And what happens if they break something while patching the exploits? Just seems odd that somehow the FBI is the best server admin here?
I feel like I’m missing the full view of the implementation specifics.
Shouldn’t the disincentive for admins to run unpatched just be monetary damages once/if a damage occurs?
Why are my tax dollars paying for lazing email hosts? Seems like a lot of other issues (unless I’m missing something)
Without arguing for or against it, I can see this new role viewed as a "sysadmin of last resort" wherein an authorized institution steps in to ensure a minimum security level among neglected systems in their jurisdiction.
Probably the same thing that happens when officers injure people or damage property in the course of executing a warrant (which is quite common). In short, either the victim is rich and/or outraged enough to venture a lawsuit against the relevant agency or they just file insurance claims and hope for the best.
I wouldn't be surprised if part of the reasoning for signing off on this action was that the risk of damage was considerably lower than what is routinely understood to be part and parcel of executing search warrants.
I presume they're worried about industrial espionage and sabotage.