5 ms·

I don't think it's a complete story either way. It's just some bureaucrats complaining that they've been made redundant and from there we are lead by the author

I don't think it's a complete story either way. It's just some bureaucrats complaining that they've been made redundant and from there we are lead by the author to conclude that the White House has inadequate IT security going forward. This is unrealistic. It's a reorganization. That shit happens all the time in organizations everywhere. Of course the people losing their jobs are unhappy, and it's their right to complain about it, but not necessarily a bad thing that the DoD is now in charge of White House security. I'm curious if I'm being downvoted because something about my comment was wrong, or simply because "orange man bad." Maybe share some insight about the right chain of command for government IT security operations? I'm not saying that the reorganization is a good thing, only that there is insufficient evidence provided to conclude that it's a bad thing.

EpicEng 7y ago
>The security team had seen incentive pay revoked, scope of duties cut, and access to systems and facilities reduced, Vastakis noted. Staffers' "positions with strategic and tactical decision making authorities" had also been revoked You consider this a re-org?
- rubbingalcohol 7y ago
  The article said the responsibilities had been transferred to a DoD entity and tried to imply that having the DoD involved in White House operations is somehow bad. Yea that's a re-org. That's how you fire someone in government because it's so convoluted to outright terminate people. [Note] since I posted this, the original article link was updated from an Ars Technica link to an Axios article with even _less_ analysis. This is kind of absurd.
- tropo 7y ago
  If you were running the show, how would you get rid of those people? Regulations make it slow and expensive to get rid of horrible employees. These people could be actively hostile and thus a security risk, which wouldn't be surprising if they were hired by political opponents. Options are limited. One idea would be to relocate their offices to central Alaska. Another idea is rotating shift work. If this were normal at-will employment, then they would quickly be replaced.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

EpicEng 7y ago

>The security team had seen incentive pay revoked, scope of duties cut, and access to systems and facilities reduced, Vastakis noted. Staffers' "positions with strategic and tactical decision making authorities" had also been revoked You consider this a re-org?

rubbingalcohol 7y ago
The article said the responsibilities had been transferred to a DoD entity and tried to imply that having the DoD involved in White House operations is somehow bad. Yea that's a re-org. That's how you fire someone in government because it's so convoluted to outright terminate people. [Note] since I posted this, the original article link was updated from an Ars Technica link to an Axios article with even _less_ analysis. This is kind of absurd.
tropo 7y ago
If you were running the show, how would you get rid of those people? Regulations make it slow and expensive to get rid of horrible employees. These people could be actively hostile and thus a security risk, which wouldn't be surprising if they were hired by political opponents. Options are limited. One idea would be to relocate their offices to central Alaska. Another idea is rotating shift work. If this were normal at-will employment, then they would quickly be replaced.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]