[tbatchelli]

> I'm also not convinced this is a "security breach." They're being allowed to do it. It's more like an unforced error, if anything. Not that it changes anything material about the situation.

From the perspective of the owners of this data, the US citizens and others that live in the country, this is very much a security breach; the data that was supposed to be secure is no longer secure.

[amazingamazing]

That's what I'm saying though - DOGE claims it is secure and all of the data is still in the hands of those (in)directly appointed by Trump.

I do not disagree with your sentiment though, but a little pedantry is needed here. It's not necessary for this to be a security breach to be bad. Given how poorly this data is being handled even among those who are "supposed" to have it, it's likely there will be a legitimate security breach soon enough.

[Applejinx]

If DOGE is acting in an adversarial capacity to the US, there's no reason to put any stock in any claims they make regarding 'it is secure' or 'it is still in the hands of DOGE alone and definitely not being conveyed anywhere else, it has just been wrested from the grasp of the US Government'.

If they are adversarial enough to justify such wresting from the grasp of the US government, is that not already a problem, compounded by the fact that if they are already in an adversarial position there's no reason to assume they are acting alone in that position? Why believe any claim by them if they are already taking pains to take a position as an adversary?

It's taking their say-so that they are a domestic adversary rather than a foreign adversary, as if that made all the difference. I can't agree that it makes as much difference as they claim it makes.

[lawn]

That's why they dumped it all into an LLM online?

[tbatchelli]

Agreed, but part of the reason I think people are not aware of what’s going on is that we’re not calling things for what they are, in a weird and self-imposed Orwellian way. Like calling a rocket that blows up “unexpected rapid disassembly” or some other BS. The rocket blew up, the cars blow up, it’s a coup, they’re nazi sympathizers, etc…

[alexashka]

> From the perspective of the owners of this data, the US citizens and others that live in the country

Did you say the cattle owns the ranch? Or you mean the cattle owns the feed?

No, the cattle owns nothing, you own nothing.

As for data being secure or not secure - how do you know any of this is true? Because journalists are good faith arbiters of truth without any conflicts of interest or personal bias?

[ganoushoreilly]

I would argue that the same could be said that "from the perspective of the owners of this data, the US citizens and others that live in the country" it's evident that the government has been recklessly spending money. The reality is Americans voted this in, they wanted it. Both sides have made historical voting points for claiming to clean up corruption and cut the fat, none of them really did. This time it's being cut for everyone to see. They don't like it. People will fight it. Some good programs will be impacted. Once the dust settles we'll fix it, but for now I have yet to see any good arguments for some of the excess spending programs. I've seen little or no justification for billions going to foreign countries while Americans are in need of help.