NSA & Microsoft, Wake Up!!!
January 2007
NSA helped Microsoft make Vista secure.
The U.S. agency best known for eavesdropping on telephone calls had a hand in the development of Microsoft's Vista operating system, Microsoft confirmed Tuesday, January 9. The National Security Agency (NSA) stepped in to help Microsoft develop a configuration of its next_generation operating system that would meet Department of Defense requirements, said NSA spokesperson Ken White. This is not the first time the secretive agency has been brought in to consult with private industry on operating system security, White said, but it is the first time the NSA has worked with a vendor prior to the release of an operating system. By getting involved early in the process, the NSA helped Microsoft ensure that it was delivering a product that was both secure and compatible with existing government software, he said. Still, the NSA's involvement in Vista raises red flags for some. Part of this concern may stem from the NSA's reported historical interest in gaining "back_door" access to encrypted data produced by products from U.S. computer companies like Microsoft.
Source: http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/01/10/HNnsamadevistasecu re_1.html
FYI: In 2001, 500 publicly traded companies, such as Microsoft and McDonalds, dealt with the Federal Prison Industries.
In 2005 12% of African American men in their late 20's were in jail, 3.7% of Hispanics and 1.3 of Caucasians...
Most Americans would instinctively recoil from the notion that our citizens should compete with prison labor from China. What few people seem to know is that the U.S. government also uses prison labor to compete with private industry, a practice that has cost the jobs of thousands of law-abiding American workers.
On the list of anachronistic procurement preferences that should be dispensed with, none looms larger than the preference provided Federal Prison Industries. FPI is a $600 million-per-year corporation that uses prison labor in providing goods and services to the federal government. FPI is one of the government's 50 largest suppliers.
FPI is sustained by a mandatory preference system that lets it claim a share of the federal marketplace for goods and services. Once FPI has decided to take its share of a market and its board of directors has approved such action, no federal agency can buy those goods commercially without first getting a waiver from FPI.
If FPI wants to make the sale to the agency, it simply refuses to grant the waiver and takes that sale. Most of FPI's goods and services are sold to the Defense Department. But representatives of DOD purchasing organizations have testified recently that FPI's prices, quality and delivery schedules are inferior to those available on the open market.
I have a stake in this situation because I am representing an association of manufacturers in a suit challenging FPI's privileged status. However, I believe there is a broader issue that the public should take note of: the unfunded mandate that transfers money to the federal prison bureaucracy from other agencies.
FPI's expansion in its long-standing markets, such as furniture and military clothing, has been so extensive that FPI is circling the federal computer and services market looking for openings. Recently, for example, FPI's board approved the taking of 26 percent of the federal market for recycled toner cartridges.
FPI's involvement can grotesquely distort a marketplace. FPI workers are paid 23 cents an hour to start, with rates capping out at $1.16 per hour. Try competing with those labor rates. Given that advantage, FPI should not need any preference system to get sales.
In the early 1990s, in a single sector of the furniture industry, prison output jumped from about $10 million to $24 million, a 138 percent increase, over two years. In that case, FPI never bothered to obtain from its own board the required authorization for growth.
Asked to explain why FPI had not complied with its statute or its regulations, FPI and its parent agency, the Justice Department, have stonewalled. But the bottom line cannot be changed: From fiscal 1988 through fiscal 1995, FPI made almost no effort to implement procedures to collect, process and report the data needed to comply with federal law and its own self-serving regulations.
It has thumbed its nose at Congress's direction that its board must authorize such expansions. Indeed, FPI has made it clear it is prepared to manipulate its own rules to keep Congress from knowing what is going on. For example, FPI delayed its most recent significant expansion hearing, apparently in hopes Congress would be out of town during the hearing.
Federal prison populations are expanding rapidly. The policies that have led to this expansion should be examined carefully.
There is a legitimate need to rehabilitate and keep prisoners busy. FPI claims its workers are much less likely to become recidivists when released.
This may be true. But what FPI doesn't disclose is that they pick the best of the prisoners for jobs. (FPI often chooses lifers or prisoners with long sentences, which cuts down on turnover.)
Vice President Gore's National Performance Review has recommended elimination of FPI's mandatory preference. Recently, more than 180 members of the House voted to end the mandatory preference. They lost the vote on procedural and jurisdictional grounds when the Judiciary Committee said it needed time to consider the issue.
Congress should act promptly on legislation to take away FPI's big club, the mandatory preference that the company has used to deprive the private sector and its workers of their livelihoods. FPI will never have to compete on the price of labor. Let it compete on the basis of price and quality.
This is an issue the resurgent AFL-CIO, Pat Buchanan, the small-business community and other unlikely allies can agree upon. When you can form that type of coalition, it tells you something is wrong with the government's position.
Thanks S. Ryan
Source: http://www.gcn.com
Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (FPI) is a wholly-owned government corporation established in 1934, under an Act of Congress and an Executive Order which is now incorporated in Chapter 307, Section 4121-4128, Title 18, United States Code. FPI was set up to provide paid employment to inmates, primarily in the manufacture of products for use by the federal government. In 1978, FPI adopted the trade name UNICOR, under which it does most of its business. The products made at these institutions are produced in strict conformance with Federal or other applicable specifications.
Federal Prison Industries Reform
Background
In 1934, President Roosevelt established Federal Prison Industries (FPI) as a government-owned corporation. FPI was given special "mandatory source" status in the government procurement process, forcing government agencies in need of a product to purchase that product from FPI. No consideration could be given to a private sector competitor unless that agency asked for an exception from FPI's monopoly.
In efforts to expand its monopoly, FPI is looking to sell services in the commercial marketplace, despite questionable legal authority to do so. Private sector companies and their employees would have to compete with the federal government to obtain contracts with another private sector company. Facilities—paid for by tax dollars that use prison workers who are paid far below minimum wage—would be competing with Main Street businesses, which are required to pay prevailing wages and provide benefits for their employees. The federal government must undertake more reforms to mandate a "level playing field" for all interested firms.
The Chamber was instrumental in securing reform language in the National Defense Authorization Act that disbanded FPI's monopoly by allowing the private sector to compete for Defense Department contracts if they offer a comparable product. Though progress has been made, a comprehensive reform measure is needed, which is why we support H.R. 2965 the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act. It promotes competition, while providing work, training, and rehabilitation opportunities for prisoners in a manner that does not penalize small businesses.
U.S. Chamber Position
The U.S. Chamber supports passage of the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act. We work to protect businesses from unfair government competition and advocate for fair competition in the procurement process. Congress should ensure that no government entity, such as FPI, has a special status that forces government agencies to buy from that entity.
NSA helped Microsoft make Vista secure.
The U.S. agency best known for eavesdropping on telephone calls had a hand in the development of Microsoft's Vista operating system, Microsoft confirmed Tuesday, January 9. The National Security Agency (NSA) stepped in to help Microsoft develop a configuration of its next_generation operating system that would meet Department of Defense requirements, said NSA spokesperson Ken White. This is not the first time the secretive agency has been brought in to consult with private industry on operating system security, White said, but it is the first time the NSA has worked with a vendor prior to the release of an operating system. By getting involved early in the process, the NSA helped Microsoft ensure that it was delivering a product that was both secure and compatible with existing government software, he said. Still, the NSA's involvement in Vista raises red flags for some. Part of this concern may stem from the NSA's reported historical interest in gaining "back_door" access to encrypted data produced by products from U.S. computer companies like Microsoft.
Source: http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/01/10/HNnsamadevistasecu re_1.html
FYI: In 2001, 500 publicly traded companies, such as Microsoft and McDonalds, dealt with the Federal Prison Industries.
In 2005 12% of African American men in their late 20's were in jail, 3.7% of Hispanics and 1.3 of Caucasians...
Most Americans would instinctively recoil from the notion that our citizens should compete with prison labor from China. What few people seem to know is that the U.S. government also uses prison labor to compete with private industry, a practice that has cost the jobs of thousands of law-abiding American workers.
On the list of anachronistic procurement preferences that should be dispensed with, none looms larger than the preference provided Federal Prison Industries. FPI is a $600 million-per-year corporation that uses prison labor in providing goods and services to the federal government. FPI is one of the government's 50 largest suppliers.
FPI is sustained by a mandatory preference system that lets it claim a share of the federal marketplace for goods and services. Once FPI has decided to take its share of a market and its board of directors has approved such action, no federal agency can buy those goods commercially without first getting a waiver from FPI.
If FPI wants to make the sale to the agency, it simply refuses to grant the waiver and takes that sale. Most of FPI's goods and services are sold to the Defense Department. But representatives of DOD purchasing organizations have testified recently that FPI's prices, quality and delivery schedules are inferior to those available on the open market.
I have a stake in this situation because I am representing an association of manufacturers in a suit challenging FPI's privileged status. However, I believe there is a broader issue that the public should take note of: the unfunded mandate that transfers money to the federal prison bureaucracy from other agencies.
FPI's expansion in its long-standing markets, such as furniture and military clothing, has been so extensive that FPI is circling the federal computer and services market looking for openings. Recently, for example, FPI's board approved the taking of 26 percent of the federal market for recycled toner cartridges.
FPI's involvement can grotesquely distort a marketplace. FPI workers are paid 23 cents an hour to start, with rates capping out at $1.16 per hour. Try competing with those labor rates. Given that advantage, FPI should not need any preference system to get sales.
In the early 1990s, in a single sector of the furniture industry, prison output jumped from about $10 million to $24 million, a 138 percent increase, over two years. In that case, FPI never bothered to obtain from its own board the required authorization for growth.
Asked to explain why FPI had not complied with its statute or its regulations, FPI and its parent agency, the Justice Department, have stonewalled. But the bottom line cannot be changed: From fiscal 1988 through fiscal 1995, FPI made almost no effort to implement procedures to collect, process and report the data needed to comply with federal law and its own self-serving regulations.
It has thumbed its nose at Congress's direction that its board must authorize such expansions. Indeed, FPI has made it clear it is prepared to manipulate its own rules to keep Congress from knowing what is going on. For example, FPI delayed its most recent significant expansion hearing, apparently in hopes Congress would be out of town during the hearing.
Federal prison populations are expanding rapidly. The policies that have led to this expansion should be examined carefully.
There is a legitimate need to rehabilitate and keep prisoners busy. FPI claims its workers are much less likely to become recidivists when released.
This may be true. But what FPI doesn't disclose is that they pick the best of the prisoners for jobs. (FPI often chooses lifers or prisoners with long sentences, which cuts down on turnover.)
Vice President Gore's National Performance Review has recommended elimination of FPI's mandatory preference. Recently, more than 180 members of the House voted to end the mandatory preference. They lost the vote on procedural and jurisdictional grounds when the Judiciary Committee said it needed time to consider the issue.
Congress should act promptly on legislation to take away FPI's big club, the mandatory preference that the company has used to deprive the private sector and its workers of their livelihoods. FPI will never have to compete on the price of labor. Let it compete on the basis of price and quality.
This is an issue the resurgent AFL-CIO, Pat Buchanan, the small-business community and other unlikely allies can agree upon. When you can form that type of coalition, it tells you something is wrong with the government's position.
Thanks S. Ryan
Source: http://www.gcn.com
Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (FPI) is a wholly-owned government corporation established in 1934, under an Act of Congress and an Executive Order which is now incorporated in Chapter 307, Section 4121-4128, Title 18, United States Code. FPI was set up to provide paid employment to inmates, primarily in the manufacture of products for use by the federal government. In 1978, FPI adopted the trade name UNICOR, under which it does most of its business. The products made at these institutions are produced in strict conformance with Federal or other applicable specifications.
Federal Prison Industries Reform
Background
In 1934, President Roosevelt established Federal Prison Industries (FPI) as a government-owned corporation. FPI was given special "mandatory source" status in the government procurement process, forcing government agencies in need of a product to purchase that product from FPI. No consideration could be given to a private sector competitor unless that agency asked for an exception from FPI's monopoly.
In efforts to expand its monopoly, FPI is looking to sell services in the commercial marketplace, despite questionable legal authority to do so. Private sector companies and their employees would have to compete with the federal government to obtain contracts with another private sector company. Facilities—paid for by tax dollars that use prison workers who are paid far below minimum wage—would be competing with Main Street businesses, which are required to pay prevailing wages and provide benefits for their employees. The federal government must undertake more reforms to mandate a "level playing field" for all interested firms.
The Chamber was instrumental in securing reform language in the National Defense Authorization Act that disbanded FPI's monopoly by allowing the private sector to compete for Defense Department contracts if they offer a comparable product. Though progress has been made, a comprehensive reform measure is needed, which is why we support H.R. 2965 the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act. It promotes competition, while providing work, training, and rehabilitation opportunities for prisoners in a manner that does not penalize small businesses.
U.S. Chamber Position
The U.S. Chamber supports passage of the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act. We work to protect businesses from unfair government competition and advocate for fair competition in the procurement process. Congress should ensure that no government entity, such as FPI, has a special status that forces government agencies to buy from that entity.
posted by arkietechs at 7:51 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home