As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Technology and the US Government - Do they not mix?
ArcSyn
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Everyone's been talking about Obama and how he is going to be the first "social" or "technological" president. How it was a big thing to take away his personal blackberry, and how he has used the social web to help his campaign. I have also heard news that the White House and it's staff are very much restricted in the types of things he can do now that he is there.
This MSNBC article talks about the state of the technology in the White House, and I was wondering what your takes on it were?
A few things stood out to me:
1: Staff change right now is HUGE, so some hiccups are going to happen and I can't imagine this is ever a smooth process. Does the fact that Obama relied on tech so much make this that much bigger of a deal to be newsworthy?
2: Would you know, while trying to be elected into the presidency, what restrictions are going to be in place and how they would keep you from doing some of the stuff you may be planning? How was this a shock to any of these people?
3: Apple? Seriously? Did they think the White House ran on Macs? Do you think they should try to move over to using Macs? (I thought the mention of "6 year old MS software" to be a bit sensationalist, considering it was probably just XP which most businesses are still running anyway)
4: And why are there so many restrictions? I can understand security, but I can't imagine it needing to be as tight as some of these comments imply.
5: Is there not a media team that would be handling stuff like the captions who would already be familiar with the software? Why are the new people trying to add captions to video?
I don't expect answers to all these questions as many are rhetorical, but they popped in my mind while reading this. I am glad at least that the Bush administration didn't leave it as much of a mess as the Clinton era did.
tl:dr - Obama crew wishes they had new Macs, but has to live with working on XP.
This MSNBC article talks about the state of the technology in the White House, and I was wondering what your takes on it were?
If the Obama campaign represented a sleek, new iPhone kind of future, the first day of the Obama administration looked more like the rotary-dial past.
Two years after launching the most technologically savvy presidential campaign in history, Obama officials ran smack into the constraints of the federal bureaucracy yesterday, encountering a jumble of disconnected phone lines, old computer software, and security regulations forbidding outside e-mail accounts.
What does that mean in 21st-century terms? No Facebook to communicate with supporters. No outside e-mail log-ins. No instant messaging. Hard adjustments for a staff that helped sweep Obama to power through, among other things, relentless online social networking.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here
"It is kind of like going from an Xbox to an Atari," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said of his new digs.
In many ways, the move into the White House resembled a first day at school: Advisers wandered the halls, looking for their offices. Aides spent hours in orientation, learning such things as government ethics rules as well as how their paychecks will be delivered. And everyone filled out a seemingly endless pile of paperwork.
Glitches
There were plenty of first-day glitches, too, as calls to many lines in the West Wing were met with a busy signal all morning and those to the main White House switchboard were greeted by a recording, redirecting callers to the presidential Web site. A number of reporters were also shut out of the White House because of lost security clearance lists.
By late evening, the vaunted new White House Web site did not offer any updated posts about President Obama's busy first day on the job, which included an inaugural prayer service, an open house with the public, and meetings with his economic and national security teams.
Nor did the site reflect the transparency Obama promised to deliver. "The President has not yet issued any executive orders," it stated hours after Obama issued executive orders to tighten ethics rules, enhance Freedom of Information Act rules and freeze the salaries of White House officials who earn more than $100,000.
The site was updated for the first time last night, when information on the executive orders was added. But there were still no pool reports or blog entries.
No one could quite explain the problem — but they swore it would be fixed.
One member of the White House new-media team came to work on Tuesday, right after the swearing-in ceremony, only to discover that it was impossible to know which programs could be updated, or even which computers could be used for which purposes. The team members, accustomed to working on Macintoshes, found computers outfitted with six-year-old versions of Microsoft software. Laptops were scarce, assigned to only a few people in the West Wing. The team was left struggling to put closed captions on online videos.
Senior advisers chafed at the new arrangements, which severely limit mobility — partly by tradition but also for security reasons and to ensure that all official work is preserved under the Presidential Records Act.
"It is what it is," said a White House staff member, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "Nobody is being a blockade right now. It's just the system we need to go through."
'Not starting from scratch'
The system has daunted past White House employees. David Almacy, who became President George W. Bush's Internet director in 2005, recalled having a week-long delay between his arrival at the White House and getting set up with a computer and a BlackBerry.
"The White House itself is an institution that transitions regardless of who the president is," he said. "The White House is not starting from scratch. Processes are already in place."
One White House official, who arrived breathless yesterday after being held up at the exterior gate, found he had no computer or telephone number. Recently called back from overseas duty, he ended up using his foreign cellphone.
Another White House official whose transition cellphone was disconnected left a message temporarily referring callers to his wife's phone.
Several people tried to route their e-mails through personal accounts.
But there were no missing letters from the computer keyboards, as Bush officials had complained of during their transition in 2001.
And officials in the press office were prepared: In addition to having their own cellphones, they set up Gmail accounts, with approval from the White House counsel, so they could send information in more than one way.
A few things stood out to me:
1: Staff change right now is HUGE, so some hiccups are going to happen and I can't imagine this is ever a smooth process. Does the fact that Obama relied on tech so much make this that much bigger of a deal to be newsworthy?
2: Would you know, while trying to be elected into the presidency, what restrictions are going to be in place and how they would keep you from doing some of the stuff you may be planning? How was this a shock to any of these people?
3: Apple? Seriously? Did they think the White House ran on Macs? Do you think they should try to move over to using Macs? (I thought the mention of "6 year old MS software" to be a bit sensationalist, considering it was probably just XP which most businesses are still running anyway)
4: And why are there so many restrictions? I can understand security, but I can't imagine it needing to be as tight as some of these comments imply.
5: Is there not a media team that would be handling stuff like the captions who would already be familiar with the software? Why are the new people trying to add captions to video?
I don't expect answers to all these questions as many are rhetorical, but they popped in my mind while reading this. I am glad at least that the Bush administration didn't leave it as much of a mess as the Clinton era did.
tl:dr - Obama crew wishes they had new Macs, but has to live with working on XP.
ArcSyn on
0
Posts
They're not transparent because it took them a business day to update their fucking website? What the fuck, MSNBC?
As for the issue of the Obama campaign wanting access to new technology, I'm fine with that as soon as that technology is demonstrably secure. Right now, a lot of it just isn't. If our NSA can spy on every Crackberry, every IM conversation, and every VoIP call, so can Russia and China's.
Moreover, the point about IM and the like leaving no paper trail is absolutely valid. Given the fact that we couldn't trust the Bush administration with fucking email, I'm reluctant to start letting elected officials use communication mediums that are even more difficult to keep records of.
If they were accustomed to running their own Linux distribution, Obuntu, if you will, they should be able to use that. These days, saying you can only use one kind of computer if like saying you can only use one kind of pen or one kind of stationary. We have developed secure standards for interoperability. Mac OS, Windows, Linux... it shouldn't matter if they're writing up documents, updating websites, and emailing each other. And if you're going to offer proprietary services, it would be prudent to use some sort of stable middleware for the clients (Java anyone?), because anything can change at any time.
Yes.
There's also a little something called the Presidential Records Act. Considering there was a massive scandal about the last occupants violating it willy-nilly, it's sort of important that they obey it.
One big issue - at least on the Blackberry/mobile computing part - is that the usefullness (and shiny-shiny) of gadget technology is absolutely at odds with security.
The executive of government agencies are just as vulnerable to gadgets (and the status symbols they have become) as pretty much anyone, perhaps more so. They are different than the average joe worker, in that they are highly placed in the organization enough to say "make it so" and actually have something happen. No different than your average CEO having his own IT department paint roses red, or what have you.
But the problem with mobile computing is not the technology. We can move data securely, we can store data securely - we have encryption designed (and evaulated) to protect classified data - it's all well understood. The problem is we can't be sure we can *display* that data securely. Does the legitimate owner still have his Blackberry? Is he somewhere he can use it without someone shoulder-surfing? The nightmare situation is the device being left unattended while unlocked. There are some technical solutions for some of these problems, but the ones left, and some of the edge cases, are still significant.
Take into account that some of these people are prone to just walking out of the office with classified documents so that they can read them on the DC Metro on the way to work (which is Federal-pound-you-in-the-ass-prison not allowed), and then you start talking moble computing with anything more important than your Facebook account and you're going to have both your IT and IA departments break out into cold sweats.
Imagine, you hand these same people the NSA-approved, super-sekret-secure CryptoBerry device (which incorporates the latest and greatest security controls and technology) and say "Now dear, remember not to use this in an unsecured area where anyone can see your screen or you entering your password, and never, ever, ever leave this unattended, especially when it's unlocked." Technology can't completely factor out all the ways the person can screw up. You're the security guy charged with maintaining the confidentiality of that data. You're responsible. So, you want to bet your life on that, if it's not absolutely necessary to performing the job that data is required for? I wouldn't.
It makes government look like it's living in the Dark Ages, but there's a reason for it. At least some devices exist. A scant few years ago, there weren't any secure mobile devices like this available on the market at all. Things are improving, just far more cautiously and slowly than the consumer market moves.
Yeah, sure, they're allowed to have their preferences. They're probably also pretty realistic about it too. I'd rather drive a Ferrari, but all I can afford is a Toyota. When you go to work at a company, you generally use what they provide. Some companies may actually support Mac and PC platforms, but generally, you get the same standard desktop everyone else gets, and in a lot of business and government, that's still XP.
It's an overblown nit-pit piece of "entertain-journalism", not news reporting. You pretty accurately identified most of the obvious flaws in the piece right in your OP. Unreasonable expectations. It really smacks of sour grapes "waah, my candidate didn't win - look, look, his tie is just a little crooked, crooked tie shows contempt for America! BURN HIM! I expect it'll go on for longer than it might have otherwise just because of the symbolism that's become attached to Obama.
It's not particularly difficult to set up an e-mail server that keeps copies of everything, or an IM client that logs everything. Fuck, my IM client does that.
I'm not talking about them using Gmail or some stupid shit like that, but it's not like they don't have the room or budget to set up some internal servers for e-mail and communications.
Expecting the President of the United States to effectively manage the country without a fucking computer in his office is downright retarded.
When you become the CEO of a company, however, the rules are usually a little different.
I guess that means they are going to further crackdown on copyright infringement.
>.>
<.<
Did anyone read up on the 3500$ phones they normally have for the president (A cousin to the palm treo with an extra 'secure and trusted' lcd display). Aparently, they need nsa approved encryption schemes for connection to anything for secret and higher level clearance.
Its also a little different when everything you do has to be logged and the myriad of security concerns, not to mention that the software may not even work on Macs.
What "the software"? The PRA doesn't specify specific software.
Regardless, I wasn't talking about mac vs. pc so much as the complete lack of other modern technology like computers, cellphones, e-mail accounts, internal IM, etc.
Yeah, the PRA doesn't specify what software to use, but reinventing the wheel every 4 to 8 years just so that somebody can use a mac instead of a pc to write in MSWord isn't exactly cost-effective. Also it's the government. Shit takes forever to get done there.
Also, it's day one!
It depends on what the computer is being used for.
About the only thing I share in common with the Obama crew.
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
Except the funny thing is he was a blatant and admitted Blackberry user, not iPhone.
He didnt say anything about computers, he said reinventing the wheel. Why switch from Windows to XP? Of course they get new laptops every couple years.
It seems some of you dont have to worry about administering a corporate/government network. As was pointed out, the most unsecure things nowadays are dumb users.
"Was cursing, in broken english at his team, and at our team. made fun of dead family members and mentioned he had sex with a dog."
"Hope he dies tbh but a ban would do."
Well, I meant them wanting to use Macs, more than the iPhone, I Just wanted to quote a much shorter bit.
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
"Was cursing, in broken english at his team, and at our team. made fun of dead family members and mentioned he had sex with a dog."
"Hope he dies tbh but a ban would do."
The problem here is not the act of logging these communications, that's an issue of basic logistics. The problem is the fact any written transaction is going to be recorded and stored and is potentially the subject of a FOIA request or subpoena. Banter between two senior aides in an IM conversation can be potentially used against the administration in an election or some such. It's important in environments like the White House to keep some things off of an official written record. You don't want an offhand remark to cost you an election or votes on a bill you're supporting. High level officials can leave e-mailing and scheduling to their aides and staffers.
Besides the issue with the PRA in general there's also a lot of government accounting/operating rules that have to be abided by, even by the office of the President. For instance contracting rules don't allow for official purchases over a certain dollar amount without going through a bidding process. Rahm Emanuel can't head down to a Best Buy or an Apple Store and pick up a palette of computer equipment. It takes a few weeks/months to get through the bureaucracy to get proper equipment. Also the outgoing administration likely butter the offices of their day-to-day machines. A good deal of communication equipment used by senior officials of the Buash administration were provided by the RNC rather than the White House. There was a bruhaha about this a few years ago as it was found a good deal of official business was conducted with what were essentially privately owned Blackberries.
As far as the WH websites goes, government web pages are subject to a number of operating rules. First content has to be Section 508 compliant. Content has to be accessible to screen readers and the like. Video content also needs to have closed captioning of some form. Besides being accessible the PRA comes back to haunt the WH websites since all changes must be recorded and preserved under PRA guidelines. Government sites also can't put official content behind any sort of user agreement so for instance they couldn't only post video addresses to YouTube. This month's Wired has a very good article about electronic challenges for the Obama administration. The Obama campaign had an easier time than the administration will because they were private citizens then but are public officers now.
He's only a Blackberry user because he doesn't want to appear elitist and out of touch to the American public.
He is a secret Mac user.
That's the first thing I thought when I read the article when it was posted on Fark yesterday.
Consider that you have a bunch of old fogeys still in power who were used to dictating letters not so long ago. They may not understand technology that well. Their staffers utilize a ton of tech in their jobs, but the actual executives weren't born in the computer generation and have no need to jump in.
Additionally, like you see in some corps, there are departments in the fed that hoard technology and their hoarding can slow the pace of other departments.
If anything you send electronically, from "Hey, Mahmoud, I'm gonna fuck you in the ass if you build a nuke" to "Hey, Joe, let's go to Area 51 and talk to the Roswell Aliens, they do this thing with their third eyelids that you gotta see" to "Michelle, Little Barak wants to party... send the kids and your mom shopping, and wear the Tina Turner wig... and send the butler for some KY, we're going down to brownsville" is discoverable, then you probably want to keep him away from the computer.
If you work at a company that reports to the SEC, emails and the like are discoverable upon a lawsuit that prompts the court to issue a supoena to snag all email records of X, Y, and Z executives, so they are also controlled in their computing access.
That's your company. We are on machines that are 5 years old. The corp just worked a deal to extend the warranties on desktops/laptops for two more years. Risk aversion can be a hell of a compulsion.