- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,975
- Reaction score
- 60,519
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
The level of security risk was one of the main premises for eliminating the key requirement. As Pbrauer already posted, "The reasoning for this change was to prevent cyber criminals from gaining access to the financial data and using it against affected persons." So if staffers and family members are made vulnerable by the requirement, why aren't the congressmen?
Yes, the risk is the same. The difference is in the amount of risk staffers should be exposed to versus elected officials. That is the part you seem to be having difficulty with. You can keep building this strawman, but it ain't gunna fly. No one has said the risk would be different with the same exposure. You have been continuously less than honest in this thread, please stop.
Demanding greater transparency of our elected representatives and those who could profit from their connections to them is treating them like ****?
Demanding people prove themselves innocent in public simply to hold down a job is treating them like ****. Oversight is not the issue. Staffers will still be subject to oversight.