IRS Left Taxpayer Data Vulnerable and Lied About It 79
Bruce66423 writes with news that the IRS hasn't made much progress improving its poor IT security. From the article: "The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration found that the IRS had only partially implemented 42 percent of the corrective plans it checked off as completed in recent years. ...
The review (PDF) showed that the IRS failed to properly track its progress toward completing many of the fixes auditors had recommended in recent years. The agency closed most of the cases without adequate documentation and did not always upload the necessary information into a database that helps ensure compliance."
Re:Consequences? (Score:4, Interesting)
"Punishing" the IRS would be moving money from one part of government to another, and wouldn't fix anything.
You work, right? Unless you work for the government, there will be some kind of expectations set out for you. If you don't do your job properly, you can lose bonuses, get demoted, have to take paycuts, or eventually be dismissed for cause. That's how most jobs are. The parent poster is arguing for firing whoever made poor security decisions.
Values, not regulations.
The IRS is an organization that decided it didn't like a Supreme Court decision that limited its power and benefited people that its employees didn't like, so they used their powers as the nation's tax collectors to harass their political enemies. They have pretty shitty values, and heads should be rolling until we get people in there with better values. "Should" is the operative word here, as no one has actually been punished for this.
Re:Consequences? (Score:5, Interesting)
> So the punishment for not securing taxpayer data is... nothing? So why bother fixing anything?
Exactly. It is very, very difficult to fire someone who works for the Federal Government. One case that I knew of: there was this woman in a wheelchair who pinched butts, stole things from the cafeteria (in plain sight, right in front of everyone) and did so little work they had to search for it with microscopes. True story. They had to apply to the regional office in Atlanta, have several hearings, go through several "counseling sessions," and finally, after about A YEAR ... this worthless piece of flotsam was terminated.
Then she sued them for discrimination and they were tied up for another year in court. She lost, of course, but it cost time and money.
Ergo: the strong inclination, when you have incompetents, is just to leave them in place. If they're doing too much damage, you try to transfer them to where they can't do as much harm. Barring that, if you think it'll work at all, you PROMOTE them. (Again: true stories. I'm not kidding.)
So ... now you end up with incompetents in middle management. The problem gets worse.
Rinse. Repeat until the entire building is like a M.A.S.H. episode, with a few who will actually do their jobs, and who can only stay sane by either taking drugs or joking about it incessantly.
(And in real life, by the way, if you're not careful, such "joking" will actually result in counseling and a reprimand.)
I am not kidding. There is no hyperbole in the above. Re-read it and let it nourish your brain. There's at least part of your answer.
(The other parts are so unpalatable -- such as outright nepotism and granting favors to friends and supporters -- that I shall spare you.)