5 ms·
Given how much of that $700B is likely to go towards developing such a system - likely somewhat less than all of it - and the general care towards usability in
by Kalium 7y ago
Given how much of that $700B is likely to go towards developing such a system - likely somewhat less than all of it - and the general care towards usability in DoD-built systems? I think it might not be a wildly unreasonable position to take. Doubly so when you consider that DoD procurement and development practices are not widely renowned for being quick.
With those in mind, and that Signal already exists, it's worth considering if there's actually something for the DoD to gain by sinking millions of dollars and years of time into developing and maintaining something new that might not be an improvement. The answer might legitimately be "No, that's not worth it".
- mjevans 7y agoI agree; I took the comment to be rather precisely worded: 'we cannot SURPASS the existing (and free) solution already in the market' This seems more like an endorsement of the level of integrity and robustness of the product and a recognition that taxpayer dollars could be better spent not re-inventing the wheel. Additionally, off the shelf products mean that they could spent far less resources ensuring it continues to meet and exceed the necessary standards rather than building a new thing.
- jn1234 7y agoAnd also that the US Fed Gov's role in funding Signal. Hopefully, the best outcome will probably be seeing how stupid the backdoor and encryption debate is.
- IIAOPSW 7y agoI suppose I'll take a shot at a counterargument. The problem with the military using an off the shelf system like Signal isn't the tangible features (re: encryption, usable ux). The problem is one of control. What happens when the government gets into a dispute with Signal (say, over a warrantless wiretap) and Signal decides in protest that it will no longer have any DoD affiliated customers? What happens when, through a series of shell companies and legal loopholes, a controlling stake in Signal ends up in Chinese or Russian hands? From the PoV of the DoD, owning the system from end to end is a feature they shouldn't compromise on, even if the other features suffer and it costs more than it otherwise would.
- Kalium 7y agoThose are very wise questions! Perhaps they are ones that I expect the DoD has considered? As far as I know Signal is open source and no commercial arrangement is required to make use of it, putting the DoD in a position to respond in a technical capacity should there be a conflict. In legal terms, I believe the DoD could stop any acquisition on national security groups. The US government, like many national governments, reserves that power. Signal is developed and run by a 501c3, making this a somewhat unlikely series of events. Again, those are great points. I'm just not sure they wind up being any risks the DoD can't readily control.
- thinkloop 7y agoGiven that it is open source, it seems odd that they wouldn't run it on their own servers.
- brisance 7y agoJust because I know how a car works mechanically doesn't mean I'm inclined to build a fleet of my own.
- jml78 7y agoThe DoD absolutely has the technical ability to run their own shit.
- backupcavalry 7y agoYes, but he's suggesting that DoD might not care to, which I can believe. Whether that's out of laziness or time constraints is another question.
- GcVmvNhBsU 7y agoThe trend for the last couple of decades (since Reagan?) is: if it’s not used to kill people, contract it out. Systems that used to be run by DoD personnel are now ran by Oracle/Microsoft in the cloud and Northrop/Raytheon and various small companies for on-premise.
- mzs 7y agoWas the URL changed? I see nothing about $700B in the militarytimes article.