4 ms·

18F/TTS repeatedly was cited by the Inspector General for breaking rules and making false statements, often for political reasons. E.g: March 2023: "GSA Misled

18F/TTS repeatedly was cited by the Inspector General for breaking rules and making false statements, often for political reasons. E.g: March 2023: "GSA Misled Customers on Login.gov’s Compliance with Digital Identity Standards" (refused to use mandatory facial recognition because it believed it was racist) [1] June 2017: "Investigation of Whistleblower Reprisal Complaint" (finding that an Obama political appointee retaliated against a career official for blowing the whistle on mismanagement) [2] April 2017: GSA acknowledges "gross mismanagement" [3] October 2016: "Evaluation of 18F" (finding that it spent thousands of dollars on things like "inclusion bots") [4] May 2016: "GSA Data Breach" [5] February 2017: "Evaluation of 18F’s Information Technology Security Compliance" (misrepresented severity of breach) [6] [1] https://www.gsaig.gov/sites/default/files/ipa-reports/Alert%20Report-GSA%20Data%20Breach%205.12.16.pdf https://www.gsaig.gov/sites/default/files/ipa-reports/Alert%... [2] https://www.gsaig.gov/sites/default/files/foia/Investigation%20of%20GSA%20Whistleblower%20Reprisal%20Complaint%20June%202017.pdf https://www.gsaig.gov/sites/default/files/foia/Investigation... [3] https://osc.gov/Documents/Public%20Files/FY17/DI-17-0642/DI-17-0642%20Agency%20Report.pdf https://osc.gov/Documents/Public%20Files/FY17/DI-17-0642/DI-... [4] https://www.gsaig.gov/sites/default/files/ipa-reports/OIG%20EVALUATION%20REPORT_Evaluation%20of%2018F_%20JE17-001_October%2024%202016.pdf https://www.gsaig.gov/sites/default/files/ipa-reports/OIG%20... [5] https://www.gsaig.gov/sites/default/files/ipa-reports/Alert%20Report-GSA%20Data%20Breach%205.12.16.pdf https://www.gsaig.gov/sites/default/files/ipa-reports/Alert%... [6] https://www.gsaig.gov/sites/default/files/ipa-reports/OIG%20EVALUATION%20REPORT_Evaluation%20of%2018F%20IT%20Security%20Compliance_JEF17-002_February%2021%202017.pdf https://www.gsaig.gov/sites/default/files/ipa-reports/OIG%20...

snvzz 2y ago
An example of highly relevant, yet flagged with political motivation. We should try and do better than that.
- otterley 2y ago
  Did you check out the links? They don’t align well with what is claimed (especially the first link). Posts from throwaway accounts should generally be treated with skepticism.
  - lostdog 2y ago
    Wow, the first link has absolutely nothing to do with facial recognition or racism. That poster is either outright lying or posting LLM garbage.
    - kjs3 2y ago
      That poster knows its target audience. It wants readers like the first response from snvzz who say "look at all those impressive looking links that I'm told support my preconceived notions! Clearly, this is a person of gavitas who I must upvote, defend from criticism and forwarded to my equally uncritical echo chamber!".
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - hnburnsy 2y ago
    Read the GSA forensic audit yourself... https://www.gsaig.gov/sites/default/files/ipa-reports/OIG%20EVALUATION%20REPORT_Evaluation%20of%2018F_%20JE17-001_October%2024%202016.pdf https://www.gsaig.gov/sites/default/files/ipa-reports/OIG%20... >18F’s cumulative net loss from its launch in FY 2014 through the third quarter of FY 2016 is $31.66 million. We found that 18F’s plan to achieve full cost recovery has been unsuccessful because of inaccurate financial projections, increased staffing levels, and the amount of staff time spent on non-billable activities. 18F managers have repeatedly overestimated revenue and, with the support of the Administrator’s office, hired more staff than revenue could support. In addition, 18F staff spent over half of their time on non-billable projects. 18F managers have recently revised their projected breakeven date from 2019 to 2020.
    - ein0p 2y ago
      So basically it was a billion-dollar taxpayer funded gravy train. Nobody could predict this, absolutely nobody.
  - throwaway492810 2y ago
    Sorry, I pasted the wrong link for [1] (though you could have easily found it by googling "GSA Misled Customers on Login.gov’s Compliance with Digital Identity Standards"). It is here: https://www.gsaig.gov/content/gsa-misled-customers-logingovs-compliance-digital-identity-standards https://www.gsaig.gov/content/gsa-misled-customers-logingovs... The executive summary says: "Our evaluation found GSA misled their customer agencies when GSA failed to communicate Login.gov’s known noncompliance with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-63-3, Digital Identity Guidelines. Notwithstanding GSA officials’ assertions that Login.gov met SP 800-63-3 Identity Assurance Level 2 (IAL2) requirements, Login.gov has never included a physical or biometric comparison for its customer agencies. Further, GSA continued to mislead customer agencies even after GSA suspended efforts to meet SP 800-63-3. GSA knowingly billed IAL2 customer agencies over $10 million for services, including alleged IAL2 services that did not meet IAL2 standards. Furthermore, GSA used misleading language to secure additional funds for Login.gov."
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
throwaway492810 2y ago
Sorry, I pasted the wrong link for [1], which describes how 18F thought facial recognition was racist, so it simply did not implement it for high-security accounts despite being required by spec, and falsely assured agencies that it was in compliance anyway. It is here: https://www.gsaig.gov/content/gsa-misled-customers-logingovs https://www.gsaig.gov/content/gsa-misled-customers-logingovs... The executive summary says: "Our evaluation found GSA misled their customer agencies when GSA failed to communicate Login.gov’s known noncompliance with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-63-3, Digital Identity Guidelines. Notwithstanding GSA officials’ assertions that Login.gov met SP 800-63-3 Identity Assurance Level 2 (IAL2) requirements, Login.gov has never included a physical or biometric comparison for its customer agencies. Further, GSA continued to mislead customer agencies even after GSA suspended efforts to meet SP 800-63-3. GSA knowingly billed IAL2 customer agencies over $10 million for services, including alleged IAL2 services that did not meet IAL2 standards. Furthermore, GSA used misleading language to secure additional funds for Login.gov."
insane_dreamer 2y ago
OK, none of those would be reasons for shutting down the work they're doing. But yeah, it sounds like they were concerned with racism, inclusion, and all that "bad woke stuff" that we shouldn't be worried about when _designing technology for all citizens_. So long as it works for white males, we're good! Also all those were during Trump's first term by the way, with the exception of the last one (and facial recognition has been shown to be biased so they have a point there).
omnivore 2y ago
haa, an insepector general looking at this stuff is quaint in the era of let's just break all the rules.

snvzz 2y ago

An example of highly relevant, yet flagged with political motivation. We should try and do better than that.

otterley 2y ago
Did you check out the links? They don’t align well with what is claimed (especially the first link). Posts from throwaway accounts should generally be treated with skepticism.
- lostdog 2y ago
  Wow, the first link has absolutely nothing to do with facial recognition or racism. That poster is either outright lying or posting LLM garbage.
  - kjs3 2y ago
    That poster knows its target audience. It wants readers like the first response from snvzz who say "look at all those impressive looking links that I'm told support my preconceived notions! Clearly, this is a person of gavitas who I must upvote, defend from criticism and forwarded to my equally uncritical echo chamber!".
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- hnburnsy 2y ago
  Read the GSA forensic audit yourself... https://www.gsaig.gov/sites/default/files/ipa-reports/OIG%20EVALUATION%20REPORT_Evaluation%20of%2018F_%20JE17-001_October%2024%202016.pdf https://www.gsaig.gov/sites/default/files/ipa-reports/OIG%20... >18F’s cumulative net loss from its launch in FY 2014 through the third quarter of FY 2016 is $31.66 million. We found that 18F’s plan to achieve full cost recovery has been unsuccessful because of inaccurate financial projections, increased staffing levels, and the amount of staff time spent on non-billable activities. 18F managers have repeatedly overestimated revenue and, with the support of the Administrator’s office, hired more staff than revenue could support. In addition, 18F staff spent over half of their time on non-billable projects. 18F managers have recently revised their projected breakeven date from 2019 to 2020.
  - ein0p 2y ago
    So basically it was a billion-dollar taxpayer funded gravy train. Nobody could predict this, absolutely nobody.
- throwaway492810 2y ago
  Sorry, I pasted the wrong link for [1] (though you could have easily found it by googling "GSA Misled Customers on Login.gov’s Compliance with Digital Identity Standards"). It is here: https://www.gsaig.gov/content/gsa-misled-customers-logingovs-compliance-digital-identity-standards https://www.gsaig.gov/content/gsa-misled-customers-logingovs... The executive summary says: "Our evaluation found GSA misled their customer agencies when GSA failed to communicate Login.gov’s known noncompliance with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-63-3, Digital Identity Guidelines. Notwithstanding GSA officials’ assertions that Login.gov met SP 800-63-3 Identity Assurance Level 2 (IAL2) requirements, Login.gov has never included a physical or biometric comparison for its customer agencies. Further, GSA continued to mislead customer agencies even after GSA suspended efforts to meet SP 800-63-3. GSA knowingly billed IAL2 customer agencies over $10 million for services, including alleged IAL2 services that did not meet IAL2 standards. Furthermore, GSA used misleading language to secure additional funds for Login.gov."

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

throwaway492810 2y ago

Sorry, I pasted the wrong link for [1], which describes how 18F thought facial recognition was racist, so it simply did not implement it for high-security accounts despite being required by spec, and falsely assured agencies that it was in compliance anyway. It is here: https://www.gsaig.gov/content/gsa-misled-customers-logingovs https://www.gsaig.gov/content/gsa-misled-customers-logingovs... The executive summary says: "Our evaluation found GSA misled their customer agencies when GSA failed to communicate Login.gov’s known noncompliance with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-63-3, Digital Identity Guidelines. Notwithstanding GSA officials’ assertions that Login.gov met SP 800-63-3 Identity Assurance Level 2 (IAL2) requirements, Login.gov has never included a physical or biometric comparison for its customer agencies. Further, GSA continued to mislead customer agencies even after GSA suspended efforts to meet SP 800-63-3. GSA knowingly billed IAL2 customer agencies over $10 million for services, including alleged IAL2 services that did not meet IAL2 standards. Furthermore, GSA used misleading language to secure additional funds for Login.gov."

insane_dreamer 2y ago

OK, none of those would be reasons for shutting down the work they're doing. But yeah, it sounds like they were concerned with racism, inclusion, and all that "bad woke stuff" that we shouldn't be worried about when _designing technology for all citizens_. So long as it works for white males, we're good! Also all those were during Trump's first term by the way, with the exception of the last one (and facial recognition has been shown to be biased so they have a point there).

omnivore 2y ago

haa, an insepector general looking at this stuff is quaint in the era of let's just break all the rules.