Slashdot Mirror
Kamala Harris Introduces Bill To Send Millions To Local Governments For Tech Support (theverge.com)
Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris has introduced legislation that would allocate millions of dollars for local government to create dedicated teams that could "update and rebuild" government systems. The Verge reports: The United States Digital Service, an office established in 2014 after the widespread failures of Healthcare.gov, provides IT support for the federal government, bringing technologists into the government to work on tools like federal websites. It's continued to operate under the Trump administration, and some states, Harris' office notes, have experimented with similar teams. Harris' bill, the Digital Service Act, would provide an annual $50 million to the federal service, but it also goes further, allocating $15 million per year to state and local governments to create similar teams.
Harris' bill, the Digital Service Act, would provide an annual $50 million to the federal service, but it also goes further, allocating $15 million per year to state and local governments to create similar teams. Under the plan, the national Digital Service would offer two-year grants, giving state and local governments between $200,000 and $2.5 million per year. Those governments would be required to take on 20 percent of costs and to spend at least half of the money on talent, rather than tech. The national Digital Service, under the proposal, would report bi-annually to Congress on the progress of the grantees. The bill would provide funding through 2027.
Harris' bill, the Digital Service Act, would provide an annual $50 million to the federal service, but it also goes further, allocating $15 million per year to state and local governments to create similar teams. Under the plan, the national Digital Service would offer two-year grants, giving state and local governments between $200,000 and $2.5 million per year. Those governments would be required to take on 20 percent of costs and to spend at least half of the money on talent, rather than tech. The national Digital Service, under the proposal, would report bi-annually to Congress on the progress of the grantees. The bill would provide funding through 2027.
technical support pork/subsidies for the tech industry! Little of which will actually be used for anything constructive.
;)
It is the government after all.
Just my 2 cents
Sounds like the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.
Two options when states need to do something:
A. Your state decides what is needed in your state. State taxpayers approve it via whatever mechanisms your state has. Taxpayers pay the cost for it.
B. Kamala Harris and the rest of the Washington politicians decide what your state needs. Washington politicians approve taxing you. Taxpayers send their money to Washington. Washington sends part of it back to your state. Tax payers pay the actual cost of program, plus the bureacracy cost of sending it back and forth, plus Washington's cut.
It's pretty plain why Kamala Harris wants to send your money through Washington and keep a portion of it. Why YOU would agree with that I have no idea. Unless you're just a superfan of politicians that play for team D. Superfans do non-sensical things.
so tech savvy their biggest issue is,
;)
Is our internet up or do we have to use the free wifi across the street again to get to our Office 365 accounts and use our cloud apps and data?
Just my 2 cents
This is just standard, time-honored "pork belly politics." California companies are betting that this legislation will channel loads of federal money to California companies. She is just looking out for the interests of her past and future campaign donors. Very transparent what the intent is here. This is just how politics is done.
By including this sig, the copyright holders of this work or collection unreservedly place it in the public domain.
The biggest reason Harris is DOA on the national stage is she's pushing reparations to atone the "original sin" of slavery in America. Since those dollars will be extracted from the donor class, she's toast, even on the democratic ticket.
Do you actually believe half of the shit you spout? The top states by GDP closely correlate with the states based on population. The top 10 states by GDP have 56.29% of the country's GDP. Those states also have 53.25% of the population. If you look at the election results for 2016, 6 of those 10 states went for Trump.
Then you act like anyone who doesn't live in one of those blue states is some kind of simpleton that couldn't possibly manage without your superior knowledge of how they should live their lives. Could you be more sanctimonious? Go read Thomas Sowell's The Vision of the Anointed. Maybe you'll learn something and come to your senses.
she's gone quiet because she's going around getting money from big donors. She can't make too much noise while she's doing that or she'll get called out for being bought and paid for. Biden's doing the same thing. He spent the last few weeks in the Caribbean wining and dining with elites.
If we had a proper functioning media they'd be calling them both out on this shit, but, well, we don't.
Meanwhile Warren, sadly, got destroyed by some dumb college chick things she did pretending to be an Indian Princess. Bernie's out there doing rallies and panels and ignoring the big money folks.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
it just shows how truly awful a candidate Hilary was. We're talking about voting patterns overall, not one bad election with the most hated women in America.
I don't need to "believe" anything, it's pretty well documented that states that lean to the GOP depend heavily on the Feds. It's not hard to understand why. They don't invest in their people, and when you don't do that the people who can leave because the roads, schools, water supply and air quality suck rocks. This is the part where you point out folks leaving California and ignore the folks moving there....
Sowell's a hack, btw.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
There are a lot of best and brightest at NASA, CERN and Fermilab that would disagree. IPv4 was not designed by a corporation, neither was the Manchester Mk 1.
Linux' two top gurus, Linus Torvalds and Alan Cox, were not working in bakeries or bars. (Yes, being a student at a government-backed facility is working for the government. They were not working for private enterprise.)
We saw private enterprise at work in the 2004 DARPA Challenge. Not a single automated vehicle finished. Most crashed on the first corner.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Do you have anything to add other than "durrr gubbmint baaaad *drool*"?
Seriously that insight and thought-free attitude is nothing but deeply tedious. If you think "spending other peoples money" is bad, then why aren't you living in the government-free paradise of the Congo?
I also love the irony of such a complaint made on the web on the internet, two things developed with government money.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
> If you want to better understand how little they value security, just look at corporations because the same types of assholes are in charge of the budgets.
Fifteen years ago you would have had a good point.
Next week I'm starting a new job, at a new company. Both my current company and the new one each spend over a million dollars per year on information security. So if I look at what these companies budget for security, it shows they value it very highly.
Companies are starting to realize not only the value of security as they used to define the term, but also this important insight:
Security is Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability.
Starting with availability, that means basically resistant to craahing or becoming unavailable - even when under attack. A DOS attack is an attack against availability. Here's the thing - can a program that crashes unintentionally, when not even under attack, be secure? No, the availability leg of security is all about having reliable systems. If your systems are secure, it means they must be reliable - they won't have downtime at the wrong time. "Reliably up and working all the time" is a subset of "secure".
How about integrity? Integrity means an attacker can't mess up the data, and no other threat can. The data will be correct even if someone is trying to make it incorrect. Can a system which produces bad results be secure? Nope, correct results are a subset of security.
Lastly, the part of security most laypersons most often think of - keeping secrets secret. A secure system won't let your secrets get out.
So a secure system is one you can depend on, it's always up and running, doesn't crash, and it's operation and outputs are dependable - the results are right, all the time. Does that sound like what you want for the systems your business depends on? That's absolutely what corporate officers want. And that's a subset of security. Combined, "dependably up and running, and producing correct results every time" gets you about 90% of the way to "secure". So secure practices are really good idea even if you didn't care about data leaks.
My sample of corporations is a bit biased toward those who spend heavily on security, because I'm an expensive security professional. You don't call me unless you want to spend a good chunk of money on security.
My experience suggests that people get serious about security after they've been bitten. Nobody is more ready to buy quality locks and alarms than someone who just got burglarized. Most of the companies that have been negligent over the last 20 years have now been bitten and learned their lesson.
California has tried twice to modernize its vehicle registration system from the sixties, and failed twice, and thrown away tens of millions of dollars in the process.
What's needed is competence, and you can't just buy that.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"