Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Government Privacy Security IT News Your Rights Online

GAO Criticizes IRS Over Serious IT Deficiencies 57

wiredmikey writes with an analysis of a GAO report on the dismal failure of the IRS to implement secure IT practices. From the article: "The Government Accountability Office has blasted the Internal Revenue Service for failing to implement stronger security measures after a succession of dismal reports on the subject. In a report issued to the Secretary of the Treasury last week, the GAO said that the IRS had met just 15 percent of the 105 previously reported recommendations where information security is concerned. Taking a blunt approach, the GAO said that the IRS 'lacks reasonable assurance as to the accuracy of financial information or the adequate protection of sensitive taxpayer information.' ... It also said it would issue a limited distribution report to the IRS that addresses details omitted from this most recent report due to the sensitivity of the information."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GAO Criticizes IRS Over Serious IT Deficiencies

Comments Filter:
  • by Compaqt ( 1758360 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @09:39AM (#38058830) Homepage

    Speaking of which, does anybody find it strange that whenever someone does something the President doesn't like, he gets audited by the IRS? Nixon did it, so did JFK, and the coincidences continue.

  • by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @09:45AM (#38058874)

    The key issue is with IT workers we work at a level that is behind the software audits. And really how much is the right balance of using our tax money to make the IRS more secure?

    You can go all out spend billions of dollars for massive audits and an infrastructure that can handle everything to make sure nothings slips by the cracks. Or spend millions of dollars to make sure the common stuff doesn't get by and only a few slip by.

    You can just do nothing and figure we have invested enough already.

    We have this strange notion that the government needs to be infallible in everything, then we complain that they are not spending their money wisely.
    Most of the government waste goes to "Covering their asses" Not so much in corruption where we are spending money to help hide a political figure from his mistakes but in a process that tries to make sure there are no mistakes where everything needs to go up and down the entire chain before it gets approved.

    We have all heard of the $900 toilet seat. It isn't the fact the vendor was selling the seat for $900 but because Maintenance Worker A see a seat that needs to be replaced. Spend 15 minutes writing a form to request it, his manager has to read it look at the seat verify that it needs to be replaced, then approves the form brings it further up Where people look at the seat try to find the most cost effective vendor for the seat, debate whether they should just get a cheap $5.00 one that will last 5 months or a nice one that will last for years. After all this and a month later the seat comes it. Why all this for a $20 medium quality seat. Because if they found out the Maintenance Guy A has been spending government money to buy $30 seats where they could have gotten one for $20 would cause an issue where either the Maintenance Man would get fired or his direct boss or further up, depending who is the best at pointing fingers.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @11:45AM (#38060290)

    Hi. A quick economics lesson. Money has no intrinsic value. Frankly, even gold does not have an intrinsic value close to what it represented when it was used as our reserves. Money represents goods and services. If all of the goods and services went away, you would have worthless paper. If we had a gold reserve, your gold would be worthless as well.

    I hate the debt. But things like the "USD has come dwn by 99%" are close to being accurate (it is actually more like 95%) but misleading. We have this thing called inflation. If good X costs 50 times what it did in 1913 but we are making 50 times as much as we did in 1913, it is a wash. A little inflation is healthy for an economy. Remember, money has no intrinsic value... it only represents goods and services.

    So, if you are arguing that we only have 1% of the purchasing power as we did in 1913, you are far, far offbase.

    No, a "fiat" currency does not spell the end of a currency. Hate to break this to you, but currencies were devalued long before governments went off the gold and silver standards. When people argue that floating currencies caused the overspending problem, they simply disqualify themselves from being taken seriously. Floating currencies simply mean that these adjustments take place automatically on a daily basis rather than waiting for official proclimations of a currency's value. The gold standard was simply and intermediary step between the fixed and fully floating regimes. Gold is not some magical device that afforded protection against bad gov't policy.

    So while I do think our country is spending itself into oblivion, and we will have inflation in the double digits or a SERIOUS devaluation event. But the Ron Paul arguments as to the cause are just plain silly.

Never buy what you do not want because it is cheap; it will be dear to you. -- Thomas Jefferson