IRS Security
This is probably the worst article that I&#x27;ve read by Schneier.<p>In his opening paragraph he says that he&#x27;s not there to answer the questions of &quot;<i>What&#x27;s our money being spent on? Do we have a government worth paying for?</i>&quot;  And then draws a conclusion that can only be rationally argued for  in the context of those very answers: &quot;<i>We all need to urge Congress to give it the money to [improve security].</i>&quot;<p>Let&#x27;s be clear information security related to tax information is a basic need and of paramount importance.  But the suggestion that the answer to better security is simply to throw money at it is deeply flawed and naive if you don&#x27;t know how existing funds are being used.  This is true even if budgets are cut or workloads increased.  Without first answering why current funds are insufficient (i.e what the money is being spent on and is it worth it) you cannot answer the question of there being insufficient budget.<p>In fact, this line of argument is the old trick politicians to fool voters into approving ever more tax increases.  During the budget year you fritter away your funds on frivolous projects and ignore inefficiencies (bonus points if you benefit friends &amp; family along the way) while at the same time underfunding infrastructure, police, fire, etc.  Then, during the election cycle, you encourage talk about how desperately underfunded these basic services are and how they are in dire need of increased funds.  This talk never results in a discussion of where the money currently goes... after all, <i>our police&#x2F;fire aren&#x27;t getting the money they need and you want to debate the budget!?</i> So you go to the voters for more money for these essentials using a purely emotional appeal... and you get to eat your cake too.<p>Sorry.  Scheier is wrong until he answers those questions that he dismisses.  Those spending discussions need to happen even if it&#x27;s to justify additional money for something as important as security.