$18M Contract For Transparency Website Released — But Blacked Out 384
zokuga writes "The US government recently approved an $18 million contract for Smartronix to build a website where taxpayers could easily track billions in federal stimulus money, as part of President Obama's promise to make government more transparent through the Internet. However, the contract, which was released only through repeated Freedom of Information Act requests, is itself heavily blacked out. ProPublica reports: 'After weeks of prodding by ProPublica and other organizations, the Government Services Agency released copies of the contract and related documents that are so heavily blacked out they are virtually worthless. In all, 25 pages of a 59-page technical proposal — the main document in the package — were redacted completely. Of the remaining pages, 14 had half or more of their content blacked out.' Sections that were heavily or entirely redacted dealt with subjects such as site navigation, user experience, and everything in the pricing table. The entire contract, in all its blacked-out glory, is here."
Re:tagged: !change (Score:3, Informative)
It's pocket change in the face of billion dollar bailouts.
I wish I could mod you "+1, even more cynical than I am".
Re:Surprised? (Score:5, Informative)
Ahh, the hypocrisy of our democracy.
Actually it's a republic rather tha a democracy, but the action is hypocritical anyway.
If voters had to vote on all bills passed by the legislators and signed by the President before they became law, then it would indeed be a democracy. As it is, considering the power of money and the weakness of a single person's vote, it's closer to a plutocracy than a democracy.
nothing to see here (Score:5, Informative)
The first few redacted pages are the names and histories of the people involved. This is privacy, and nothing new.
The other pages are management chains used on the project and are part of KPMG's/Smartronix value-added business techniques, and it's their option to not reveal those practices.
I'm not too concerned. Wait until the site opens up.
Re:tagged: !change (Score:3, Informative)
I think the comment is "insightful" because it reveals the way things are, not because it is a prescription for the way things ought to be.
Re:Transparent? How is this government such? (Score:5, Informative)
So far the ones that are being called unMerkin are the ones that seem to be incapable of speaking in any manner other than yelling and screaming about "Death Panels". Rather than contributing to the discussion they are denying everyone else the chance to contribute to the discussion.
Re:Surprised? (Score:4, Informative)
Ahh, the hypocrisy of our democracy.
Actually it's a republic rather tha a democracy
MYTH. Representative democracy != Republic.
Re:Transparent? How is this government such? (Score:5, Informative)
Like the one in NH where everyone present was hand-selected by the party?
He couldn't even FIND a skeptic in that auditorium.
It may have been civil, but wasn't anything that could pass as debate.
Re:Surprised? (Score:3, Informative)
Hate to burst your bubble, but saith Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
The United States of America (commonly referred to as the United States, the U.S., the USA, or America) is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district.
(Emphasis mine.)
Re:nothing to see here (Score:1, Informative)
I did see a lot of that... but then you get into stuff like Site Navigation, Hourly rates and things like that, which for such a website should be anything but redacted. The public should know exactly how much they're charging so people can scrutinize the value (or apply for a job with them).
The $18 million is almost all labor costs. Must be nice to pay the web programmer $250/hour... are they hiring?
Re:Surprised? (Score:5, Informative)
And to quote a more credible source, saith the CIA World Factbook [cia.gov]:
Re:Well this is certainly change (Score:5, Informative)
Uh, I think the point is that you can go to war with those weapons. The Constitution was designed so that the people always had the option of bloody, bloody revolution. I wasn't there, so I don't know for certain what the founding father's were thinking, but I'll guess that they left this option in so that the legislators would have reason for pause when considering draconian laws.
Re:nothing to see here (Score:1, Informative)
I agree, I have been on many government contracts (hardware for NASA) and they require names and salaries of key personnel. Much of the blacked out information would reveal both employee names and compensation. It must be redacted by privacy laws.
Re:tagged: !change (Score:2, Informative)
Clinton gave us the DMCA.
Can we stop this ridiculously misleading statement yet? The DMCA was introduced to the House of Representatives by Howard Coble (R-NC) and passed the Senate unanimously. The only part Bill Clinton had in it was not bothering with a completely meaningless veto. You can blame the Democrats that voted for it all you want, and they certainly deserve to share in the blame, but blaming Clinton is disingenuous, if not outright lying.
Re:tagged: !change (Score:5, Informative)
The DMCA was introduced to the House of Representatives by Howard Coble (R-NC) and passed the Senate unanimously. The only part Bill Clinton had in it was not bothering with a completely meaningless veto.
So your argument is that Clinton shouldn't have bothered to uphold his oath to preserve and defend the Constitution because the veto would have been meaningless?
Hint: The DCMA isn't the only thing Clinton fucked up. Remember the CDA [wikipedia.org]? Remember the assault weapons ban [wikipedia.org]? How about the Defense of Marriage Act [wikipedia.org]?
Re:Surprised? (Score:5, Informative)
nearly all Democracies are Republics, there is one obvious counter example.
Which one?
United Kingdom (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the rest of the Commonwealth)
Denmark
Netherlands
Belgium
Norway
Sweden
Japan
Spain
Luxembourg
There are lots more...
Re:tagged: !change (Score:3, Informative)
By the way, as far as Senate Democrats who voted to pass the bill, all of them did. (All Senate Republicans did too; the bill passed unanimously.) The GP's post is that this isn't expansion of government isn't a problem of one political party. As far as the DMCA goes, it isn't.
Re:tagged: !change (Score:3, Informative)
No. We can't. Because it's accurate.
Clinton was the head of the Democratic party, and had immense power over party policy. Additionally, his party had control of congress and the presidency. Additionally, the law is merely congressional ratification of a WIPO treaty agreed to by the Clinton administration.
Re:Transparent? How is this government such? (Score:5, Informative)
Dissent isn't un-American. What Pelosi said was that drowning out the other side so that there cannot be any debate is un-American. I agree. The town hall protesters are not interested in a debate. They are showing up, and walking up within a few feet of the speaker to yell at them in a physically-threatening manner.
Mr. Gingrinch opines that Obama's health care plan has spectres of Nazism. Protesters promptly paint swastikas onto the door of politicians who support the plan [11alive.com] and waive signs calling Obama a Nazi. A black politician received death threats, and references to himself and Obama as "niggers". They are standing outside of town hall meetings with guns strapped to their legs with a sign saying it's time to water the tree of liberty. [dailymail.co.uk]
The protesters don't even have anything intelligent to say other than, "YOU'RE LYING TO ME!" and "YOU'RE A BUNCH OF SOCIALISTS." That's not debate. That's a hateful mob trying to rule by intimidation. Look up videos of these confrontations. It's freaking terrifying. Tell me that's American.
For more fun, look up how Republicans and conservatives freely called Democrats un-American or anti-American. For fuck's sake, a few months ago, Republican Senator Inhofe called Obama "un-American" for opposing the war in Iraq. [newsok.com] A speech is un-American but showing up threatening physical force and painting swastikas is not?
Re:Well this is certainly change (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Transparent? How is this government such? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Well this is certainly change (Score:3, Informative)
Ignorance is no excuse. Regulated as in the second amendment means you can hit what you aimed at. It doesn't mean a disciplined army rife with regulation.
Aslo, there is a semicolon there for a reason. Check out the DC keller case which goes into great detail on this.
Re:Not all prices are blacked out (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, I'm still waiting for somebody to explain which part was blacked out that should not have been?
Section 4.1 on page 81 is a good example of something that is redacted with no plausible reason. All the redactions on pages 83 through 89 are similarly questionable. These sections -- could we read them -- ostensibly would deal with how the website itself is specified to behave.
How on earth is that information subject to FOIA exemptions?
Re:tagged: !change (Score:2, Informative)