$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)
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.
Re:Surprised? (Score:5, Funny)
********, * ***** you're ********. The ********** between a ********* and a ******** is **** **** ********** than that.
[Some content redacted due to FOIA exemptions]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You should know that I take it personally when people talk about my mother like that ;)
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.
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:Surprised? (Score:4, Informative)
Ahh, the hypocrisy of our democracy.
Actually it's a republic rather tha a democracy
MYTH. Representative democracy != Republic.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Thanks for that thorough debunking.
"... and to the representative democracy, for which it stands ..."
Re: (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:Surprised? (Score:5, Informative)
And to quote a more credible source, saith the CIA World Factbook [cia.gov]:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Surprised? (Score:4, Funny)
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:4, Funny)
Well, in all technicality, we have a democratic republic. In our constitution (constitutional) it calls for voting (democratic) to figure out who the representatives are (republic) to the fereral government (federal).
Ah, there's the problem, the government's gone feral!
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: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: (Score:2)
Ahh, the irony that people call it a democracy.
tagged: !change (Score:5, Interesting)
To add insult to injury, I wonder if it was a no bid contract?
Re:tagged: !change (Score:4, Insightful)
$18 million dollars is change...
It's pocket change in the face of billion dollar bailouts.
Re: (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: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: (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: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, I can't even imagine what the line item pricing table must look like. I've spent 2500-3000 hours developing a really complex web application over the past year and a half, and we've spent about $200k on development. An $18mil database lookup application would be a pretty sweet deal for any developer. The only thing that sucks about it is that it's taxpayer money.
Re:tagged: !change (Score:5, Funny)
Do you have a government vehicle?
Yes, I drive a Chevy.
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: (Score:3, Informative)
By the way, as far as Se
Re: (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: (Score:2)
If one thing is bad, and the other thing is worse, this does not make the first thing better at all. No, it even fortifies the feeling that that which is common to both of them in bad.
Re:tagged: !change (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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:tagged: !change (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (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 $1mil easily. The price doesn't all of a sudden go up just because there's money involved in the application. Any online application should be secure, that doesn't change just because it's for a bank or bookmaker.
But the site in question isn't even dealing with people's money - it's just a lookup site to see where the money is going.
Re:tagged: !change (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Spare some change mister?
Re:tagged: !change (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not an issue (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
#AT%$#NO CARRIER
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is not an issue (Score:5, Funny)
[WIND-LIKE SOUND REDACTED]
Re: (Score:2)
Best. Woosh. Ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, I think you didn't quite get the joke...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not all prices are blacked out (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
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 ?
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: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.
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:Well this is certainly change (Score:4, Interesting)
Then why was "a well regulated militia" mentioned in the 2nd amendment?
Sorry to be a gun-rights party pooper, but I have a hunch there's more than meets the eye here.
Re:Well this is certainly change (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Democracy (Score:2, Insightful)
I love this f*cking country, and this country loves f*cking me.
Slashdotted (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
I am also interested in how people are supposed to verify information from the supposed transparency. If the government is the one setting it up, it is childs play to manipulate the system to show what they want. I suppose that is what the redacted sections touched on.
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: (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 thi
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: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: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: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: (Score:2)
Did those other administrations make any claims about accountability and openness?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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???
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That begs the question, "Whom can spot the sig playfully fishing for grammar Nazis?"
For all intensive porpoises, its not iamhigh.
Good Enough For Government (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good Enough For Government (Score:5, Funny)
You mean overpay by an order of magnitude or more? No thanks!
Hanlon's Razor Maybe? (Score:2)
those racists (Score:5, Funny)
black out? you guys have new code word everyday. just can't accept an African president can you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually they should've used white-out on the rest of the contract since he's half white.
Re: (Score:2)
Irony (Score:2, Insightful)
deliverables? (Score:3, Interesting)
http://documents.propublica.org/recovery-gov-contract-documents#p=97 [propublica.org]
Re:deliverables? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Ah... now I know why (Score:3, Funny)
Now I know why its $18 million - they are using Sharepoint.... from Open Source software to the Evil Empire..
E
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.
Redaction we can believe in! (Score:2)
REDACTED we REDACTED!
Trusting Government... (Score:4, Interesting)
What amuses me is how many sheeple in this country still Trust the government to do what is best for them and to keep them safe.
.
FACT: The Government can only always be trusted to take your money and rights away from you.
.
Any government form is flawed as it is composed as many flawed individuals who are not good people. From the DMV clerk with an attitude, the City council member who taking kickbacks from the country clubbers, to the senator who is taking money from PACs, all of the way to the president who is taking money from companies like G.E.
.
When will people learn that you need government but you need to be vigilant and limit their powers at every turn. We need to also teach people the common ideal that when you let or expect people to take care of a certain aspect of your life you lose some of your freedom. For every sugar coated promise a politician makes there is a equal price to pay in lost control, money or freedom over our own lives.
.
The Instant Gratification ME, ME, ME culture of today's society feeds directly to the politician's sweet saccharine promises of how the government is going to take care of them. There used to be a time when people used to have enough pride in themselves that if you gave someone a free meal they would see to it that they would return the favor because they felt if they didn't they would be viewed a selfish loser. We used to bear the burden of our families and help take care of our grandmas and grandpas, aunts and uncles, cousins and children. These days those responsibilities are dropped upon the government who ends up doing a sub standard job of doing so. The politicians don't mind this, in fact they love this dependency on their special programs, they gain power in political capital which ensures that they get re-elected each term. These guaranteed votes allow them to be as corrupt as they want as they no longer fear reprisal. They no longer fear reprisal because they they have large voting block dependent on them.
.
Put it this way, when you were a kid and were totally dependent on your parents and your parents grounded you, did you have the power to stand up against them in any meaningful way? No you didn't.
.
Same with the government, the more of your life they control and make you dependent on them, the more they can get away with.
.
.
The Government has so much of this control that they are no longer accountable to their own actions. It doesn't surprise me that they would black out information and manipulate documents even when it comes to a promise of transparency. They are all a bunch of corrupt schmucks because we let them be that way. Maybe if we are to be a ME ME ME generation who acts like children, then we really deserve Big Brother or Father watching over until we grow and wake up. What is the German word for Father again????
.
We all have inherent human rights, the government's role is not to GRANT you rights, the role of government is to RESTRICT your actions when they infringe upon other people's rights. But people these days think that the government is their parents handing out things like rights, privileges and safety.
.
Maybe we deserve exactly what we got.
Mad Libs contract (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
You seem to have a good point there just let me... oh wait wait wait wait wait... since when has a programmer been paid in equivalence to how much the company charges for something to be done? Never?
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However, the redactions in the contract are to protect trade secrets
But are they secret to protect a competitive advantage (knowledge of a better way to do things), or just to prevent embarrassment?
national security concerns (explaining integration with other confidential government systems)
"Connections made using this particular SSH key (or SSL client cert) can make these updates." Or perhaps "national security" is the new term for "official embarrassment".
Who does it,a nd the details of the contract, are largely irrelevant.
"It's like coppery and goldy, only made out of iron." More seriously, that's something like a hundred plus people for a year. WTF are they doing that takes that long?
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that the general public really has a need to know which exact people are working on each team. There are arguably privacy concerns there.
Well, this argument seems to be watertight, I'll just have to agre-- oh wait wait wait wait wait... hm... except for one problem, I can't think of any human with a 4-page-long name whose privacy would be protected by blacking it out... There is no one with a 4-page-long-name, is there?
Re: (Score:2)
Troll? Man that is completely unfair mods. That was my opinion sirs. If you can refute my points then please do so. Should I water down my response to be more PC or something? I don't get it.
Re: (Score:2)
B. Bush *did* trash the economy, and the GOP in Congress before him, (Phil Gramm I'm looking at you!)
C. The banks were only able to take on too much risk because the lax/non-existant oversight.
D. And politicizing the monetary base would be a good thing how exactly?
E. As an Obama voter, I'm getting upset with him on the lack of follow through, though likely in different areas than yourself
F. You really want to compare GOP hypocrites to Dem
Re: (Score:2)
As for being angry on your own right, congrats. Now remember how the liberals who were angry at Bush for an illegal war, wild secrecy, torture and generally ruining our global reputation (among other things) were called 'anti-american' and 'unpatriotic'?
how's it feel on the other foot?
See this is the illogical world of American politics. You assume that since I critique the current administration that I somehow endorsed the previous administration's blatant disregard for the people's will. I do not and have
Re: (Score:2)
was it the panties thing?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, sort of, except it isn't really just a website. Its a propaganda machine. For better or worse, there's no pretense of neutrality on these sites. They are supposed to represent a '.gov' point of view, but reflect only those positions of the President.
Further, they suck. Under the 'fact check' segment about Obama not seeking to dismantle private insurance, all you find is hand waving. A simple trip to youtube reveals the comments being quoted were NOT taken out of context and/or spliced together.
Ei
President != King (Score:4, Funny)
Whoever we elect has to deal with all the other people we elected. Not to mention the thousands of people who've spent years of their lives (and upon whom we've spent millions of dollars) to become experts in their fields so they can accurately advise the president.
Though I am sure Ron Paul would have had all the answers. He would have know how to forestall a second great depression, made peace with the suicide bombers in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan, reversed the spread of AIDS and malaria in Africa and brought prescription and health care costs to 1970s levels.
Why, his very presence would have inspired NASA to ...
oh wait, he would have spent all his political capital trying to do away with the income tax. his platform of drastically reduced federal spending and lax regulation would have been perfectly timed for our recent recession. the slashing of federal spending just as private capital was drying up would have an incredible impact on our way of life.
and then after the fallout and devastation following the second great depression the survivors could get to the real business of building a new utopia based on the works of Ayn Rand.
now that is change I can believe in! sign me up!