4 ms·

I might be horribly misreading this, but it reads like they're talking about no specific threat or problem but rather arguing if that was part of the contract o

I might be horribly misreading this, but it reads like they're talking about no specific threat or problem but rather arguing if that was part of the contract or not? If that's the case then shouldn't lawmakers, being lawmakers, pass laws so that future government projects include a clause in the contractual arrangement? Isn't that just common sense? Seems like this is a trend with the US government, they try to find others to blame instead of just fixing the damn issue. They had this massive set of hearings about people abusing military disabilities (e.g. claiming for disabilities obtained before joining the US military) but didn't actually, you know, fix the freaking issue -- or even try to. They just berated the people being advantaged from it.

Bsharp 13y ago
> they try to find others to blame instead of just fixing the damn issue. This is for two reasons: 1) Fixing something makes it appear, politically, like it's your fault, or at least savvy opposing politicians can spin it that way. 2) The incentive to fix the issue <= incentive to shift the blame. If one party points their fingers, the other must point back, lest the public think the first party is right. Shifting blame is easy, one can do it without working too hard, and it can fuel public debate which forgets about the original issue. Many politicians care less about fixing problems and more about getting/staying elected.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> If that's the case then shouldn't lawmakers, being lawmakers, pass laws so that future government projects include a clause in the contractual arrangement? They already passed a law creating mandatory security requirements for Federal IT systems, whether contracted out or built in house or any combination. [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Information_Security_Management_Act_of_2002 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Information_Security_Ma...

Bsharp 13y ago

> they try to find others to blame instead of just fixing the damn issue. This is for two reasons: 1) Fixing something makes it appear, politically, like it's your fault, or at least savvy opposing politicians can spin it that way. 2) The incentive to fix the issue <= incentive to shift the blame. If one party points their fingers, the other must point back, lest the public think the first party is right. Shifting blame is easy, one can do it without working too hard, and it can fuel public debate which forgets about the original issue. Many politicians care less about fixing problems and more about getting/staying elected.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> If that's the case then shouldn't lawmakers, being lawmakers, pass laws so that future government projects include a clause in the contractual arrangement? They already passed a law creating mandatory security requirements for Federal IT systems, whether contracted out or built in house or any combination. [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Information_Security_Management_Act_of_2002 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Information_Security_Ma...