Friday, July 23, 2010

What's Possible and What's Not

The Priest/Arkin series on the post 9/11national security bureaucracy is filled with interest.  As a sidelight, two small scenarios show the difference between what's possible in IT and what isn't.  Here's what's possible:
To understand how these firms have come to dominate the post-9/11 era, there's no better place to start than the Herndon office of General Dynamics. One recent afternoon there, Ken Pohill was watching a series of unclassified images, the first of which showed a white truck moving across his computer monitor.
The truck was in Afghanistan, and a video camera bolted to the belly of a U.S. surveillance plane was following it. Pohill could access a dozen images that might help an intelligence analyst figure out whether the truck driver was just a truck driver or part of a network making roadside bombs to kill American soldiers.
To do this, he clicked his computer mouse. Up popped a picture of the truck driver's house, with notes about visitors. Another click. Up popped infrared video of the vehicle. Click: Analysis of an object thrown from the driver's side. Click: U-2 imagery. Click: A history of the truck's movement. Click. A Google Earth map of friendly forces. Click: A chat box with everyone else following the truck, too.
And here is what's not possible,  from the first article:
The practical effect of this unwieldiness is visible, on a much smaller scale, in the office of Michael Leiter, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center. Leiter spends much of his day flipping among four computer monitors lined up on his desk. Six hard drives sit at his feet. The data flow is enormous, with dozens of databases feeding separate computer networks that cannot interact with one another.
So, in one case IT is able to correlate information from different sources into one presentation; in the other it's unable to.

Why the difference? This is just speculation, but I see two key differences. In the first instance different kinds of information are being brought together and the sources of data probably were created within the last 5 years.  In the second instance similar kinds of information from different bureaucracies are coming in, and probably all of them had deep historical roots.  (For example, FBI's case file system dates back to J. Edgar Hoover's prime in the 1920's.)

No comments: