1/ Here's my take on what's happening with DOGE.
I've got fed experience through contracting with Health & Human Safety, Head Start, The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and DOD. I get brought in when people need to get shit done. Other people here have way more experience than me.
https://dan.mastohon.com/@danhon/113953007466779969
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from danhon@dan.mastohon.com
2/ (Meanwhile, check out the reporting at https://wired.com and https://404media.co, it's good and you can tell they've got good sources.)
It's really bad!
Here's the thing about tech in general, and tech in gov specifically. It's always about people, not the technology.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from danhon@dan.mastohon.com
3/ The most important thing to realize here is that technology is just a tool and it's used at the direction of people to accomplish their goals.
The second most important thing is that things change when they are deemed important enough.
COVID and unemployment insurance is a good example.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from danhon@dan.mastohon.com
4/ When COVID hit, a whole bunch of government technology became critical and politically sensitive. Just the same way the launch of the Affordable Care Act website was botched.
In both cases, "we" knew what to do, how to figure it out, and and how to do it.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from danhon@dan.mastohon.com
5/ Unemployment Insurance (UI) systems needed to be modernized for lots of reasons before COVID hit.
But the lesson of COVID-19 is that modernizing, upgrading, and making government services simpler, clearer, faster could have happened at any time if it was deemed important enough.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from danhon@dan.mastohon.com
6/ I give you all this setup because like I said, the most important thing to realize is that the combination of Musk and the President and the administration's core have made what they want to achieve very, very, very important.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from danhon@dan.mastohon.com
7/ What's happening is the combination of:
i) People at the highest level of leadership with clear priorities
ii) People who don't care about the consequences
iii) A bureaucratic model of deference
And I think at the lowest level, some of the actual tech.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from danhon@dan.mastohon.com
8/ In normal times, it is very very very hard to make a change to government technology. This is mainly because there are rules to stop you and people who will enforce those rules. It is much less so because of the underlying technology.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from danhon@dan.mastohon.com
9/ Some of the rules stopping you from changing government technology (from the copy on a webpage to changing how rebates are calculated) are reasonable and make sense.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from danhon@dan.mastohon.com
10/ But many of the rules are unreasonable. They are absolutely too conservative in favor of reducing risk. Sometimes this is described as "doing nothing is the least riskiest option"*
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from danhon@dan.mastohon.com
11/ Across government, most of the people who enforce & make these rules are unqualified and inexperienced.
In a safe environment, they will admit that. Most of our knowledge has been hollowed out to the private sector. On purpose.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from danhon@dan.mastohon.com
12/ One reason why rules make it so difficult to change government technology is because it's brittle.
It is reliable, but until the technology is capable of rolling back a change, making changes absolutely comes with risk.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from danhon@dan.mastohon.com
13/ Here's a reason why there are rules that make it hard to make changes to government technology:
A system in California deals with submitting federal Medicaid reimbursement. When I worked with that system, it dealt with so much that if it broke for one day, California would be insolvent
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from danhon@dan.mastohon.com
14/ But the only effective, practical thing stopping changes is because there is a rule and you would get in trouble for breaking the rule.
The person running DOGE and this administration don't care about getting in trouble for breaking those rules.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from danhon@dan.mastohon.com
15/ There is a thing in federal government called an ATO, an Authority to Operate: digital.gov/resources/an...
You are not supposed to, uh, operate a software system without obtaining an ATO. Normally this is really hard! (In many cases it shouldn't be)
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from danhon@dan.mastohon.com
16/ The DOGE team are absolutely behaving in a way that suggests they don't give a shit about ATOs.
What's terrifying is that there is nobody stopping them.
Which is why I said this comes down to people making decisions and whether those people care about consequences.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from danhon@dan.mastohon.com
17/ What's happening is just like a corny Bond supervillain plot. Get control of the computer and information systems and you can do a lot.
You can stop payments. You can just turn things off. You can just break them, which practically can be the same as turning things off.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from danhon@dan.mastohon.com
18/ "But Dan, what about security measures like, I don't know, some sort of 2FA or a PIV card, or multiple signoffs before deploying?"
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from danhon@dan.mastohon.com
19/ In computer security, there's a class of problem called The Evil Housekeeper Problem*. Basically: once someone has physical access to a system, you are effectively screwed.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from danhon@dan.mastohon.com
20/ The Evil Housekeeper Problem is why the physical presence of DOGE is terrifying. Yes, "the cloud", but there's still on-premises technology.
And it's easier to coerce people when you are standing next to them, threatening them.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from danhon@dan.mastohon.com
21/ All the rules and measures I talk about above are put in place because you don't want something to break.
Musk, Trump and the rest of the administration want to break things. Accelerationists are in the executive branch. Leadership like Secretaries and Directors want to break things
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from danhon@dan.mastohon.com
22/ So I want you to understand how easy it is to break things or turn things off.
i) government technology is brittle
ii) coercion is easy ("you're fired", "we will stop paying you", "we will tear up the contract")
Musk just stops paying for things he doesn't want to pay for.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from danhon@dan.mastohon.com
23/ Like, "Musk doesn't pay for things" isn't up for debate. There's ample evidence. "Trump doesn't pay for things" isn't up for debate either. These are both facts.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from danhon@dan.mastohon.com
24/ If you're, say, a major government contractor like Deloitte, or a consultancy that runs the system for tracking migrant unaccompanied minors for DHHS and the DHHS secretary or Musk says "we will not pay for this" and instructs the bureaucracy to do so, then that contractor won't get paid.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from danhon@dan.mastohon.com
25/ So now you're a government contractor with a contract worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and a whole bunch of people on staff working on it. Do you just... keep going? Knowing you won't get paid? Do you tell your staff to stop working? What if they've been told to stop already anyway?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from danhon@dan.mastohon.com
26/ I cannot imagine what it is like for the people in 18F and the US Digital Service right now and I don't hold them in judgment at all.
Like, I'm sure I know the person who was instructed to and made the commits on websites to scrub anything to do with DEI, likely under threat.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from danhon@dan.mastohon.com
27/ I don't pretend to know even a tenth of critical government systems, whether to do with regularly moving around stupendous amounts of money, or handling private information that can identify you.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from danhon@dan.mastohon.com
28/ What I know is what I said up top: tech does what you tell it to do. If there's no one to tell you to stop, and you don't care either way, all bets are off.
You have someone in charge who unplugs shit and doesn't care, and an administration on record that wants to break things.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from danhon@dan.mastohon.com
29/ The U.S. Digital Service is a good example of the deal with gov tech.
With political clout, USDS people were able to go in and change things "because the President wants it done". That's the lesson.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from danhon@dan.mastohon.com
30/ USDS' technical capability was parachuted in at the direction of the President. 18F has to be invited in. But the precedent was set for "rapid technical change can just happen because the executive wants it to".
Because it's all about people.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from danhon@dan.mastohon.com
31/ Government is built to be stable.
We're seeing what happens when the duly elected people who run it and make decisions disagree and don't care.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from danhon@dan.mastohon.com
32/ The end? I guess I can take questions.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from danhon@dan.mastohon.com
@danhon i have a question:
what are the ways to offer services to .gov when you dont have a dozen people dedicated to just handling all the paperwork involved with becoming a government vendor? we looked into it and gave up because we didnt have 2 million a year to spend on just juggling all the bureaucratic paperwork and overhead
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Viss@mastodon.social
@Viss One way is to subcontract.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from danhon@dan.mastohon.com
@danhon Yeah, the standard way to get into the business of government tech contracting is to start by subcontracting to the prime contractor who won the contract, to build experience and position your company to be able to bid on contracts directly.
I believe there are also SBA programs that help new businesses get access to government business, I believe, e.g. 8(a).
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from jik@federate.social
@jik @danhon I work for a small government contractor, we think competition is going to get incredibly fierce with all the downsizing so this is a bad time to start contracting. The SBA does have great programs, but I also think they are about to get gutted because there are programs for women and minorities. I've worked on government contracts on and off for years and it's incredibly bureaucratic and inefficient. After working on a NASA contract I was surprised we ever made it to the moon. I totally support streamlining government, improving the tech infrastructure, and cutting waste (I have seen a LOT of that), but what is happening now is an attempt to destroy government, not fix it.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Jennifer@m.ai6yr.org
text/geminiThis content has been proxied by September (3851b).