mirror


NSA Mimics Google, Angers Senate

An anonymous reader writes "In a bizarre turn of events, the Senate would prefer that the DoD use software not written by the government for the government. Quoting: 'Like Google, the agency needed a way of storing and retrieving massive amounts of data across an army of servers, but it also needed extra tools for protecting all that data from prying eyes. They added 'cell level' software controls that could separate various classifications of data, ensuring that each user could only access the information they were authorized to access. It was a key part of the NSA’s effort to improve the security of its own networks. But the NSA also saw the database as something that could improve security across the federal government — and beyond. Last September, the agency open sourced its Google mimic, releasing the code as the Accumulo project. It's a common open source story — except that the Senate Armed Services Committee wants to put the brakes on the project. In a bill recently introduced on Capitol Hill, the committee questions whether Accumulo runs afoul of a government policy that prevents federal agencies from building their own software when they have access to commercial alternatives. The bill could ban the Department of Defense from using the NSA's database — and it could force the NSA to meld the project's security tools with other open source projects that mimic Google's BigTable.'"

8 of 193 comments (clear)

  1. Privatize the governement. by andydread · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This seems like a result of the conservative cry to shrink the size of the federal gubmint. "Gubmint shouldn't be allowed to do internally what they can outsource to some private company" possibly owned by China. THis is sad

    1. Re:Privatize the governement. by RaceProUK · · Score: 4, Insightful

      From a European's point of view, all US politicians are conservatives.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
  2. Sell it to Google by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Accumulo runs afoul of a government policy that prevents federal agencies from building their own software when they have access to commercial alternatives

    Just arrange to sell it to Google, make them the maintainers, and buy it back for $1.

    --
    All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
  3. Nah... by Kupfernigk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is the result of private corporations lobbying for more privatisation. "Shrink the Government" is the voter-friendly PR spin on it. We have the same in the UK...fortunately the privatised "security" company G4S has just screwed up so massively that the agenda must have been put back a year or so. Personally, I think that any and all national security functions, whether physical or cyber, shouldn't be provided by anybody whose managers I cannot vote out of office.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Nah... by sortius_nod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Personally, I think that any and all national security functions, whether physical or cyber, shouldn't be provided by anybody whose managers I cannot vote out of office.

      This highlights the problem with the "small government" argument. In Australia we've seen private companies run rail, road, telecommunications, electricity & water infrastructure into the ground because of conservative "small government" agendas. All that seems to happen is the companies stick their hands out for "aid" or the like to help them make bigger profits while neglecting what they are responsible for.

    2. Re:Nah... by Ash+Vince · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is the result of private corporations lobbying for more privatisation. "Shrink the Government" is the voter-friendly PR spin on it. We have the same in the UK...fortunately the privatised "security" company G4S has just screwed up so massively that the agenda must have been put back a year or so. Personally, I think that any and all national security functions, whether physical or cyber, shouldn't be provided by anybody whose managers I cannot vote out of office.

      As a fellow Brit I have been following the G4S Olympic security blunder in the news too. I will be very surprised if it actually makes any difference in the long run to privatisation though.

      We have already let G4S run several prisons as part of a pilot scheme, once the pilot is over in a year or two we will outsource more to them I'm sure. Even before this G4S had a piss poor record when it came to prisoner transport yet they were still given more contracts in a similar vein.

      The simple fact is that government loves privatising stuff as it means they can push costs of large infrastructure projects down the line to the next generation. It also means they can make lots of friends in business and those friends will repay them with a nice cushy non-executive director role later on.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    3. Re:Nah... by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And "privatisation" is also spin, because what they really mean by that is "Transfer a large sum of money from the public treasury to the ownership of one or more politically connected corporations".

      For example, take cruise missiles: Right now, instead of the US DoD hiring a bunch of people to design and build missiles for $X, instead they go to a defense contractor, who in turn hires a bunch of people to design and build missiles for $X and charges the DoD $X+$Y. So in effect, what's different between the DoD just building missiles and hiring a contractor to build missiles is that $Y goes from the public to the owners of the contractor company.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  4. Outsourcing is cheaper?!? by mitcheli · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Several years ago when I was a young service member and working for around $25K a year to develop software for the military, I was told that the military was moving away from GOTS solutions and was mandating that everyone move to COTS software. They replaced my position with contractors that made $75K a year and ultimately with multi hundred million dollar contracts with contracting firms who "integrate" in COTS solutions. Granted having become one of those contractors myself and having over doubled my pay in that time frame, I do have to admit I appreciate that cheaper COTS solution. Though I do often times wonder to myself if the Government centralized their development efforts, tracked industry standards for producing secure code, and further developed some of the charming projects they have worked on (like SELinux) what the world would be like today. Just think, instead of knowing a huge ass hole is in your current revision of router code, you could simply send it off to the developers to repair. No lack of a $100K+ support contract to prevent you from getting a patch...

    --
    Select from tblFriends where interesting >= 4;