6 ms·

I can't believe the Government is actually trying to defend HBGary after all that has been revealed about them. Are they doing it because they hired them to do

I can't believe the Government is actually trying to defend HBGary after all that has been revealed about them. Are they doing it because they hired them to do all that? I suppose it wouldn't be much different than how they reacted in the Wikileaks case then. They'd do anything to protect themselves regardless of how ethical or unethical it is. EDIT: I also wonder if the way our democracy currently works has become obsolete. We vote for some people every 4 years and then they can basically do whatever they want, with the only repercussion being that their actions might be revealed to the press, and in some cases some scandals will be created, though rarely. If they're unlucky the people will vote for the other party on the next election. But does that truly matter if basically the parties are pretty much one and the same? I think we'll eventually need a "Liquid Democracy" (perhaps sooner than expected). A democracy where decisions can be influenced by the people a lot more often than they are now, and the people can have a much more immediate impact on a politician's career or a Government if they screw up.

veb 15y ago
I expected them to deny all ties with HBGary, and publicly shame them. Would've made things a lot easier...
enra 15y ago
> We vote for some people every 4 years and then they can basically do whatever they want That's the reason I have not voted for a while. Once I give my only vote, I cannot take it back but I'm indirectly responsible what they will do.
- melvinram 15y ago
  By not voting, you're responsible for whoever gets elected. Silence is complicity.
  - bh42222 15y ago
    Silence is complicity. This is bad argument. What if neither candidate is remotely fit for your vote? What if due to a very ancient but rather simple system, third party candidates don't stand a chance? What if it would be far more effective to lobby than to vote if you want change? I could just as easily argue that voting legitimizes a broken system in need of radical reform.
    - nddrylliog 15y ago
      I don't know how it works in the USA, but in France, you can vote "blank". This is what you do when no candidate fits your view. It's better than abstention because it still counts in the stats (and might prevent a candidate from gaining absolute majority)
      - phtrivier 15y ago
        Actually, in France, in most elections if you vote 'blank' (leaving the envelopp empty in the ballot), it will be considered the same as abstention (not showing up at all for the vote). There is a recurring debate about whether the two things should be counted differently (and if so - how). This is the kind of 'recurring debates' that we French people love - at least when discussing that we're not talking about serious issues :P
    - melvinram 15y ago
      neither candidate is remotely fit for your vote 2 part reply: 1) The neither candidate is remotely fit for your vote argument is valid but should be only be used on a rare instance. For example, in the last presidential election, the 2 final candidates may have not been perfect but it's hard to claim they were both not fit to be presidents, especially given they were both chosen among many others during the primaries, which brings me to my second point. 2) At least here in the US, there are the primaries. Usually the 2 candidates are the products of early voting. If you don't vote, they don't have to appeal to you. If you vote, they have to appeal to you. Over time, the political "market" steers towards those who vote. "People get the government they deserve" - Alexis de Toqueville
    - melvinram 15y ago
  - nextparadigms 15y ago
    I know what you mean, but what if you hate both (all) choices? I really think people should have a "I don't want any of the above" option. At least that way they and everyone else will be able to see how many people are not happy about the current leading parties, or about what the parties are currently trying to do.
    - phlux 15y ago
      That should be an option, which, if it won - would require a whole new set of candidates be chosen.
    - noahth 15y ago
      There were 4 third-party tickets in 2008 which were on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win the presidency, and about a dozen more that appeared on the ballot in at least a few states. If you really don't like any of those either, perhaps you should get involved in helping a candidate you do support get on the ballot in your state. There are plenty of other ways to become involved and have an influence, however small. Not liking the choices is not a good excuse for not participating. (source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_independent_presidential_candidates,_2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_i...)
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    When the choices are a giant douche and a turd sandwhich, why does it matter if I don't vote?
    - gavingmiller 15y ago
      I'd like to see spoiled ballots counted in elections. That way those that want to vote - but don't believe in their candidates - could be heard in some fashion.
      - jacques_chester 15y ago
        We do this in Australia. The Electoral Commission and its state-level equivalents publish "Informal votes" as part of the results. They are counted as part of the total turnout, but obviously do not go to a particular candidate. In practice many Australians use these to lodge none-of-the-above votes.
    - ChuckMcM 15y ago
      Yes. One is the encumbant, vote against that one. One is the opponent, vote for that one. Here's the deal, politicians that aren't in office have no power, no fun, and no reason to live. So they desparately seek "being in office." (often times by making silly promises but that is another comment) Now if you have a choice between a giant douche (GD) and a turd sandwich (TS) and you always vote against the incumbent. Then one of them (and often both of them) will start changing their behavior so that if they get into office they would stay there. You have the power to modify their behavior, use it. Many elections are won by a difference of less than 10%. So if the 10% of the electorate can choose to play this game (is there 1 in 10 intelligent people in your district?) they will create a better government for everyone. They use a simple rule: 1) Person in office is doing a 'good' job? Vote for him 2) Person in office is doing a 'bad' job? Vote against him It doesn't matter who is running against them or their qualifications. Because, like evolution, this system has its own fitness function (the 10% group think they are doing a 'good' job) which anyone running will quickly come to realize determines if they stay in office. You can even start a campaign "I'm one of the 10% making a better government for you." And when you talk to your elected officials, and candidates for office, let them know the criteria you are using to determine 'good' and what it will take to stay in office. The only way to defeat this system is with outright vote fraud which, as intelligent people, you should be able to help the election commission detect. No amount of special interests, no amount of campaign money, no amount of lying to the stupid people will work. So use this system and always vote. It always matters.
  - keane 15y ago
    I am reminded of the bit by George Carlin: "I don’t vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, “If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain”, but where’s the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote — who did not even leave the house on Election Day — am in no way responsible for that these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created." http://youtu.be/xIraCchPDhk http://youtu.be/xIraCchPDhk
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
- nicholas1987 15y ago
  Everyone should vote and participate. It's our nation's low political participation that allows politicians to be so unaccountable. If more people were politically active, involved, and educating themselves, we'd have much better politicians and laws. I blame our education system for not teaching people how important voting is.
  - sawyer 15y ago
    Negative, it's the fact that you maintain a two party system where both parties are beholden to lobbyists and financial backers. Edit: Hehe, no not you personally; I should have said "your nation." :)
    - nicholas1987 15y ago
      Me personally? I think the problems you cite are made much worse by our weak political participation. When people participate, they're forced to be somewhat aware of what's going on. By not participating they allow themselves to disconnect, which let's politicians get away with more and more. The root cause is education, if people were more educated they'd feel more empowered and more informed and be more likely to participate--with better results. I think the two party system allows people to be uninformed and just vote on a reflect. Edit: I know, I was only jesting.
  - mcphilip 15y ago
    Or maybe it's politicians' tendency toward accountability to the highest bidders' interests instead of constituents' that leads to low participation and feelings of disenfranchisement?
zipdog 15y ago
I think it's because the people within government who hired HBGary are living in the same bubble as the people who wrote the NATO report.
nodata 15y ago
Mark Thomas' book "The People's Manifesto"* suggests making political promises prior to entering elected office legally binding. * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_People%27s_Manifesto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_People%27s_Manifesto
- anamax 15y ago
  Specifically (according to wikipedia) "Party political manifestos should be legally binding." Obama promised that his stimulus package would reduce unemployment to 8% - who goes to jail? Obama promised to increase gasoline prices 4x - who goes to jail?
  - gaius 15y ago
    Obama.
- ChuckMcM 15y ago
  However one of the challenges here is that the information that is available to someone 'in' the office and someone 'seeking' the office is often very different. As an exemplar Obama promised to 'shut down Guantanamo' but once in office he was no doubt made aware of what that would entail and perhaps agreements that were already in place with other countries with respect to people being held there which made 'keeping' his promise impossible. (or at least keeping it would do more harm than not keeping it) There is really only one solution, and most people give up on it before trying, that is an informed electorate. A good hacktivist system for informing the electorate would be to distill the gigabytes of data that is available in the public record for easy consumption. For example create a database of every single non-classified vote in congress and the senate, for each representative maintain how they voted and links to the bills as presented. Cross connect to every admendment they have offered or voted on, every committee vote they have participated in. Every person who has ever given them or their campaign money, every organization that has ever created an advertisement for them and where they got their money. Make location based connections between visitors and their representatives. There are lots and lots of databases which are now loosely connected and hard to search and manipulate. There is a UX problem as well since most of the data bases are weird or hard to talk to. Imagine if you could go to this website, enter your zip code, and get a summary of everything your representative or senator or county supervisor or mayor or school district board member has been involved in since they were elected. You could pull out a document, and pick out the top three, five, ten or twenty questions you would need to know answers to in order to decide if you felt they were 'good' at their job. If you wanted to run against them you would have a good start at understanding their positions and you could go out and talk to the voters and ask if they agreed or disagreed with that. You don't need 'term limits' you don't need 'manifestos' you just need people to vote and to care about what their vote means. Then you will get the government you deserve (and some of us will still want to relocate to the lunar base when it opens but that is a different rant)
cjoh 15y ago
The problem really is procurement. If there's any thing I wish this community would understand, it's that. See -- big government contractors have things locked up. They make campaign contributions to members of congress who create regulations that make it so that they're the only ones who can compete in an open competition. At the same time, Government has effectively replaced a substantial portion of its operational employees with contractors. I've met tech teams, for instance, for all major agencies, and have yet to meet an actual programmer that works for the government, with the exception of some but very few, in the defense community. Heck, even the armed guards who control access to our federal buildings are contractors rather than civil servants. A lot of our issues revolve around procurement. Why did whitehouse.gov cost 12 Million dollars when BarackObama cost $1.2? Procurement. Recovery.gov? 18Million. Why? Only a handful giant companies were allowed to bid. Why isn't congress talking about procurement reform when they're all about budget cuts? http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/lockheed-martin/5516ba695ba741ab9f6ff35627621297 http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/lockheed-martin/55... http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/lockheed-martin/5516ba695ba741ab9f6ff35627621297 http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/lockheed-martin/55... http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/general-dynamics/4438cca4c4ae4715b1bf348629b68cc0 http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/general-dynamics/4... http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/northrop-grumman/6a2f5a216da4454198a2265b4955ff5d http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/northrop-grumman/6... It's a messed up system that makes it so that government has to spend $93 Million Dollars a year on SharePoint when, for let's say 10% of those cases, they could be spending $200/mo on BaseCamp.
- gaius 15y ago
  A lot of our issues revolve around procurement. Why did whitehouse.gov cost 12 Million dollars when BarackObama cost $1.2? Procurement. That's a simplistic analysis. whitehouse.gov went online at a time when everything Internet-related was a lot more expensive.
  - iwwr 15y ago
    Procurement is also a factor in standardization. If you're not Microsoft or Oracle, your best bet is a standards-compliant product.

veb 15y ago

I expected them to deny all ties with HBGary, and publicly shame them. Would've made things a lot easier...

enra 15y ago

> We vote for some people every 4 years and then they can basically do whatever they want That's the reason I have not voted for a while. Once I give my only vote, I cannot take it back but I'm indirectly responsible what they will do.

melvinram 15y ago
By not voting, you're responsible for whoever gets elected. Silence is complicity.
- bh42222 15y ago
  Silence is complicity. This is bad argument. What if neither candidate is remotely fit for your vote? What if due to a very ancient but rather simple system, third party candidates don't stand a chance? What if it would be far more effective to lobby than to vote if you want change? I could just as easily argue that voting legitimizes a broken system in need of radical reform.
  - nddrylliog 15y ago
    I don't know how it works in the USA, but in France, you can vote "blank". This is what you do when no candidate fits your view. It's better than abstention because it still counts in the stats (and might prevent a candidate from gaining absolute majority)
    - phtrivier 15y ago
      Actually, in France, in most elections if you vote 'blank' (leaving the envelopp empty in the ballot), it will be considered the same as abstention (not showing up at all for the vote). There is a recurring debate about whether the two things should be counted differently (and if so - how). This is the kind of 'recurring debates' that we French people love - at least when discussing that we're not talking about serious issues :P
  - melvinram 15y ago
    neither candidate is remotely fit for your vote 2 part reply: 1) The neither candidate is remotely fit for your vote argument is valid but should be only be used on a rare instance. For example, in the last presidential election, the 2 final candidates may have not been perfect but it's hard to claim they were both not fit to be presidents, especially given they were both chosen among many others during the primaries, which brings me to my second point. 2) At least here in the US, there are the primaries. Usually the 2 candidates are the products of early voting. If you don't vote, they don't have to appeal to you. If you vote, they have to appeal to you. Over time, the political "market" steers towards those who vote. "People get the government they deserve" - Alexis de Toqueville
  - melvinram 15y ago
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  I know what you mean, but what if you hate both (all) choices? I really think people should have a "I don't want any of the above" option. At least that way they and everyone else will be able to see how many people are not happy about the current leading parties, or about what the parties are currently trying to do.
  - phlux 15y ago
    That should be an option, which, if it won - would require a whole new set of candidates be chosen.
  - noahth 15y ago
    There were 4 third-party tickets in 2008 which were on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win the presidency, and about a dozen more that appeared on the ballot in at least a few states. If you really don't like any of those either, perhaps you should get involved in helping a candidate you do support get on the ballot in your state. There are plenty of other ways to become involved and have an influence, however small. Not liking the choices is not a good excuse for not participating. (source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_independent_presidential_candidates,_2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_i...)
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  When the choices are a giant douche and a turd sandwhich, why does it matter if I don't vote?
  - gavingmiller 15y ago
    I'd like to see spoiled ballots counted in elections. That way those that want to vote - but don't believe in their candidates - could be heard in some fashion.
    - jacques_chester 15y ago
      We do this in Australia. The Electoral Commission and its state-level equivalents publish "Informal votes" as part of the results. They are counted as part of the total turnout, but obviously do not go to a particular candidate. In practice many Australians use these to lodge none-of-the-above votes.
  - ChuckMcM 15y ago
    Yes. One is the encumbant, vote against that one. One is the opponent, vote for that one. Here's the deal, politicians that aren't in office have no power, no fun, and no reason to live. So they desparately seek "being in office." (often times by making silly promises but that is another comment) Now if you have a choice between a giant douche (GD) and a turd sandwich (TS) and you always vote against the incumbent. Then one of them (and often both of them) will start changing their behavior so that if they get into office they would stay there. You have the power to modify their behavior, use it. Many elections are won by a difference of less than 10%. So if the 10% of the electorate can choose to play this game (is there 1 in 10 intelligent people in your district?) they will create a better government for everyone. They use a simple rule: 1) Person in office is doing a 'good' job? Vote for him 2) Person in office is doing a 'bad' job? Vote against him It doesn't matter who is running against them or their qualifications. Because, like evolution, this system has its own fitness function (the 10% group think they are doing a 'good' job) which anyone running will quickly come to realize determines if they stay in office. You can even start a campaign "I'm one of the 10% making a better government for you." And when you talk to your elected officials, and candidates for office, let them know the criteria you are using to determine 'good' and what it will take to stay in office. The only way to defeat this system is with outright vote fraud which, as intelligent people, you should be able to help the election commission detect. No amount of special interests, no amount of campaign money, no amount of lying to the stupid people will work. So use this system and always vote. It always matters.
- keane 15y ago
  I am reminded of the bit by George Carlin: "I don’t vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, “If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain”, but where’s the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote — who did not even leave the house on Election Day — am in no way responsible for that these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created." http://youtu.be/xIraCchPDhk http://youtu.be/xIraCchPDhk
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
nicholas1987 15y ago
Everyone should vote and participate. It's our nation's low political participation that allows politicians to be so unaccountable. If more people were politically active, involved, and educating themselves, we'd have much better politicians and laws. I blame our education system for not teaching people how important voting is.
- sawyer 15y ago
  Negative, it's the fact that you maintain a two party system where both parties are beholden to lobbyists and financial backers. Edit: Hehe, no not you personally; I should have said "your nation." :)
  - nicholas1987 15y ago
    Me personally? I think the problems you cite are made much worse by our weak political participation. When people participate, they're forced to be somewhat aware of what's going on. By not participating they allow themselves to disconnect, which let's politicians get away with more and more. The root cause is education, if people were more educated they'd feel more empowered and more informed and be more likely to participate--with better results. I think the two party system allows people to be uninformed and just vote on a reflect. Edit: I know, I was only jesting.
- mcphilip 15y ago
  Or maybe it's politicians' tendency toward accountability to the highest bidders' interests instead of constituents' that leads to low participation and feelings of disenfranchisement?

zipdog 15y ago

I think it's because the people within government who hired HBGary are living in the same bubble as the people who wrote the NATO report.

nodata 15y ago

Mark Thomas' book "The People's Manifesto"* suggests making political promises prior to entering elected office legally binding. * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_People%27s_Manifesto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_People%27s_Manifesto

anamax 15y ago
Specifically (according to wikipedia) "Party political manifestos should be legally binding." Obama promised that his stimulus package would reduce unemployment to 8% - who goes to jail? Obama promised to increase gasoline prices 4x - who goes to jail?
- gaius 15y ago
  Obama.
ChuckMcM 15y ago
However one of the challenges here is that the information that is available to someone 'in' the office and someone 'seeking' the office is often very different. As an exemplar Obama promised to 'shut down Guantanamo' but once in office he was no doubt made aware of what that would entail and perhaps agreements that were already in place with other countries with respect to people being held there which made 'keeping' his promise impossible. (or at least keeping it would do more harm than not keeping it) There is really only one solution, and most people give up on it before trying, that is an informed electorate. A good hacktivist system for informing the electorate would be to distill the gigabytes of data that is available in the public record for easy consumption. For example create a database of every single non-classified vote in congress and the senate, for each representative maintain how they voted and links to the bills as presented. Cross connect to every admendment they have offered or voted on, every committee vote they have participated in. Every person who has ever given them or their campaign money, every organization that has ever created an advertisement for them and where they got their money. Make location based connections between visitors and their representatives. There are lots and lots of databases which are now loosely connected and hard to search and manipulate. There is a UX problem as well since most of the data bases are weird or hard to talk to. Imagine if you could go to this website, enter your zip code, and get a summary of everything your representative or senator or county supervisor or mayor or school district board member has been involved in since they were elected. You could pull out a document, and pick out the top three, five, ten or twenty questions you would need to know answers to in order to decide if you felt they were 'good' at their job. If you wanted to run against them you would have a good start at understanding their positions and you could go out and talk to the voters and ask if they agreed or disagreed with that. You don't need 'term limits' you don't need 'manifestos' you just need people to vote and to care about what their vote means. Then you will get the government you deserve (and some of us will still want to relocate to the lunar base when it opens but that is a different rant)

cjoh 15y ago

The problem really is procurement. If there's any thing I wish this community would understand, it's that. See -- big government contractors have things locked up. They make campaign contributions to members of congress who create regulations that make it so that they're the only ones who can compete in an open competition. At the same time, Government has effectively replaced a substantial portion of its operational employees with contractors. I've met tech teams, for instance, for all major agencies, and have yet to meet an actual programmer that works for the government, with the exception of some but very few, in the defense community. Heck, even the armed guards who control access to our federal buildings are contractors rather than civil servants. A lot of our issues revolve around procurement. Why did whitehouse.gov cost 12 Million dollars when BarackObama cost $1.2? Procurement. Recovery.gov? 18Million. Why? Only a handful giant companies were allowed to bid. Why isn't congress talking about procurement reform when they're all about budget cuts? http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/lockheed-martin/5516ba695ba741ab9f6ff35627621297 http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/lockheed-martin/55... http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/lockheed-martin/5516ba695ba741ab9f6ff35627621297 http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/lockheed-martin/55... http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/general-dynamics/4438cca4c4ae4715b1bf348629b68cc0 http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/general-dynamics/4... http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/northrop-grumman/6a2f5a216da4454198a2265b4955ff5d http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/northrop-grumman/6... It's a messed up system that makes it so that government has to spend $93 Million Dollars a year on SharePoint when, for let's say 10% of those cases, they could be spending $200/mo on BaseCamp.

gaius 15y ago
A lot of our issues revolve around procurement. Why did whitehouse.gov cost 12 Million dollars when BarackObama cost $1.2? Procurement. That's a simplistic analysis. whitehouse.gov went online at a time when everything Internet-related was a lot more expensive.
- iwwr 15y ago
  Procurement is also a factor in standardization. If you're not Microsoft or Oracle, your best bet is a standards-compliant product.