8 ms·

How billions vanish into the security industry

148 points by shifte 9y ago

netman21 9y ago
The other security industry. Not IT security.
- dokument 9y ago
  The first step to IT security is physical security.
  - kmicklas 9y ago
    And when all your physical security tools are electronic the first step to physical security is IT security :)
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      It generalizes to national security as well. https://xkcd.com/898/ https://xkcd.com/898/
  - flukus 9y ago
    Also the last step, you can't defend against physical access, the best you can do is make data unreadable to anyone unauthorized.
    - ryanlol 9y ago
      Since when does the lack of perfect defenses render something indefensible?
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  And not "securities" (i.e., financial instruments), which is what I thought from the headline.
- jpatokal 9y ago
  Is there any reason to believe publicly funded IT security R&D is any better? See eg. Palantir.
  - eru 9y ago
    Probably not. But the article doesn't seem to be about them.
secfirstmd 9y ago
Part of the problem is that genuinely innovative ideas from small businesses find it impossible to navigate the mess that is EU related funding. Meaning only the big players can access them. Also, the amount of unnecessary duplication and crap sold in the security industry is unbelievable. If you go to the Counter Terrorism Expo in London, you can see this. Dozens of organisations selling effectively the same stuff. Much of which is actually pure crap from a security/defence standpoint. How do they actually manage to sell it? Connections...hiring people who previously where in side the military/intelligence/Defence Departments etc. The same process as in the US no doubt. The worse thing is that some of the stuff is both expensive, useless and occasionally dangerous for the people who require it. BAE Systems is the perfect example of this. They are effectively a hidden British government job scheme. They make crap equipment, overly costly and rarely on time. There are many cases where UK tax payer would actually save money by firing the people in the jobs, giving them golden payoffs and buying more effective equipment elsewhere. Meanwhile their troops would be safer. For example the SA80, Westland Apache helicopters costing 50% more than their US-made Longbow equivalents - the list is endless. I highly recommend the book "Lions, Donkeys And Dinosaurs: Waste and Blundering in the Military" for a quick overview of that.
- tomcam 9y ago
  > costing 50% more than their US-made Longbow equivalents When U.S. military equipment is considered a bargain... you're in deep doo-doo
- colechristensen 9y ago
  >They are effectively a hidden British government job scheme. There is inherent value in simply having an existing capable defense contractor in your own nation. It isn't about dollars and cents, it's about being capable of fighting a war without outside help (or not being wholly dependent). So you throw money at the local defense contractor to keep it alive. It's expensive to do this, but if you don't you pay for it in other ways because if you buy all of your equipment from foreign defense contractors they can use that as political leverage against you. A lot of money is spent being prepared for wars that won't happen _because_ everyone is prepared for them.
pnathan 9y ago
The key phrase here I would suggest picking out is the one where the contractors get to help influence/write the contracts that they bid on. It's not confined to this sector of the world industry. Would /love/ to see that made flamingly illegal.
rrggrr 9y ago
> But has all of this made us safer? This is the key takeaway from the article. Most of the expense isn't making anyone safer, and the advantage is held by the aggressor who only has to be successful once to inflict unpalatable physical, economic and political damage to defending developed nations. > The question is whether that funding truly advances the cause of the European citizen, or only that of the industry. The parallels to the drug industry are striking, where often the most expensive drug is the least effective and billions are spent on duplicative competitive approaches. > Let brilliant scientists get down to work, and leave them alone for five years It is interesting the advances smaller, less well funded countries, have made in defense spending. Swedish Gotland subs, Israeli Iron Dome missile defense, Norwegian anti-air missles, reputed North Korean advances in EMP weapons, and reputed Iranian advances in fast torpedos, etc. Sometimes less means more.
kelvin0 9y ago
And don't forget the Classic ADE 651. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-29459896 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-29459896
- giancarlostoro 9y ago
  Or the TSA's ridiculous 1.4 million app that randomly picks left or right: http://www.geek.com/apps/tsa-paid-1-4-million-for-randomizer-app-that-chooses-left-or-right-1651337/ http://www.geek.com/apps/tsa-paid-1-4-million-for-randomizer...
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  > On 23 April 2013, the founder of ATSC, Jim McCormick, was convicted of three counts of fraud,[6] and was subsequently sentenced to ten years' imprisonment.[7] Good.
TP4Cornholio 9y ago
People like to knock on government funded research on security/defense here, but it is actually one of the reasons the US leads in tech. DARPA produced the arpanet, the predecessor to the internet. Also, while everyone is aware of Stanford and silicon manufacturers contributions to making Silicon Valley, the defense industry also played a big part in SV's early days. And let's not forget Alan Turing was working for the British government to defeat the nazis. Funding research is a great idea.
- giancarlostoro 9y ago
  What you're saying is correct, but I must note it doesn't mean there can never be bad apples. There's always someone ruining the fun for everyone else I suppose. But yeah there's been all sorts of interesting projects from the defense / security sector.
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  A more accurate synopsis is the US leads in tech because of a huge increase in research spending combined with strong use of the scientists fleeing the Nazi's and the Nazi scientists. Every world power's research budget balooned during that period. Spending more on war research without the near worldwide unity or the threat of destruction won't have the same effect.

148 points by shifte 9y ago

netman21 9y ago

The other security industry. Not IT security.

dokument 9y ago
The first step to IT security is physical security.
- kmicklas 9y ago
  And when all your physical security tools are electronic the first step to physical security is IT security :)
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    It generalizes to national security as well. https://xkcd.com/898/ https://xkcd.com/898/
- flukus 9y ago
  Also the last step, you can't defend against physical access, the best you can do is make data unreadable to anyone unauthorized.
  - ryanlol 9y ago
    Since when does the lack of perfect defenses render something indefensible?
AnimalMuppet 9y ago
And not "securities" (i.e., financial instruments), which is what I thought from the headline.
jpatokal 9y ago
Is there any reason to believe publicly funded IT security R&D is any better? See eg. Palantir.
- eru 9y ago
  Probably not. But the article doesn't seem to be about them.

secfirstmd 9y ago

Part of the problem is that genuinely innovative ideas from small businesses find it impossible to navigate the mess that is EU related funding. Meaning only the big players can access them. Also, the amount of unnecessary duplication and crap sold in the security industry is unbelievable. If you go to the Counter Terrorism Expo in London, you can see this. Dozens of organisations selling effectively the same stuff. Much of which is actually pure crap from a security/defence standpoint. How do they actually manage to sell it? Connections...hiring people who previously where in side the military/intelligence/Defence Departments etc. The same process as in the US no doubt. The worse thing is that some of the stuff is both expensive, useless and occasionally dangerous for the people who require it. BAE Systems is the perfect example of this. They are effectively a hidden British government job scheme. They make crap equipment, overly costly and rarely on time. There are many cases where UK tax payer would actually save money by firing the people in the jobs, giving them golden payoffs and buying more effective equipment elsewhere. Meanwhile their troops would be safer. For example the SA80, Westland Apache helicopters costing 50% more than their US-made Longbow equivalents - the list is endless. I highly recommend the book "Lions, Donkeys And Dinosaurs: Waste and Blundering in the Military" for a quick overview of that.

tomcam 9y ago
> costing 50% more than their US-made Longbow equivalents When U.S. military equipment is considered a bargain... you're in deep doo-doo
colechristensen 9y ago
>They are effectively a hidden British government job scheme. There is inherent value in simply having an existing capable defense contractor in your own nation. It isn't about dollars and cents, it's about being capable of fighting a war without outside help (or not being wholly dependent). So you throw money at the local defense contractor to keep it alive. It's expensive to do this, but if you don't you pay for it in other ways because if you buy all of your equipment from foreign defense contractors they can use that as political leverage against you. A lot of money is spent being prepared for wars that won't happen _because_ everyone is prepared for them.

pnathan 9y ago

The key phrase here I would suggest picking out is the one where the contractors get to help influence/write the contracts that they bid on. It's not confined to this sector of the world industry. Would /love/ to see that made flamingly illegal.

rrggrr 9y ago

> But has all of this made us safer? This is the key takeaway from the article. Most of the expense isn't making anyone safer, and the advantage is held by the aggressor who only has to be successful once to inflict unpalatable physical, economic and political damage to defending developed nations. > The question is whether that funding truly advances the cause of the European citizen, or only that of the industry. The parallels to the drug industry are striking, where often the most expensive drug is the least effective and billions are spent on duplicative competitive approaches. > Let brilliant scientists get down to work, and leave them alone for five years It is interesting the advances smaller, less well funded countries, have made in defense spending. Swedish Gotland subs, Israeli Iron Dome missile defense, Norwegian anti-air missles, reputed North Korean advances in EMP weapons, and reputed Iranian advances in fast torpedos, etc. Sometimes less means more.

kelvin0 9y ago

And don't forget the Classic ADE 651. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-29459896 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-29459896

giancarlostoro 9y ago
Or the TSA's ridiculous 1.4 million app that randomly picks left or right: http://www.geek.com/apps/tsa-paid-1-4-million-for-randomizer-app-that-chooses-left-or-right-1651337/ http://www.geek.com/apps/tsa-paid-1-4-million-for-randomizer...
TeMPOraL 9y ago
> On 23 April 2013, the founder of ATSC, Jim McCormick, was convicted of three counts of fraud,[6] and was subsequently sentenced to ten years' imprisonment.[7] Good.

TP4Cornholio 9y ago

People like to knock on government funded research on security/defense here, but it is actually one of the reasons the US leads in tech. DARPA produced the arpanet, the predecessor to the internet. Also, while everyone is aware of Stanford and silicon manufacturers contributions to making Silicon Valley, the defense industry also played a big part in SV's early days. And let's not forget Alan Turing was working for the British government to defeat the nazis. Funding research is a great idea.

giancarlostoro 9y ago
What you're saying is correct, but I must note it doesn't mean there can never be bad apples. There's always someone ruining the fun for everyone else I suppose. But yeah there's been all sorts of interesting projects from the defense / security sector.
boomboomsubban 9y ago
A more accurate synopsis is the US leads in tech because of a huge increase in research spending combined with strong use of the scientists fleeing the Nazi's and the Nazi scientists. Every world power's research budget balooned during that period. Spending more on war research without the near worldwide unity or the threat of destruction won't have the same effect.