Showing posts with label data collection. Show all posts
Showing posts with label data collection. Show all posts

Thursday, July 24, 2008

Anti-CIA paranoia

CIA-Funded UW Program Trains the Next Generation of Online Spies
When classes at the University of Washington resume this fall, some students at the school will be under the watchful eye of a Central Intelligence Agency spook. In fact, some of them will even be learning from him.

This fall, Dr. Tim Thomas, a CIA agent specializing in "open source" data mining, will begin a two-year stint as an officer-in-residence at the UW's Institute for National Security Education and Research (INSER), which is financed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. That office is an umbrella organization for groups such as the U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and the CIA—which will provide the university with $2.5 million in grant money over the next five years.



There is nothing sinister in what is described here. We use this sort of technology in public relations. We use software that spiders the internet for anything concerning our clients and then analyze it for trends. The difference is that this sort of data-mining from publicly available sources is looking for different material for different purposes.

The threat to freedom does not come from data-mining, it comes from lack of privacy. If our financial, medical, and other personal data is subject to this sort of monitoring then indeed freedom is at risk.

Open source intelligence is reading my blog, subscribing to my twitter feed, and otherwise following publicly available information. Snooping is tapping my phone, reading my email, and a bunch of other things that infringe on my right to privacy. These are not subtle distinctions.

Monday, April 07, 2008

Manual data collection for the 2010 Census

Census abandons handheld devices for 2010 count

After years of trying to ramp up a system for collecting data for the 2010 census using handheld computers, Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez told Congress on Thursday that the department was giving up on the plan.

The Field Data Collection Automation project “has experienced significant schedule, performance and cost issues,” Gutierrez told the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science. He added that “a lack of effective communication with one of our key contractors has significantly contributed to the challenges.”

GCN has not yet been able to reach the contractor — Harris Corp. — for comment.

When you bid on something as high profile as the census, you need to arrange for good communication with the government contracting officer.

When you mess up a high profile contract, your flack needs to be available for comment. Directly you hear that the Government Accountability Office is looking into your contract, and that Congress will be holding hearings, you need to prepare your response. You can’t hide under a bed in a situation like this.

Census counts on paper for 2010

The 2010 census was to be the first paperless population count, but problems emerged early on. Initial tests with commercial handheld devices revealed difficulties, so the bureau turned to Harris for help, awarding the company a five-year, cost-plus-award-fee contract in 2006 to automate field data-collection activities. The contract was initially worth $595 million but later increased to $624 million.

The partnership quickly ran into trouble. The Government Accountability Office and independent evaluator Mitre found that Census’ delivery times and requirements differed from those of Harris. In January, Census officials sent 400 new and revised technical requirements to Harris.

“We had underestimated how difficult it would be to communicate our business model,” Census Director Steve Murdock said. “We really didn’t manage it correctly.”

One of the main sources of the cost increase was the need to maintain a help desk to respond to problems that might arise with the handheld devices. The original contract allocated $5 million for the support, which was not enough. The bureau now wants to pay Harris $217 million to $220 million to run it.


Was Harris retained as part of a competitive bid? If so, did the original request for bid specify delivery dates? Did the original contract specify delivery dates? Why did Harris agree if they could not make delivery deadlines? Why did they agree to an unrealistic help desk budget? I look forward to additional coverage.

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Looking towards the 2010 Census

Over-Budget Contract Could Stall 2010 Census
A $600 million program to buy handheld devices and create an automated network to collect data for the 2010 Census faces major cost overruns and could cause delays in preparing for the nationwide head count.

Mitre's independent evaluation warns that numerators may need paper

Oh dear.