“A classified review of the United States Secret Service’s computer technology found that the agency’s computers were fully operational only 60 percent of the time because of outdated systems and a reliance on a computer mainframe that dates to the 1980s, according to Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn,” Jason Ryan reports for ABC News. “‘We have here a premiere law enforcement organization in our country which is responsible for the security of the president and the vice president and other officials of our government, and they have to have better IT than they have,’ said Lieberman, who is chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.”
“Sources tell ABC News that the Secret Service was so plagued by computer problems that the agency invited the National Security Agency to formally review its information technology systems. The Secret Service’s databases are outdated and users are at times unable to conduct searches from one system to another,” Ryan reports. “Lieberman says he’s had ‘concern for a while’ about the Secret Service computers. A 60 percent, fully operational average is far worse than ‘industry and government standards that are around 98 percent generally,’ Lieberman said.”
“According to officials at the time of the review, the unofficial cost estimate to update the system was $187 million. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees the Secret Service, has so far allocated $69 million, including $36 million in the department’s most recent budget request,” Ryan reports. “The DHS budget justification for 2011 noted, ‘The Secret Service data environment is fragile and cannot sustain the tempo of current or future operational missions. The existing hardware infrastructure is more than 5 years old and is prone to failures.'”
Ryan reports, “The recent scrutiny the agency faced after three individuals were able to attend a state dinner without being invited, were not attributable to any computer deficiencies at the Secret Service, according to officials.”
Ryan reports, “A Secret Service contracting memo from Oct. 16, 2009, reviewed by ABC News found, ‘Currently, 42 mission-oriented applications run on a 1980s IBM mainframe with a 68 percent performance reliability rating. Networks, data systems, applications, and IT security do not meet current operational requirements. The IT systems lack appropriate bandwidth to run multiple applications to effectively support USSS offices and operational missions around the world.’ …Asked why DHS was requesting less money than the initial estimate of $187 million, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano said, ‘Part of it is an assessment of how much it would actually cost and also what can be purchased and what is needed on a priority basis.'”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: $187 million, or even just $69 million, will buy you quite a few Xserves, Mac Pros, and MacBook Pros. Hint, hint…
In case anyone still doubts that certified morons are running the U.S. government.
Oh, but Obama will gather them all around at a Hotel again…..like on Thursday……and they will talk and not get anything done……again.
I understand that the not so secret service is going to convert to Toyotas.
Why would the secret service want to pay for over priced computers to edit videos and photos? =P
They should get linux severs and workstations.
@ericdano – retard.
At least he’s trying – which is more than either side of the Senate has been doing for the last few years.
As for the story – this sounds like a great opportunity to get more Macs in gov’t – but as others have mentioned, would they have the IT & programmers to use them properly?
It has got so bad that their messages self-destruct after 30 sconds!
IBM mainframe computers, MVS, COBOL,IEFBR14, dd dns=gov.homeland.secretservice.agents DISP=(old.keep,keep)
$179 million? How about $1.79 million?
Wow a measly 169 mil against hunreds of billions in bailouts. Nice to see where the priorities lay…Your tax dollrs hard at work no doubt!
@ericdano,
Yeah, isn’t it sad that the President of the United States has to take time out from his real work to hold the hands of moron Republicans and explain away their sad attempts at FUD?
“Industry and government standards that are around 98 percent generally.”
Dear Secret Service,
99.9% reliability can be acheived with one simple decision.
The government IT model worked best when everything could be centralized and fire-walled, but it thoroughly falls apart in the cloud, at least as long as we have an open internet.
This is relevant to Apple when one considers the steady evolution away from the mainframe (IBM) to desktops (Microsoft) to mobility which Apple effectively staked its claim to in January. It is noteworthy that Sun, Novell and others tried to claim the cloud starting in the late 90s but at that time could not wrench this away from Microsoft’s hold on the desktop.
In my opinion this can go a few ways. Global governments can:
1) try to firewall the current internet (not likely to work based on what we’ve seen to date)
2) build a new parallel, secure network (feasible, but resource intensive)
3) Evolve their entire model for emerging cloud + mobile technologies.
Assuming #3 is the best answer, this signals the end of Microsoft’s desktop hegemony, which opens the door for new devices like the iPad. In fact, iPad may be better positioned for global security networks than even Apple’s OS X computers, because the systems can be more effectively closed in silicon especially considering the A4 chip and likely followers. Fail-safe? Perhaps not but an interesting step forward.
“1980’s IBM mainframe” — I find that very confusing. Do they mean “1980’s technology”, or a 25-year-old machine? Neither one makes sense. IBM hasn’t just stood pat with their mainframe technology. The speed and reliabilty of their current version, called z/OS Server, is as improved over the 1980’s mainframe as your MacBook Pro is from a 1984 brick Mac.
Unless that 1980’s mainframe is an extremely expensive one-off custom job. Now that I could believe.
——RM
Jersey trader: Former vice presidents do not receive secret service protection like former presidents and their families do.
But however, I agree he should have some influence with peope of decision making.