The Government's Computer System

[Lorrie]

My friend just called me and she said, "Did you know that the Government's Computer System is from 1970?"
I was all, "What?!! Are you serious?"

What do you think about this? Is it true? I don't know for fact.

Also isn't the airplane computer system in need of an upgrade too?

You'd think both of these were a no-brainer to upgrade. Hmmm:hmmm:

[lifequest]

There was an article about some of the state agencies computer systems dating back to the 70's - mainly the Controller's Office that cuts checks for state employees. Each agency is responsible for it's own systems and some are up to date while others are a mess. When the State tries to contract upgrades out they get played by the contractors and either charged too much or sold obsolete systems.

The Feds systems aren't in much better shape outside of the military and intelligence agencies. It brings the myth that the government is all knowing down to earth with a crash.

[Tars]

"Did you know that the Government's Computer System is from 1970?"

To which "system" was your friend referring? "The Government" has hundreds of thousands (at least) of "systems". For instance, the NSA (National Security Agency) is widely reputed to have super-computers, able to process TerraBytes (that's a real large number) of data fast enough to monitor and transcribe all telephone conversations to/from the U.S. in real time, scanning them simultaneously for "security threats". Same for email and internet forums. Note to the NSA: I love the U.S.!

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA's National Weather Service (https://www.nws.noaa.gov/)) has super-computers working full-time, analyzing all kinds of weather-related data.

The U.S. military is moving towards robotic units, which are smart enough to act independently - gather battlefield data, decide what comprises a target, and then take action to eliminate it. That takes a lot of brainpower for a machine. No 70's data processors there. Scary, eh? Someone should make movies about that. Oh, wait, see "Terminator".

For the most part, big centralized computers went out in the late 80's, as distributed PC networks appeared in offices around the world. Most gov't agencies use similar networks to those used in regular business offices. The main exceptions being those where security is especially important, as in law enforcement, federal regulatory agencies, and financial institutions.

The current trend seems to be towards "cloud computing", in which all work is done via a browser, to distributed data storage sites all over the globe. Only the browser, and some personal data files need to reside on the local computer. Applications - word processors, spreadsheets, etc. are accessed from remote sites via the browser.

Data security is a myth.

[Lorrie]

Well if these are super-computers then I don't think I am talking about these... ha ha
I am pretty sure I am talking in the same lines as "lifequest".
disability checks, etc.

Thanks for posting Tars, always so informative!:thumbsup:


To which "system" was your friend referring? "The Government" has hundreds of thousands (at least) of "systems". For instance, the NSA (National Security Agency) is widely reputed to have super-computers, able to process TerraBytes (that's a real large number) of data fast enough to monitor and transcribe all telephone conversations to/from the U.S. in real time, scanning them simultaneously for "security threats". Same for email and internet forums. Note to the NSA: I love the U.S.!

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA's National Weather Service (https://www.nws.noaa.gov/)) has super-computers working full-time, analyzing all kinds of weather-related data.

The U.S. military is moving towards robotic units, which are smart enough to act independently - gather battlefield data, decide what comprises a target, and then take action to eliminate it. That takes a lot of brainpower for a machine. No 70's data processors there. Scary, eh? Someone should make movies about that. Oh, wait, see "Terminator".

For the most part, big centralized computers went out in the late 80's, as distributed PC networks appeared in offices around the world. Most gov't agencies use similar networks to those used in regular business offices. The main exceptions being those where security is especially important, as in law enforcement, federal regulatory agencies, and financial institutions.

The current trend seems to be towards "cloud computing", in which all work is done via a browser, to distributed data storage sites all over the globe. Only the browser, and some personal data files need to reside on the local computer. Applications - word processors, spreadsheets, etc. are accessed from remote sites via the browser.

Data security is a myth.

["Mad" Miles]

Large Bureaucratic Thinking 101:

We have a massive apparatus (could be anything, computers, buildings, vehicle fleet, workforce, etc.) necessary for our day to day operations. That apparatus is outmoded, falling apart and requires constant, expensive patches to keep it running.

We could: Appropriate the funds to replace it with up to date equipment and technology. That would involve a huge capital cost and while it would save money in the long run, we'd get savagely attacked in public for spending so much money. Any little thing that goes wrong will be blown up to be used against us and our careers as the controllers of this bureaucracy could be jeapardized. That would suck.

On the other hand we could continue with the old, broken system. Pass off the decision to future "leaders" and keep using expensive patches to keep it running for as long as possible. More expensive in the long run, but the cost is hidden in the annual budget since no large ticket items are required, other than service and repair which can be justified as necessary routine expenses. Our jobs are safe, no one can blame us for wasting money, and the problem is postponed for now. Who cares if the people who know how to program/repair these archaic systems, the companies who manufactured them and their replacement parts, etc. are dieing off and may soon no longer be available to make the patch repairs. That's a problem for another day, another generation.


If you managed a large bureacracy, which would be your choice?

"Mad" Miles

[Tars]

I agree with your acidic view about bureaucrats. However, a dual core desktop computer you could buy today for under $1000, would be more powerful than anything built in the 70's. It would be hella lot less expensive to maintain & operate. Are punchcards even available anymore? Maybe there's an operational mainframe in the Smithsonian; that'd be a "government system". :wink:

I think Lorrie's friend may've been unintentionally propagating an urban myth.

[lifequest]

I still work for a large State agency which has done pretty well with keeping up with current technology and has the clout with the politicians to get money appropriated for almost all of their projects. That part has been a success but when it comes to another side of the equation - getting new people hired...they resort to fantasy in promising all the additional revenue the state will reap if they just hire another 100 or 500 auditors or collectors.

Problem is it takes the best and the brightest of the new hires from 2-5 years to be contributors. So no return for the investment for a long while. The politicians fall for this one every year. Meanwhile, most of the new hires want to get out before the 2-5 years are up and its like starting all over again.

But bringing in more revenue is a priority to the state just like the military and intelligence agencies are a priority to the feds. So they get more investment and attention and the politicians look the other way when there are failures. If these failures happen in other services like social services there is outrage.

[Lorrie]

:heart:


I think Lorrie's friend may've been unintentionally propagating an urban myth.

I don't believe she was propagating, we were just having a "talk" and it popped up (she is waiting for a check).

Don't make more than it is with big words...

Just thought about it and decided it would be a good topic, so I posted in curiosity...

Lorrie