We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : MicroStrategy Inc. (MSTR) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lilbully who wrote (691)9/4/2002 11:25:59 PM
From: lilbully  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 714
This is part of it...
Days before the Sept. 11 attack, an FBI field agent in Phoenix sent a memo to FBI headquarters relaying concern over Middle Eastern men training to fly jets at aviation schools. But the information was never formally evaluated. Earlier this summer, Minneapolis FBI field agent Coleen Rowley testified before a congressional committee about how hard it is to process information at the agency. Her office had also drafted a memo about a Middle Eastern man -- Zacarias Moussaoui -- who had enrolled in a flight school before Sept. 11, but the memos were never linked.

The agency's records are so voluminous, Rowley said, that they're nearly useless. Intelligence analysts sometimes call it drinking from a fire hose.

Analysts working the Pentagon war room are equally flooded with information. Sometimes they get one message a second, says U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL), a former Naval intelligence officer.

"An analyst from South America would get 1,400 messages a day," Kirk tells Joyce. "There are huge vacuum cleaners in the sky sucking in information for the foreign intelligence agents, but sometimes we get so far behind in collecting information that we find it too late, as we did with Sept. 11."

The billions of dollars spent on homeland defense will inundate intelligence analysts with information: photos from satellites, intercepted e-mails, banking records. Someone -- or something -- has to separate the information from the noise. There's a growing industry to figure out the best solutions.

The government has created an Information Awareness Office at its Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to do just that. And researchers with the National Science Foundation are working with the CIA on systems that dig through mountains of information, looking for patterns.

But there is a danger to improving information gathering and analysis. Better technology will give the government more information -- about everybody. At the moment, laws such as the Federal Privacy Act limit how much personal information federal agencies can share with each other. But Ben Shneiderman, a computer scientist at the University of Maryland, warns that may change.

"The mood is somewhat shifted, and the feeling is, well, if one state agency collects certain data they should share it with another agency," Shneiderman tells Joyce. "In fact, the criticism of the FBI and the CIA was for not sharing."

The imminent danger is that the government's disorganized database system could actually get much better, according to many computer experts. Scientists are ready to fix the database, and money is on the way. What those experts worry about is whether the technology will outrun the public's ability to control it.

To: lilbully who wrote (691)9/5/2002 2:56:20 AM
From: Toby Zidle  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 714
I don't know why MSTR has been improving. I no longer follow the stock. SI doesn't even link a chart to this thread any more. (Perhaps that's because of the reverse split.)

Prompted by your question, I checked out the chart on Amazingly, MSTR may be about to form a cup-with-handle pattern.

You posted a very interesting article in msg #692. Yes, the federal government has always been at the toe of the learning curve when it comes to computer systems and system integration.

You can be talking about the CIA/FBI, the INS, Air Traffic Control, or the Postal Service. About the only branches that seem 'competent' are the military, NASA, and (oddly enough) the Weather Bureau (NOAA).

Perhaps this is because computer geniuses would prefer to work for a glamor Silicon Valley company rather than in a government bureaucracy. Or perhaps it's the fact that government bidding requirements place such onerous workforce conditions on bidders that the technology leaders just won't bid. The result is that contracts go to small companies that have neither the staffing nor the overall experience to come up with a truly first-rate computer system. Such stuff happens when the rules and regs are more important than the outcome of the project.