$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."
Surprised? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well this is certainly change (Score:5, Insightful)
Change we can believe in ! Belief being necessary because, you know, you don't get to check.
Say what were those economic numbers again ?
Democracy (Score:2, Insightful)
I love this f*cking country, and this country loves f*cking me.
Re:tagged: !change (Score:4, Insightful)
$18 million dollars is change...
It's pocket change in the face of billion dollar bailouts.
Transparent? How is this government such? (Score:5, Insightful)
I would hate to see a secretive US Government then...
Ramming bills through Congress, no five day period, hell five days seems to apply how long a before a thousand page bill is dropped on us before its rammed through.
One party rule never works and just as before when they were in power they do all the same rotten things they claim the other side did when they had power.
Apparently they are so wrapped up in knowing whats best for us, because they are so obviously smarter and well... transparency is where they deem we need to have it.
Now we have a nearly sinister cooperation of the press and government all walking the same line. Calling them out on it is now unAmerican. We get town halls that first tell us everyone is entitled to their opinion followed by statements that those who dare have a differing one need to get out of the way.
Website, schebsite, its all just more bs for the point column where the score never matters as long as they win.
Re:This is not an issue (Score:1, Insightful)
12 lines? Are you kidding? Check out the public document yourself. I would guesstimate the total blacked-out lines to be closer to 1,200.
This is a publicly funded web-project unrelated to military defense. It should be 100% wholly visible to citizens. Period.
Really blacked out? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe, just maybe, it's one of those PDF dealies where it's not really blacked out because they're just rendering rectangles over text that's still in the document. Yeah, it's a longshot but check on it anyway.
Also, WTF could possibly be so sensitive about a contract for a WEB SITE??? You'd think they have some kind of sense for how much traffic the most popular government sites are getting, and be able to order some colo and stuff based on that. That's what I'd expect to find in there... servers, bandwidth, hourly support rates to handle wierd stuff like DDoS attacks. WTF could possibly be in there that needs to be blacked out for any reason???
Good Enough For Government (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is cost a secret (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the redactions in the contract are to protect trade secrets, national security concerns...etc
So what part does cost of the contract fall under for you.
If they are hiding costs here, how can you assume the website is really revealing all money being spent, when the foundation itself remains obscured.
Not one cent of government expenditure should be obscured. I can understand something like military spending sometimes being put in a black box (and that only in truly exceptional cases), but you should at least be able to see the cost of the box...
Irony (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Transparent? How is this government such? (Score:4, Insightful)
>>We get town halls that first tell us everyone is entitled to their opinion followed
>>by statements that those who dare have a differing one need to get out of the way.
It's not so much that shouting the pledge of allegiance in an overly jingoistic way in a juvenile attempt to disrupt things is unAmerican; it's more a matter of being annoying and counter-productive. It wasn't entertaining when the Dems acted like babies for the last 8 years, and it isn't entertaining now to see Conservatives acting the exact same way. If you want to express a dissenting opinion, then do it in a civil manner, but please, take the dress off before you do.
Re:This is not an issue (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Transparent? How is this government such? (Score:2, Insightful)
I was going to moderate this, but I couldn't divine a coherent thread that justified any available moderation. Specifically, I wonder:
Is this a criticism of the Democratic or Republican Party politicians, as if they are responsible for the redaction of this document (which doesn't seem likely)?
Or is it meant to say that politicians are consistently in the pockets of corporations?
Or is it a criticism of the press, and the inability of people to say what they think without being labeled unAmerican, (as if this is somehow new, now that George W. Bush is no longer president)?
Or is it a complaint that the recent "town hall" meetings across the country have been effectively neutralized by people who have turned the process from a discussion into a name-calling event?
Re:tagged: !change (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure how this is "insightful". Because we're spending a ridiculously huge amount of money, we can waste a ridiculously huge (but relatively small) amount of money?
Startup companies that develop web applications run for 4+ years on $18mil with 30+ developers and a sales and management team. And they turn out products orders of magnitude more complex than this tracking website. I wish I knew about the bid. I could have undercut these guys by about $14 mil, pulled a team together in about a week, gotten the job done quick and retired in style.
Re:Expected (Score:5, Insightful)
BS. There are no national security concerns around a publicly-facing website, particularly one dealing with dissemination of budget information. If there are, then they need to seriously rethink their strategies. I can envision certain sensitive information that may be blacked-out, but for a project like this, it would be a rarity. Furthermore, there is absolutely no reason to hide the remuneration details from the public.
It's not unreasonable to ask why this project costs $18 million to implement, when it is mostly a standard CMS with a few extras added on.
Not employees though, companies. (Score:4, Insightful)
They didn't hide the costs for the project. They hid the cost per job type. They probably don't want their employees knowing what the others are getting paid.
But this [propublica.org] looks more like they are hiding *companies* involved, not individuals.
In fact I would very much like to know just who is getting paid for this, and how much - so that if I wished I could trace back connections to various senators that insisted certain web development providers were chosen...
If you don't want someone to know how much you are getting paid, even as an individual - don't work on government contracts. It's that simple.
come on conservatives (Score:3, Insightful)
The only way for this to get more attention is for the opposition party to take it up as a cause. That's the reality of our 2 party system. Not just this website but lack of transparency across the board. We've seen a number of examples in the last 7 months. So, instead of birth records or death panels, take something that's actually demonstrably outrageous. I'm about as far left as it gets, which makes me want someone to call out this bullshit even more. This is one check on the power of a political party but I doubt we'll see this story get any play on right wing radio or fox news.
Hold on, I'm being told that we want more Orly Taitz and town hall attendees with vague fears who want their America back.
Re:tagged: !change (Score:5, Insightful)
An online banking site. Possibly also betting sites. Mostly because they deal with money and any security breach is fatal. That's the only examples I can think of excluding megasites like google, facebook and amazon.
Those sites could be built for a few hundred thousand + server costs. $18M to make a site that lists sales receipts is a huge middle-finger to taxpayers.
Re:Transparent? How is this government such? (Score:4, Insightful)
I would hate to see a secretive US Government then...
Not to take sides, but how about one that "loses" millions of emails [cnn.com]? That's when stuff gets really scary-- when they stop redacting records before releasing them and start destroying them outright.
But no, sure, this isn't exactly transparent.
Now we have a nearly sinister cooperation of the press and government all walking the same line. Calling them out on it is now unAmerican. We get town halls that first tell us everyone is entitled to their opinion followed by statements that those who dare have a differing one need to get out of the way.
Now you won't believe me, but lots of people think I'm too conservative, and I consider myself conservative to a large degree, so this isn't about that. But still, I don't agree with what you're saying.
As far as the evil press, it does seem to me that most people who talk about the press being evil are still blindly listening to someone who is part of "the media". People complaining about NYT and MSNBC are watching Fox News and listening to Rush Limbaugh, and vice-versa. The reason you think "the other side" is trying to use the media to mislead you is largely because "your side" tells you they are, so no one is completely clean in that regard. Yes, both sides are manipulating their coverage because the people running the show have an agenda that they're pushing. If you don't see how they're manipulating your and you don't know what agenda they're pushing, then you should pay more attention.
But as far as these people at the town hall meeting being "un-American", well... they're certainly being disruptive. What they're engaging in isn't constructive criticism or deliberate conversation. What they're doing is not debating. Hard to say whether that's "unAmerican" since our founding fathers were the intellectual elite who founded our government on philosophic theories, but they're also the lawless hooligans who dumped someone else's tea into the harbor.
However, it does seem to me that many of them are misinformed. There are plenty of valid things to be concerned about with this health care reform, but death panels aren't really one of those things. No one is suggesting death panels. Being misinformed and refusing to listen to anyone who might inform you better can be problematic behavior.
Re:Well this is certainly change (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm seeing this phrase on more and more bumper stickers. I don't know who to attribute it to.
"I'll keep my guns, my freedom and my money. You keep the change."
I guess I don't quite get the fear about guns being taken away. I mean, have you seen the actual list of those firearms targeted for bannage? I can't quite imagine anyone needing any of them for any non-war purposes. But then again, I'm not a gun person. Maybe someone who is could point out which of these the populace ought to be running around with.
.22 rim fire rifles).
A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a
detachable magazine, and has:
(i) a second pistol grip,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a barrel shroud or
(iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and
(v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10
rounds.
A semiautomatic shotgun with:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a pistol grip (see definition below),
(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity
of more than 5 rounds, and
(iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
Rifles (or copies or duplicates): M1 Carbine, Sturm Ruger Mini-14, AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, AR-10, Thompson 1927, Thompson M1; AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR; Olympic Arms PCR; AR70, Calico Liberty , Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU, Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC, Hi-Point20Carbine, HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, HK-PSG-1, Thompson 1927 Commando, Kel-Tec Sub Rifle; Saiga, SAR-8, SAR-4800, SKS with detachable magazine, SLG 95, SLR 95 or 96, Steyr AU, Tavor, Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle ( Galatz ). Pistols (or copies or duplicates): Calico M-110, MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3, Olympic Arms OA, TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10, Uzi. Shotguns (or copies or duplicates): Armscor 30 BG, SPAS 12 or LAW 12, Striker 12, Streetsweeper. Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs): A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has: (i) a folding or telescoping stock, (ii) a threaded barrel, (iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see below), (iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud. Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds (except tubular magazine
Re:tagged: !change (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:tagged: !change (Score:3, Insightful)
You can build an entire online banking or betting application, go through a year of security audits and certifications, and still come in at under $1mil easily. The price doesn't all of a sudden go up just because there's money involved in the application. Any online application should be secure, that doesn't change just because it's for a bank or bookmaker.
But the site in question isn't even dealing with people's money - it's just a lookup site to see where the money is going.
Re:tagged: !change (Score:4, Insightful)
Mad Libs contract (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well this is certainly change (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't quite imagine anyone needing any of them for any non-war purposes.
There are those that believe that Amendment 2 exists to give the populace the means to revolt again, should it become necessary.
A revolution, being a type of war, would require weapons designed for war purposes.
Much like any defensive device, you don't own such a thing hoping to use it. You own it praying you never need it, but knowing you can react should you discover you do.
Re:Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
We're a Representative Democracy. That's a kind of Democracy. As opposed to a Direct Democracy, which is what a lot of people mean when they say "We aren't a Democracy". Well, we aren't that kind of democracy. But we are a kind of Democracy. So depending on what you mean, it is perfectly valid to say we're a democracy.
"Republic" fundamentally means "A nation whose leader is not a King or other hereditary ruler" -- the CIA's totally-not-Cold-War-politics-derived definitions notwithstanding. Iraq under Saddam was a Republic. China is a Republic. So are we. Just a different kind.
Re:Surprised? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
You could call any country with a constitution, a federal government and indirect representation a "federal constitutional republic", and since just about every country has a constitution of some sort, I'm gonna go with "federal democratic republic" as the title of our type of government.
Yes, indeed. China is a Federal Constitutional Republic, among other things. The original error in this thread was when someone said "we're not a democracy, we're a republic", as though they are mutually exclusive, or as though either word on its own fully describes a government.
A Republic is a government which has a leader or chief executive who is not a hereditary monarch. A Democracy is a nation ruled either directly or indirectly by the people. They are not exclusive, and neither term necessarily implies the presence or absence of the other -- though nearly all Democracies are Republics, there is one obvious counter example.
We are a Republic. A Constitutional Republic. We're also a Democracy, specifically a Representative Democracy, which is to say indirect rule by the people via elections.
People are trying to be pedantic but are creating extra restrictions that don't exist for the words in question, which is the opposite of pedantry. It's basically arguing "This cat is orange!" and "No! This cat is fuzzy!"
Re:Well this is certainly change (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you for saying it that way.
I recently purchased a LAR-15 and a .40 Cal Springfield hand-gun. Both are semi-automatics. I purchased my weapons for a few reasons:
1) Politics. I'm never sure when Democrats intend to make another go at the 2nd Amendment. In fact, Obama's silence on the subject scared me more than if he came out banging drums about the matter.
2) Violence in US border cities with Mexico where drug cartels are kidnapping people *in the US*. Their gangs are more and more often using higher power weapons. As are the police departments in those areas. I demand a fighting chance.
3) Home-grown crime. I recently lived in Tulsa, OK. 2AM home invasions was the modus operandi in that city for ~6 months. People were getting mugged while in their beds. This happened to 3 or 4 families. Then, one night, 2 perps performed a home invasion and the home owner shot and killed both in his home. He was not charged. A few weeks later 2 more perps attempted the same thing - the homeowner shot and killed the two. He, too, was not charged. Surprisingly, home invasions stopped. Completely.
That being said, I hope I never have to use my weapons to defend myself. That being said, I will *not* be a victim to crime.
The U.S. government is corrupt. (Score:4, Insightful)
By some measures, the U.S. government is the most corrupt in the world. For example, this Rolling Stone article about the extreme financial corruption in the U.S.: The Great American Bubble Machine [rollingstone.com]. (The full article is in the paper edition, available at any library.)
The U.S. government spends more money on surveillance and war than any country in the history of the world. That taxpayer money partly helps those who want corruption to profit, and hurts U.S. taxpayers, and the entire world. For just one example, see the book, House of Bush, House of Saud [amazon.com].
The U.S. government has invaded or bombed 25 countries since the 2nd world war [evergreen.edu]. Most or all of the interference was for profit. Quote: '... although nearly all the post-World War II interventions were carried out in the name of "freedom" and "democracy," nearly all of them in fact defended dictatorships controlled by pro-U.S. elites'. The dictators pay the corrupters. In Iraq, those who control the U.S. government want control over the oil, and don't care how many people they kill. In Afghanistan, the corrupters want to build an oil pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to a port where the oil can be delivered.
The U.S. government has a higher percentage of its people in prison than any country ever in the history of the world, over 6 times higher than in Europe, for example. Wikipedia quote: Approximately one in every 18 men in the United States is behind bars or being monitored. [wikipedia.org]
U.S. citizens don't want to believe that their government is as corrupt as it is, even though the recent financial corruption has made many of them poor.
who didn't see this coming? (Score:2, Insightful)
his idea of transparency doesn't seem to be between him and the tax pay but him and the media that he gets to hand pick to attend select meetings.
why don't people get pissed about this? why is it that every time bush so much as misspoke it was front page news but when obama blatantly turns his back on the tax payer and panders to the media it's winked at?
as long as people are picking teams and letting fouls by their team slide nothing is going to change. obama needs smacked down on this. he needs to be shown that we are watching and that even though he may be answering the medias questions the accountability is still to the tax payer.
Re:Not all prices are blacked out (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:tagged: !change (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:tagged: !change (Score:1, Insightful)
Putting it together - Cheap.
Going through ALL THE FUCKING PAPERWORK and inputting it - Expensive.
Sheesh, just make it so that inputting their budget into this is part of the process of getting your budget accepted by the higher ups from now on. At least from 2010 on, we won't have to spend $18 million on data entry.
On the plus side, maybe I can get a job doing this. If they wanna finish this quickly, should be thousands of jobs for a few months. If they're willing to take their time, a few hundred for half a year or more.
Re:Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, seriously - rushing bills through faster than anyone can read them and check them for problems, and now this?
The new boss is the same as the old boss. This does make me sad, since I was hoping Obama would be better than Clinton (being better than Bush isn't hard, and he easily exceeds at this, as would my cat). But to paint this as a Democrat or Republican issue is rather naive, both parties are only interested in the same thing right now; power. The Republicans are even more laughable than the Democrats though (which again is a very meaningless compliment).
I'd rather they rush through health care though, which I might see a small benefit from, than the USA PATRIOT ACT, or a silly war, neither of which benefited anyone. Not saying its a good thing, or that I agree with Obama's package here, but just as points of comparison.
What annoys me more is both parties new found reliance on astroturfing and cheap gimmicks stolen from the advertisement world. And what annoys me even more is that tons of people (who I now no longer feel guilty calling "plebes") buy it and repeat the well bought falsehoods to me, and on the evening news. This crap was especially present during the Sotomayor brouhaha, with the left saying everyone with any doubt was a racist, and the right selecting sound bites to make her sound racist (racism being the the instant taboo of the day), and with the bizarre "birther" morons catering to the absolute morons of the Republican party (not saying the Dems are better, just they haven't catered to any demographic quite so stupid yet, not that they are beyond it).
It is bizarre that neither party is capable or wanting of a public policy debate, and that none of there members seem to be wanting of one. At least the previous groups of partisan nitwits weren't afraid of waving their agenda about. After this last election, though, the idiots are out in force.
Re:Well this is certainly change (Score:3, Insightful)