Home > Identity Theft > The Tools of Inefficiency: Is Facebook Hurting Gov’t Productivity?

Comments 0 Comments

No doubt you’ve seen the studies that show how social networking sites hurt productivity, and I am pretty sure you’ve read, heard or watched countless stories about how companies have tried to solve that problem. And you would have to be living in a cave in Bora Bora—specifically a cave without WiFi—to not know that when computers go down because of a denial of service attack or security breach, productivity takes a hit

However, some really shocking news that you’ve probably heard nothing about is turning what you think you know about that topic upside-down.

Some twelve weeks ago, the Economic Development Administration (EDA) was the target of a sophisticated hack attack. The EDA is a relatively tiny unit of the Department of Commerce, with only 215 employees, that makes grants to distressed communities from six regional offices. The hackers installed a virus that was so virulent the EDA was cut off from the rest of the Commerce Department, as well as the rest of government, and all its systems were shut down in order to prevent the virus from spreading through the system.

What’s shocking about this attack is not that it happened; in recent months NASA, the Department of Defense and the State Department (to name a few) all experienced serious attacks. In fact, five years ago the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security was shut down by a hack. The Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team reported that the number of breaches in federal systems grew in four years from under 6,000 to over 44,000 in fiscal year 2011, the Washington Post reported.

None of that is surprising. Here’s what is: Remarkably, despite the return to pre-historic fax-machine technology, the EDA seems to be functioning fairly well, perhaps even better in some ways. The Washington Post reported that as a result of the lack of cyber connectivity, human contact between bureaucrats and aid-seekers had increased dramatically, and things were actually getting done.

The beleaguered folks at the EDA still have no e-mail, no Google, and no Instant Messaging. Heaven forbid they have to use the US Post Office, to the extent it still exists. Also, they don’t have access to their Facebook accounts, dating sites, Internet gaming, and, er….. more “inappropriate” forms of pictorial entertainment.

One can’t help but recall that in 2010 it was reported that employees at the Securities Exchange Commission had been surfing some pretty graphic websites (and I don’t mean National Geographic) as much as eight hours a day. Some of the employees who were exposed (forgive the pun) were earning more than $200,000 a year, and much of the activity uncovered had happened during the financial meltdown of 2008 and 2009. (Note: some federal employees do have access to Facebook and other social media sites at work, and others don’t.)

So, why did this happen at the EDA of all places? Let’s forget about the fact that the threat and reality of security breaches have now become part of the otherwise serene workaday world of government employees everywhere. It’s simply is what is. Indeed, perhaps the most shocking thing about this attack is that the perpetrators knew there was such a thing as the EDA.

Why not go after one of the thirteen different government agencies which, according to USA Today, “fund 209 different science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education programs – and 173 of those programs overlap with at least one other program.” Better yet, why not one of the 1,271 government agencies that works on security and counter-terrorism? Or wouldn’t the Bureau of Indian Affairs have been a more unique target? And how could they miss this one: the US Department of Agriculture, which granted $700,000 to the University of New Hampshire to study methane gas emissions from dairy cows? That investigation produced the earthshaking conclusion that, “Cows emit most of their methane through belching, only a small fraction from flatulence.” OK, perhaps I should stop milking this theme.

I decided that I would conduct my own hypothetical investigation to try and answer the question of just who was behind this scurrilous attack. Mentally, I rounded up the usual suspects.

I instantly ruled out everybody’s hacker of choice, the Chinese. Certainly, they would have no motive to stop the federal government from giving away more of the money that we borrowed from them in the first place, right? So, how about those fun-loving government disrupters who are aligned with “hacktivist” organizations? Naw… I just don’t see them wanting to prevent aid from being given to distressed communities. The main-stream liberal community would be okay with narrowing the distance between the sources of government largesse and the people who actually need the money. Wait, could it be right-wing extremists? After all, they are pretty sensitive about the 78 to 81 card-carrying Communists in Congress—and I have no doubt that crew sees the EDA as yet another manifestation of Communism.

Try as I might, I just couldn’t figure out who was responsible for this successful hack. On the one hand, the right must be pleased by the idea of shutting down government agencies one by one, or at least slowing the torrent of government grants. On the other, the left would be pleased by the newly responsive EDA’s contact with its needy clientele. And everyone, I think, would be ecstatic that the employees of any given government agency could no longer socially network, or otherwise dillydally, on taxpayer time.

The truth is stranger than anything I can deduce from the facts in evidence here. The web-based tools of productivity out there may have some unplanned inefficiencies—Google docs, IM, email, etc—because on the other side of getting things done is having a wee bit too much free time, and that time can be spent using web-based tools of inefficiency. (There’s also the notion that the speed afforded those with tools of productivity may be a tad faster than the speed of human thought and innovation.)

So, my final, unscientific conclusion is simply this: sometimes chance is the catalyst of evolution. Perhaps the country’s fascination with Mad Men explains the phenomenon somewhat, which for lack of any fancy way of putting it, we might call good, old-fashioned face-to-face, phone-to-phone, people-powered productivity.

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Credit.com receives compensation for the financial products and services advertised on this site if our users apply for and sign up for any of them.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team