1. Equipment deployed and supported by the organization most likely has additional applications for encryption, can be managed remotely and updated on a regular

1. Equipment deployed and supported by the organization most likely has additional applications for encryption, can be managed remotely and updated on a regular basis. It is far more secure, and costs less to the organization as a whole. 2. I doubt it was for security. Most likely they don't have the resources to support multiple browsers/versions for business applications and settled on a single one. It sounds like the "failure" to block USB devices is more for user convenience. Blocking USB devices, while much more secure, is extremely difficult to justify nowadays. 3. Sounds like a State issue, not an IT issue. It is probably as much of a pain in the ass to them as it is to you. 4. Such a minor issue probably sat in a queue as other higher priority items were being dealt with. Approving a text-editor for a single user does not usually end-up on the plate of the CIO for consideration. I'm not trying to defend all IT policies and practices. Some of them are less justifiable then others, and some are outright stupid, but a mantra I repeat over and over is that: "Given unlimited time and budget, anything is possible. Anything else is compromise." You are a "super-user". Recognize that you are not the majority in a large organization and limited resources are, by necessity, focused on the largest impact. Often, these priorities are not even determined by the IT organization and staff and left in the hands of committees, meetings and third-party vendors/consultants. It is not ideal. It is a pain in the ass. There is a lot of room for improvement. On both sides.