Government Audits

I cannot go into great detail about my dealings at work because it may be considered a security risk. I will speak vaguely about the subject matter.

I was asked by our Network Security Team to disable certain functionalities on our switches because it was seen as a security risk. The functionality was already disabled in such a way that enough access was granted in order to monitor and diagnose the network using password protected access. After disabling these functionalities entirely, I am no longer able to monitor activity on the network. If something were to occur, it would be more difficult to discover and isolate. This argument was presented to the team, who agreed that the argument was valid but that they had presented similar arguments to the audit team which were met with resitance. They were happy that we were complying with the instructions in order to show our dedication to the audit team that measures were being taking to ensure the security of our network...

Is this the way Government regulation works? A bunch of auditors dogmatically following poorly written guidelines? When these guidelines are flawed is it easier to just follow through than it is to peel off the beaureacratic red tape and fix the wounds that lie beneath? If this is how our Government works then we are doomed to bow down to a more modern system that allows feedback from multiple sources and seriously consideres their context and content regardless of their source or even tone. I see so many ways that I could do real-world good yet my hands are tied because the system we have created is resistant to change.

Our modern society is one of rapid change and adaptation yet we compromise this by laying foundations and unbending chains of command. Even our educational system is set up on static rules and unbending forces.

I need to write my conspiracy theory regarding this...