| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: WoT | |
| FBI chief admits $170m computer failure | |
| 2005-03-10 | |
FBI director Robert Mueller told Congress he took full responsibility for the failure of the project, known as the virtual case file (VCF). He also warned that the new project would take a further 3 years to complete. "It's my fault for not having put the appropriate persons in position to review that contract and assure that it was on track," Mr Mueller said. "I am tremendously disappointed that we did not come through with virtual case file, but by the same token, I see this as an opportunity." He said the FBI would now start from scratch, and look for a more updated, flexible system using off-the-shelf software. Frank Wolf, a Republican congressman who chairs the committee controlling the FBI purse-strings noted a previous failed upgrade attempt and urged Mr Mueller to get it right this time. "I really think it's important that the bureau find the most knowledgeable people with regard to technology before you take the next step because they've kind of failed on two different occasions. And failure on the third one would be just devastating," Mr Wolf said. At the time of the September 11 attacks, the FBI was struggling with the most antiquated computer systems in America. The operating system was three decades old, and most of the bureau's field offices did not even have internet connections. For example, there was no way to transmit a digital photograph of a terrorist suspect. The commission investigating the 9/11 attacks found that shortcomings in the FBI's filing and archive system may have played a role in its failure to detect the al-Qaida plot. An FBI official said yesterday that the bureau had made significant progress since then, installing new computers and a new networking system. The virtual case file was supposed to be a third phase of that upgrade project, which would have allowed FBI agents to enter new information on a case into the system in a way that would make it available to other agents and analysts. "At the moment, you have to print out a hard copy of a case and fax it or send it to another office," the official said. The collapse of the VCF project coincided with another embarrassment for the bureau. The FBI admitted its email system had been compromised by computer hackers who had gained access to some internal documents, although officials said those did not include active cases. The urgency underlying the FBI's computer modernisation was emphasised by Mr Mueller's disclosure that "special interest aliens", people from countries where al-Qaida is known to be active, have crossed into the US from Mexico using false identities. | |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #28 SPOD there is one place where they get programs that work. The military - especially in the Intelligence areas. The brainiacs at NSA, for example. Mobile for the end users, robust, and relatively simple to operate and maintain - and internetowrked! Maybe the FBI should shove its "Not Invented Here" pride, and simply ask what military software it can put to use, and get someone to install it, and then customize off that base. There is probably plenty of GOTs (Government off the shelf) stuff sitting around if they'd drop the "must be special for the FBI" attitude. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-03-10 2:47:30 AM |
| #27 SPOD there is one place where they get programs that work. The military - especially in the Intelligence areas. The brainiacs at NSA, for example. Mobile for the end users, robust, and relatively simple to operate and maintain - and internetowrked! Maybe the FBI should shove its "Not Invented Here" pride, and simply ask what military software it can put to use, and get someone to install it, and then customize off that base. There is probably plenty of GOTs (Government off the shelf) stuff sitting around if they'd drop the "must be special for the FBI" attitude. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-03-10 2:47:30 AM |
| #26 Cost, Schedule, Quality - anybody can get two of the three. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2005-03-10 11:08:29 PM |
| #25 GT Re: #18 The phrase "we" always used was: Good, Fast, CHeap -- Pick 2. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-03-10 10:11:19 PM |
| #24 I believe I may be able to procure Minsk-32 (if the scrapyard did not get their hands on it already). Russian parts, American parts... does not matter, it's all Made in Taiwan anyway! |
| Posted by: Sobiesky 2005-03-10 9:03:53 PM |
| #23 You assholes keep your hands off my Imsai 8080. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-03-10 8:05:37 PM |
| #22 ah... comeon! Someone must have an old Sinclair ZX81 they can donate. Its for a good cause! |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-03-10 7:24:15 PM |
| #21 I've got an old Apple 2E I can loan them. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2005-03-10 7:21:24 PM |
| #20 badanov is right. A secure opensource common database is key. Everything else is presentation. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2005-03-10 6:21:42 PM |
| #19 Mueller says he's taking responsibility, but where's his resignation? These FBI bozos wouldn't know responsibility if it bit 'em in the ass! Badanov is on the right track. All the software is already developed, they just need to put the pieces together. |
| Posted by: Scooter McGruder 2005-03-10 1:22:11 PM |
| #18 Standard ADP procurement. 1. Done right. 2. Done on time. 3. Done within budget. You get two out of three selections, the third is forfeited. |
| Posted by: Glereper Thigum7229 2005-03-10 1:21:50 PM |
| #17 The first thing to do is fire all the managers involved with the latest project - from the head of the FBI on down. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-03-10 12:18:02 PM |
| #16 PostgreSQL Net aware and secure and in conjunction with ssh it can broadcast to anywhere securely. Agents can use it from a Palm Pilot if need be. With a web interface over ssl the db is from the starting gate custom. |
| Posted by: badanov 2005-03-10 8:13:26 AM |
| #15 Lotus Notes. Let NSA make it secure. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-03-10 7:36:54 AM |
| #14 Sobiesky #7 From what I've heard of the requirements a good start would be a CRM system. With all the built in marketing / contract / contact, leads / etc. features all you need to do is change the terminology a little bit and voila, case file management. I've done software customization for the feds and the only thing wrong with the 5 rules is that your lucky if they make it 2 HOURS no less weeks without changing the spec. I've worked at some of the biggest companies in the country and the absolute worst internal politics there was 2 orders of magnitude better than the feds. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2005-03-10 7:24:32 AM |
| #13 I wonder if someone even considered some off-the-shelf system that was "good enough?" You go to war with the computer system you have, not necessarily what you'd like to have... |
| Posted by: jackal 2005-03-10 7:23:41 AM |
| #12 perhaps I can interest anyone in a zx81 with no network support? Surely it couldnt be any worse than the existing fbi database .. Cross system intergration may be a problem though , but not an £88 million problem ! hehe |
| Posted by: MacNails 2005-03-10 7:04:25 AM |
| #11 Shocking revelation: Organizations for whom software is core do a better job of producing/procuring software. NASA does worlds better than the FBI or FAA. |
| Posted by: Dishman 2005-03-10 4:40:10 AM |
| #10 The stuff the military does is more "science" than anything else. The NSA can teach any and everyone about "computer security." They do hire real swoftware engineers and coders. They get Clue #1 because they don't get "do overs" in their line of work. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2005-03-10 4:00:01 AM |
| #9 OldSpook, yup, NSA has some excellent software engineers. |
| Posted by: Sobiesky 2005-03-10 2:54:33 AM |
| #8 SPOD there is one place where they get programs that work. The military - especially in the Intelligence areas. The brainiacs at NSA, for example. Mobile for the end users, robust, and relatively simple to operate and maintain - and internetowrked! Maybe the FBI should shove its "Not Invented Here" pride, and simply ask what military software it can put to use, and get someone to install it, and then customize off that base. There is probably plenty of GOTs (Government off the shelf) stuff sitting around if they'd drop the "must be special for the FBI" attitude. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-03-10 2:47:30 AM |
| #7 SPoD, It is all #1. There may not be a suitable off-the-shelf commercial app available for their specific requirements--if yes, then follow your scenario, if not, there ARE capable people to do it. But it all (no matter if the base is off-the-shelf commercial app or custom made) hinges on #1. |
| Posted by: Sobiesky 2005-03-10 1:50:08 AM |
| #6 This is the outcome of ALL government custom software projects excluding those in hard science. Scientists know how software works. They don't overpay and they don't get screwed very often. The FBI, IRS, whom ever allways go over budget and end up with an unusable one off system. Clue 1 Decide what you want and stick to it. Don't change your mind every 2 weeks and toss all previous work in the trash can. (normal way government does custom software.) Clue 3. Buy off the shelf solutions just like real succsssful businesses do. Clue 3. Hire real software engineers and coders to keep it running and secure and to slap a "custom" front end on the unchanged base comercial applications. Clue 4. Fire anyone who can't understand Clues 1 through 3 Clue 5. Shoot anyone who ignores Clue 4. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2005-03-10 1:43:22 AM |
| #5 Yep - the monster they were fooling around with finally croaked - as it was clear it would do way back when. I just do not believe in employing fools - and Fibbie upper management is all about image and sending "messages" and sucking up to congressional committees - resulting in political waste and failure, instead of technology and law enforcement triumphs. This is not the first major Fibbie IT fuckup, just the latest and, probably, the most expensive. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-03-10 1:28:14 AM |
| #4 Weren't we discussing this a while ago? Reads familiar. Or was it another fine example of government at work? |
| Posted by: Sobiesky 2005-03-10 1:17:07 AM |
| #3 They should talk to Fred. They don't know what they're doing - and it's our money. I could say sooo much more, having designed and written big-assed monsters for the last 30 years, but it would be a waste. Everyone has their favorite dog to enter, such as a wiki-based model, but it will end up being custom and expensive, no matter what is available or what they say. Fibbie Mgmt. Sigh. Geez, you suck like a perfect F5. Talk to Fred -- or talk to the hand, you morons. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-03-10 1:08:53 AM |
| #2 What they usually mean by flexible system is that it can bend over and they can fuck with it. |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2005-03-10 1:08:08 AM |
| #1 more updated, flexible system - When people told me they wanted a flexible system, I used to push a blank sheet of paper across the table and tell them "That is the most flexible system I know." Some people got it. Not many though. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-03-10 12:55:32 AM |