Sure but do you disagree with the point being made?

There are two points being conflated:

We should hold a high standard.

We should not hold a double standard.

I have to say I think there's something to what you are saying.

The Senators are beating up on this CEO for a security breach that happened under his watch -- suggesting he ought to be fired. For the OMB hack they were the ones with the power to fire the CEO of the organization responsible, i.e. the President. Did even a single one of them call for impeachment? Did any senators resign for thier lack of appropriate oversight?

They attack equifax for having bad security policies and procedures and dismiss the claim that one misfeasant employee is responsible. Well they are the organization largely in charge of writing and overseeing policies and procedures for the federal government. Did they attack themselves for doing a bad job after the OMB hack? Did they change any of those policies and procedures in response?

They are calling on equifax to fully compensate people whose information was released. What laws did they introduce and pass to fully compensate people whose information was lost by the organization they are in charge of?

Technically the identity of the speaker is of no moment, but it's a little hard to avoid rolling ones eyes in the face of such blatant hypocrisy.

> The Senators are beating up on this CEO for a security breach that happened under his watch -- suggesting he ought to be fired. For the OMB hack they were the ones with the power to fire the CEO of the organization responsible, i.e. the President. Did even a single one of them call for impeachment? Did any senators resign for thier lack of appropriate oversight?

Katherine Archuleta was in charge of the OMB during the time of the hack, lawmakers _did_ call for her to be fired, and she ultimately resigned due to the breach.

That's the equivalent of the head of HR, not the CEO of the whole company. No one called for Obama to be fired or resign.

I disagree with your analogy. Obama's job concerned way more things than the OPM. However, it was Katherine Archuleta's only job to lead that organization. When considering the OPM only, Archuleta was much more akin to the CEO than Obama was.

I think a more appropriate analogy would be that Obama was the "board of directors" of the OPM.

OPM isn't an complete organization. It doesn't have a mission that makes any sense independent of the rest of the federal government. It only makes sense as a department serving as part of larger organization. Like HR or IT in a particular company.

Equifax on the other hand is a complete organization. It has a bunch of different departments that all work together to accomplish the overall goal. Just like OPM, the State Department, and the Treasury all work together to accomplish the overall goal of governing the nation.

Therefore, the proper analogy for Equifax is the USG, not OPM, and the proper analogy for Equifax's CEO is Obama, not Archuleta. The group that is analogous to the Equifax Board of Directors is Congress.

I see your point with the OPM. Your analogy is logically consistent, but I still don't find it to be realistic.

Equifax fits into the relatively tidy box of credit reporting, identity theft protection, and maybe a few other services that I missed. The OPM fits into the relatively tidy box of investigating and managing security clearances, hiring Administrative Law Judges, and maybe a few other services that I missed. I can't even reasonably estimate the number of these services (to the same level of granularity) that the entire USG is responsible for.

Getting rid of the business structure analogy, really I just disagree with the sentiment that Obama should have been fired or pressured to resign over the OPM hack. I don't think there is much to be discussed there, so perhaps we should agree to disagree.