The December 2022 issue of IEEE Spectrum is here!

Close bar

US Virtual Fence Likely To Become A Virtual Project

SBInet Life Support To Be Finally Pulled?

2 min read
US Virtual Fence Likely To Become A Virtual Project

In late 2007, I wrote that the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secure Border Initiative's SBInet aka "virtual fence" project was in the bottom of the fifth inning of a baseball game, and was down 8-0. It wasn't a matter of whether the project was going to be terminated, only when and at what final cost.

Well, after spending over $770 million, several re-planning efforts and re-failures, possibly cooking the testing results, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials have come to the conclusion that maybe they ought to really, really seriously think about finally terminating SBInet.

Testifying before the US Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Alan Bersin, the Customs and Border Protection commissioner, admitted that the virtual fence was "not a goal that was practicable" in the near term, press reports state.

How long is the "near term"?

Well, according to this article in HSToday, Commissioner Bersin compared the problems with SBInet to technology projects that were very hard to do in the 1970s that we can now do pretty well today. So, say, 20 years or so. We can  therefore expect another version of the virtual fence to be proposed by the DHS somewhere around 2030 - 2035.

Senate Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman, in his opening remarks at the hearing, said:

 "By any measure, SBInet, has been a failure - a classic example of a program that was grossly oversold and has badly under delivered."

Senator John McCainseconded Senator's Lieberman's assessment, saying that:

 "Hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money so far has been wasted. There has been a lack of oversight and a lack of accountability. The virtual fence has been a complete failure."

Commissioner Bersin said that he agreed with their assessment, explaining that the failure of SBInet was due to an inability to integrate disparate technologies. Quoting from HSToday, Commissioner Bersin said:

"What has not worked is the total integration of technology from each of the areas along the border into an overall system that would permit a central monitoring and control--that technology integration at the very broadest level has been the complete failure the committee described."

Now, I find that statement an interesting admission of the part of DHS.

For if you remember, SBInet was said from its inception to be a technologically-low risk project according to both the prime contractor Boeing  ("Boeing's solution concentrated on using proven, low risk, off-the-shelf technology..") and the DHS  ("... we believe that the selection of the Boeing proposal validates the approach for acquiring a low-risk technological solution.")

Again as I noted in 2007, the approach used was: "Sort of like saying I am going to build a car using a Honda Accord engine, a Ford F-150 chassis, a GM Saturn Vue interior , etc., and then claiming the resulting effort is low-risk. Makes sense to me, although there is this small issue of integration, eh?"

It's taken almost four years for DHS to figure out there might be a major, technically unfeasible systems engineering integration problem? Talk about hope (and politics) overcoming good engineering sense.

Even after calling the project a complete failure, Commissioner Bersin would not say that the SBInet contract was going to be terminated, since he could not render judgment on a legal issue.

I expect that at best, the contract won't be extended rather than be terminated outright.

DHS could stand to learn some IT management lessons from the Veterans Affairs Department, however.

The Conversation (0)

Why Functional Programming Should Be the Future of Software Development

It’s hard to learn, but your code will produce fewer nasty surprises

11 min read
A plate of spaghetti made from code
Shira Inbar

You’d expectthe longest and most costly phase in the lifecycle of a software product to be the initial development of the system, when all those great features are first imagined and then created. In fact, the hardest part comes later, during the maintenance phase. That’s when programmers pay the price for the shortcuts they took during development.

So why did they take shortcuts? Maybe they didn’t realize that they were cutting any corners. Only when their code was deployed and exercised by a lot of users did its hidden flaws come to light. And maybe the developers were rushed. Time-to-market pressures would almost guarantee that their software will contain more bugs than it would otherwise.

Keep Reading ↓Show less