They have TRS 80's for redundancy.

People who want to starve government are the first to complain when money is spent to modernize computer systems, and the first to demand an explanation when those antiquated systems fail to help keep the US secure.

In the mid-80's I was interviewing a couple of software contractors who had just finished integrating AWAC systems for NATO in Europe.

They described to me their work at SAC in Colorado, where I was surprised to hear that 10 year old (at that time) Amdahl (Gene) products were still being used.

Now we find out that 30 year old computer systems are still being used to keep the US safe..... it boggles the mind.

What other institution pleads for more money on the basis of incompetence?

The article, were one to read it, goes over the lack of requested funding for improvements.

Of course, this works out well for the "starve the beast" nutters; don't fund US security agencies, then call them incompetent when a disaster occurs.

What business could survive today using 30 year old computers?

Corky,

It only goes to serve the starve the beast agenda of making government as incompetent as possible through negligence and mismangement and then complain bitterly about how incompetent government is.

Never fails to amaze me how people who say government is the problem are seeking to run for government office.

#1 Corky> People who want to starve government are the first to complain when money is spent to modernize computer systems, and the first to demand an explanation when those antiquated systems fail to help keep the US secure.

But they were the ones who didn't ask for new computers or updates. On the other side of the coin, hasn't the IRS spent gazillions of taxpayer funds on several poorly performing computer upgrades in the past decade or so? I seem to remember reading about the debacle in InfoWeek or some similar trade publication.

We see so many instances of government agencies spending, no WASTING huge sums of money, often because if it doesn't work out, they'll just dip back into the taxpayers pockets for more money (or just as likely run up the debt). In a business, generally either heads will roll or the business goes under. If only it worked that way in government more often!

#4 Corky> What business could survive today using 30 year old computers?

I did some work in 2008 for a company that was still running Windows 95/98 on almost all their PCs. The clueless company owner was forced to buy two new PCs and got all bent out of shape when they came with Windows XP ... he badgered their sales rep to get Windows 98 installed. LOL!

On a more sober note, the space shuttle uses fairly old equipment, but there are some pretty good reasons for sticking with them (mainly well reviewed code).

LOL, yeah, righties are preventing them from upgrading.

While Corky may be ready to scrap the secret service's mainframe in favor of a network of Windows Vista Home Edition eMachines, gutting an organization's mainframe and replacing it with something current is a monumental task and they may well just have been putting it off.

they may well just have been putting it off

Probably because they couldn't get funding. Meanwhile, congress goes on "fact-finding" missions to Hawaii. Just proves that Washington doesn't know how to spend money correctly. This in no way proves that more revenue is needed.

Maybe because they couldn't get funding.

#8 | Posted by taxman at 2010-02-26 02:58 PM

And that's my point. We don't know if they couldn't get funding or simply didn't want to upgrade. Many businesses stick with old shitty mainframes for that reason; changing is difficult not just in terms of money, but in training, infrastructure, updating in house software, etc..

#7 - #9

Reading the article must also be an antiquated concept.

Replacing a network that should have been replaced 20 years ago could be problematic, but, "in favor of a network of Windows Vista Home Edition eMachines", is just deflective goofiness.

Reading the article must also be an antiquated concept.
#10 | Posted by Corky at 2010-02-26 04:04 PM

Replacing a network that should have been replaced 20 years ago could be problematic,
#10 | Posted by Corky at 2010-02-26 04:04 PM

Lieberman says he's had "concern for a while" about the Secret Service computers. A 60 percent, fully operational average is far worse than "industry and government standards that are around 98 percent generally," Lieberman said.

So the government average is 98%, but you believe Republicans are starving the government and not allowing their systems to be at a good operation average, as evident by one troubled system. That argument doesn't make sense to me.

Asked why DHS was requesting less money than the initial estimate of $187 million, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano said, "Part of it is an assessment of how much it would actually cost and also what can be purchased and what is needed on a priority basis."

S.S. initially wanted $187 to upgrade, DHS is asking for less. That is an important paragraph.

Partisanship aside, S.S. is a key element to a strong US. Our protection of key leaders and flawless transitions of power is very important, so it would be very nice to see S.S. at that 98% number Lieberman was talking about.

I read the article over again and there is nothing that leads me to believe this is the result of Republican penny pinching. Please point to an especially key sentence or paragraph.

RE:

I read the article over again and there is nothing that leads me to believe this is the result of Republican penny pinching.

LOL. Republicans came in with surplus in 2000 and doubled the debt, enacted the unfunded Medicare Part D and almost two trillion in tax cuts (using "reconciliation" rules) while launching two unfunded wars, and bringing the US to the precipice of another Great Depression. The accusation is not the laughable "penny pinching" you imagine, but priorities and having a fucking clue.

LOL. Republicans came in with surplus in 2000 and doubled the debt, enacted the unfunded Medicare Part D and almost two trillion in tax cuts (using "reconciliation" rules) while launching two unfunded wars, and bringing the US to the precipice of another Great Depression.

So that is why this system hasn't been updated since 1980? Because of the 2000-2008 Republicans? It was brand new in the 90s and is once again on the cutting edge of technology in 2010, which is why DHS is requesting less money for it, apparently.

And was does using reconciliation have to do with anything? Up or down vote is a great way to get legislation passed...seriously. I can't believe the Dems didn't try it sooner, you guys would've had a much stronger bill.

was = what...long day

Up or down vote is a great way to get legislation passed...seriously. I can't believe the Dems didn't try it sooner, you guys would've had a much stronger bill.

#16 | Posted by andyuhenet at 2010-02-27 12:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

I agree. Republicans have certainly used it with aplomb and glee, without apologies.

re: So that is why this system hasn't been updated since 1980? Because of the 2000-2008 Republicans?

Oh, of course not. Republicans aren't expected to govern.

Their job is to sound tough and not budget anything they spend until they aren't in power after doubling or tripling the debt and then they become budget hawks whose solution is to cut taxes, until they are in power again and "Reagan proved deficits don't matter", so they cut taxes and enact legislatin through reconciliation that they don't even attempt to pay for.

There is no allusion to budget cutbacks by Republicans causing this system to not be updated.

(Oh, in between they also like to cause a Great Depression now and then)

Their job is to sound tough and not budget anything they spend until they aren't in power after doubling or tripling the debt and then they become budget hawks whose solution is to cut taxes, until they are in power again and "Reagan proved deficits don't matter", so they cut taxes and enact legislatin through reconciliation that they don't even attempt to pay for.

I agree. If the Republicans governed under Bush like they did with Clinton, we would be in a lot better shape right now. A lot of current Republican arguments fall short because of this.

However, this article doesn't say anything about Republicans being the root of this specific issue.

andy-
Gee, andy, you'd think that in the half-dozen or so years after 9/11 the national security party might have noticed this problem. But, they don't believe in gov't.

Asked why DHS was requesting less money than the initial estimate of $187 million, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano said, "Part of it is an assessment of how much it would actually cost and also what can be purchased and what is needed on a priority basis."

I don't agree with your premise, but if I did, why isn't the current administration doing enough to remedy this problem? You blamed the Republicans for having a priority problem, and Napolitano is openly saying there is a priority issue.

re: I agree. If the Republicans governed under Bush like they did with Clinton

You seriously credit Republicans with the responsible governance under Clinton?

Well, then why is it that every time in the last 30 years that Republicans have had congress and the presidency they double or triple the debt?

Dude don't fly over the handle. I didn't credit the Republicans with Clinton's success. The Republicans were a lot more fiscally responsible when there was an enemy in the White House. With a member of their own party it was open season for pork.

Geez.

re: The Republicans were a lot more fiscally responsible when there was an enemy in the White House.

Perhaps you don't understand that fiscal responsibility and attacking an "enemy" are not the same thing?

But let me get this straight. You think that when Republicans have defeated their new "enemy in the White House", that this time the rhetoric they use in their cynical bid for power actually means something?

I really don't know what to say. Republicans under Clinton new he wasn't on their side and were able to vote (and run for re-election) on being fiscally conservative. With GW Bush in the White House, they were able to vote (and run for re-election) on getting pork to their districts.

If you don't agree with that then I can't help you.

But let me get this straight. You think that when Republicans have defeated their new "enemy in the White House", that this time the rhetoric they use in their cynical bid for power actually means something?

Read my number 23 post, specifically: "A lot of current Republican arguments fall short because of this."

Republicans under Clinton new he wasn't on their side

In what way, substantively, was Clinton not on their side?

"I really don't know what to say. Republicans under Clinton new he wasn't on their side"

Huh? Some of Clinton's greatest successes was when he co-opted good ideas from the other side of the aisle. For example, I can guarantee the Dems would never have suggested Welfare Reform.

In what way, substantively, was Clinton not on their side?

It's politics. They are Republicans, he is a Democrat. What is there to understand about that?

You are obviously trolling and it's late.

Have a good one.

Dan - my point is that with a D in the White House the Republicans can vote a more Conservative game, and when a Republican is in the White House the Republican's spend like mad.

It's politics. They are Republicans, he is a Democrat. What is there to understand about that?

Quite a bit. You can't state a single substantive difference involving governance but Party label, and you fell for the bullshit like someone fired up at a football game. The "conservative" team was playing the "liberal" team, and you are a "conservative" fan....

Either way this article is not indicative of a Republican cause failure, and anyone blaming the Republican party 100% is, well, Corky-esque.

For real now, bedtime.

Peace.

#36, you seriously have mental issues. I am not a ra ra supporter of the Republican Party, or politicians running on Conservative ideas, specifically because they fall short when the Conservatives have the greatest opportunity to forward the agenda (Bush years).

Read my comments, try to understand that I was critiquing the Republicans under Bush.

Dan - my point is that with a D in the White House the Republicans can vote a more Conservative game, and when a Republican is in the White House the Republican's spend like mad.

#35 | Posted by andyuhenet at 2010-02-27 12:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

A perspicacious observer might conclude that "conservative" thus means nothing more than "my donors aren't getting quite the bang for the buck they would be getting if I were in charge".

But I need to go too, Andy.

Have a good night.

"my point is that with a D in the White House the Republicans can vote a more Conservative game, and when a Republican is in the White House the Republican's spend like mad."

But it's all talk. When the Rs were in charge, they couldn't wait to turn surpluses as far as the eye could see into deficits as far as the eye could see. Now that they're out of power, the fact they're suddenly aghast at deficit spending seems disingenuous at best.

much ado about nothing . . .

how sophisticated do your computing capabilities need to be when your job is babysitting & hassling counterfitters?

#41 - right, as I said in #23. If Congressional Republicans fought Bush like the did with Clinton, then they would have a lot more credibility.

Regardless, this article isn't a story on the Republican party failing to fund the secret service, as the Corkster seems to believe.

If you think the secret service computer system is dysfunctional, then you can imagine the CMS's system---so when the WH and dems talk about the savings from medicaid abuse in their plan they're just blowing smoke---CMS at this time doesn't have the technological ability to ferret out abuse.

Updating these systems would be government waste. Ask the Republicans.

For those who may not be aware of it, the majority of large businesses, large banks, car companies, gov't agencies, etc. all use mainframe computers.

The problem may be in the maintenance that has been performed, or the type or size of the mainframes, but mainframes themselves are not instinctively bad.

Not anything like vista.

Having mainframes from the 80s is not a problem. They are quite robust and still well supported by their vendors. Of course they need to be properly maintained. Many companies wasted money and resources migrating from mainframe to UNIX/AIX servers in the 90s. Now of course companies are replicating mainframe style approach to servers (VMWare).

The questions I didn't hear asked were
"how well were these systems maintained?"
"What operational SLAs were in place?"
"Did the SS set up KPIs to be monitored?"
"Was there an IT strategy?"

None of these key questions seemed to have been asked. They obviously weren't followed. This appears to be less of technical issues and far more an issue of incompetence. Fire the IT department and outsource it to EDS, CSC or IBM.

The United States has the maximum assessed contribution to the UN regular budget -- 22%. In 2009 the assessed amount is $598,292,101.

The UN uses allot of this money to bring computers to poor nations. The SS ought to apply for some of these programs. On 2nd thought that would be a waste of time because they probably wouldn't qualify.

"The United States has the maximum assessed contribution to the UN regular budget -- 22%. In 2009 the assessed amount is $598,292,101."

It is GDP based, the US is also resource rich, so what the fuck is your point? (aside to cry about the UN which is a very cheap tool of the US along with the IMF)

Now we find out that 30 year old computer systems are still being used to keep the US safe..... it boggles the mind.

#2 | Posted by Corky

And other breaking news. All welfare reciepiants have new cell phones and laptops.

"And other breaking news. All welfare reciepiants have new cell phones and laptops.

#50 | Posted by Sniper"

Which ones did you get?

the machines that we are allowed to see...

The government is clearly unable to govern even itself, therefore, we must dismantle it entirely and allow the corporations to oversee the business of running this once great country.

CEO's know what they're doing, they know how to get things done. Politicians are inept and corrupt and can't be trusted. They would give everything to the poor and bankrupt us all.

Government is evil and unnecessary, a tool of the rich and powerful to take away our freedoms. We must return to the days of the company store if we are to remain a strong and viable force in today's brutal economic times.

Isn't that how the whole fascism is wonderful argument goes? Did I do that right? It's kinda early still, I got a bit drunk last night and the brain ain't really firing on all cylinders, so you'll have to forgive me for the lame effort.

We need to take back our government, but we can't. We've been bought, sold and butt-fucked by the corporate jackals that pose as politicians, elect themselves to office and screw everything up as much as they can so they can turn around and say "SEE?!? See how incapable the government is?? And you want US to regulate and oversee anything?!?!"

All the hick rubes and brainwashed Republican citizens say to themselves "yeah, I don't want big government breathing down my neck! they can't even tie their own shoes!"

So, we dismantle the protections which citizens formed a government to supply them with in the first place, and allow the corporations to moniter themselves...
While the corporations sit back and chuckle...

"We'd have had the money to buy new computers with if we didn't have to give it to lazy poor black people!!" While we pass out trillions in corporate welfare, just for the right to be screwed by them in return.

Maybe we can blame the next 9/11 on the poor. You know, the same people who caused the financial crisis by irresponsibly racking up more debts than they could afford to repay.

These people aren't inept, they're brilliant. Just ask Grover.

Easy...

They run 80's equipment because of SOFTWARE, 42 mission critical applications. This is not a go out and buy some a PC type of hardware issue.

The question is how much would it cost to rewrite all the software they have on those 66's? I bet they don't even have the source code to the software they are running.

Which ones did you get?

#51 | Posted by furio

bof em.

"Easy...

They run 80's equipment because of SOFTWARE, 42 mission critical applications. This is not a go out and buy some a PC type of hardware issue.

The question is how much would it cost to rewrite all the software they have on those 66's? I bet they don't even have the source code to the software they are running.

#55 | Posted by AndreaMackris"

Odds are it's lost source code. I know of a large trading corp who lost the source code to their first web based trading system and had to rewrite from scratch.

But rewriting software is not fun and a waste of money/focus. No one wants to write new software at this point.

If it works, why break it?

Exactly flurio, just keep reding those punch cards. And what was that fortran or cobalt?

"Exactly flurio, just keep reding those punch cards. And what was that fortran or cobalt?

#58 | Posted by DavetheWave"

"cobalt"? numbfuck .Net loser. Gonna lose your job to an injun unless you can move up to architect.

Having worked for various gov't agencies in the past, I can testify that the majority of the workers I came in contact with were, well, unemployable anywhere else. Not just unqualified, but often unintelligible. If they had 3 brain cells to rub together, they were promptly demoted. The fact that gov't workers now make more, on average, than non-gov't workers is truly asinine. Again, not a situation that anyone with a corporate background would approve or condone.

As for outsourcing the day to day operations, I strongly recommend against Accenture. Haven't worked with EDS, but IBM would be fine.

You are an hateful, angry person flurio. Been dumped lately, racist?

"You are an hateful, angry person flurio. Been dumped lately, racist?

#61 | Posted by DavetheWave"

Did I touch a sore spot with the Outsourcing jibe? Not my fault you are irrelevant and redundant.

Outsourcing jibe? Maybe if I was in IT, which I am not, that would have been relevant.