Maybe - but remember, we're talking about the CIA. My encounters with anyone potentially related to the agency has been that they're quite competent, to say the least. When considering an agency such as the CIA, it's safe to say that incompetence only occurs in areas where competence is not a priority, incompetence is on purpose, or where the situation is beyond the competence of anyone.
So my guess is they applied little care to the oversight committee and handed them a sheet of what not to do, such as attempt to browse external web sites. The staffers did so anyway, and now are "penetrating" the firewall that didn't even exist except on paper. The agency now has a reason to restrain activities of oversight staffers that they didn't have before (for violating policy).
> So my guess is they applied little care to the oversight committee and handed them a sheet of what not to do, such as attempt to browse external web sites. The staffers did so anyway, and now are "penetrating" the firewall that didn't even exist except on paper. The agency now has a reason to restrain activities of oversight staffers that they didn't have before (for violating policy).
That sounds likely, but that also sounds like incompetence on the CIA's part. It also seems absurd for the CIA to decide what the CIA overseers can see.
it's safe to say that incompetence only occurs in areas where competence is not a priority, incompetence is on purpose, or where the situation is beyond the competence of anyone.
Such as setting up file-access auditing on sensitive files, like what they (or Booz Allen Hamilton, their contractor) didn't do? Hard to believe basic Microsoft sysadmin training concepts evade their competency filter.
So my guess is they applied little care to the oversight committee and handed them a sheet of what not to do, such as attempt to browse external web sites. The staffers did so anyway, and now are "penetrating" the firewall that didn't even exist except on paper. The agency now has a reason to restrain activities of oversight staffers that they didn't have before (for violating policy).