8 ms·

This just doesn't seem like much of a story to me when we have Kevin Mitnick being convicted for hacking crimes at 25 and being a consultant for the FBI after d

• threetonesun 2y ago
  It’s a very large leap to assume anyone at DOGE is doing anything “white hat”. I mean I can think of one “white hat” thing they might be involved with but it’s not related to hacking.
• fcatalan 2y ago
  "after doing his time" So then have BigBalls at least do his time before handing him the keys to the kingdom.
  • brigandish 2y ago
    And what would be the crime?
    • frereubu 2y ago
      Assisting cybercrime by the sounds of things: "Two years before becoming a DOGE staffer, Coristine provided network support to a cybercrime group." That enough for you?
      • nukem222 2y ago
        [dead]
      • fastball 2y ago
        > So then have BigBalls at least do his time before handing him the keys to the kingdom. Given that he hasn't been charged with a crime (much less convicted), the "time" he is due to serve is zero.
        • johnnyanmac 2y ago
          Given recent news, charging crimes is not really stopping this government.
      • brigandish 2y ago
        How does providing a CDN assist a cybercrime group in committing a crime? Specifically.
    • safety1st 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • exe34 2y ago
        or, you know, the actual crime that he did do. an unrepentant and unpunished criminal gets into government and draws attention to himself - did you miss that part?
        • safety1st 2y ago
          Oh, he committed a crime? Can you link us to an article about the charge and the conviction? Or is it the case that neither one of those exist at this time... And you are judging him for a crime that he has not yet been charged for, let alone convicted... One might almost say... For a pre-crime...
          • exe34 2y ago
            that's not what pre-crime means.
    • bilbo0s 2y ago
      I can't tell if this is a serious question or not? So this response is only in the case that it is a serious question. Please ignore if I've misapprehended the sarcasm. Based on what I read, the minimum would be aiding and abetting. At least, that's what it would be here in Wisconsin.
      • LinuxBender 2y ago
        aiding and abetting Not a lawyer but I think that only sticks if the CDN he managed was specifically built for criminals and the selling points were to hide criminal activity similar to some bullet-proof hosting solutions otherwise Akamai, Bunny, Cloudflare and many others would be seized as they have a myriad of criminals utilizing their network as well but I could be wrong. Was there solid evidence that this CDN was purpose built for criminal usage such as proof of intent?
        • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
          > only sticks if the CDN he managed was specifically built for criminals Why? If he knew it was being used for crime sufficiently to let him brag about it to the FBI, he’s complicit.
          • LinuxBender 2y ago
            Why? If he knew it was being used for crime sufficiently to let him brag about it to the FBI, he’s complicit. I don't follow. I can brag about Akamai or Cloudflare being used for criminal activity and still use it myself or even promote it to others. That is a strong selling point in that if criminals can use it then it's less likely my crass meme sites might be taken down. Was the CDN he promoted only sold to criminals explicitly for criminal activity? e.g. not logging admin access, hiding identities of criminals, promoting the support of illegal content, etc... The difference in my eye is the intent to use for illegal means vs. the illegal usage of a generic tool as a by-product. Was he actively promoting illegal usage to the would-be clients? As for boasting about it to the FBI I would want to hear the actual dialogue. Media have been putting slants on details as they know crapping on DOGE is popular right now. In reference to intent an example would be if one hosts an anonymous forum or chan site and someone uploads illegal content they are protected from criminal prosecution assuming they quickly remove said content whereas if they host an anonymous forum or chan site and promote the sharing of illegal material then they are no longer protected.
    • AdamN 2y ago
      Active support of a criminal enterprise. I believe it's not just a state crime but also federal.
    • BLKNSLVR 2y ago
      I don't know the law precisely, but if I attempt to emulate the US leadership, then: It's radical lefty anti-establishment behaviour which is obviously criminal and I can't believe you're even asking such a ridiculous question when anyone who has lived in the real world for longer than a week would implicitly know the answer. I would have used caps in select places to improve the parody, but I didn't want to seem actually serious.
    • Kapura 2y ago
      read the article.
      • brigandish 2y ago
        I did. What would be the crime?
        • arevno 2y ago
          The Feds have prosecuted people[1] not for committing original crimes, but for abetting those who do, which is in and of itself a crime, if done knowingly. [1] https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-ccips/legacy/2012/03/15/wattSent.pdf https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-ccips/l...
          • brigandish 2y ago
            In what way does a CDN abet others in crime, and what was the crime being abetted?
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• anthk 2y ago
  Or any thug turned into private detective/policeman. Older than you think.
• frereubu 2y ago
  This is exactly the complacency that's going to ruin lots of government systems. 20 or even 10 years ago, everyone would be rightly horrified about anyone like this having privileged access. He seemingly hasn't faced any consequences for his actions either - do you really want someone who associated with a group that "boasted [about] online of hacking government emails and cyberstalking [an] FBI agent"? The potential for him to be compromised is enormous.
  • fastball 2y ago
    The comment you are replying is literally about someone convicted of hacking crimes (not someone alleged to have aided a cybercrime group with CDN services) working for the government. So no, your assertion that 20 years ago everyone would be horrified by such a situation is dead wrong. Did you reply to the wrong comment? It kinda seems backward when your own parent comment gave a great example that disproves your point.
    • frereubu 2y ago
      Perhaps I could have been clearer, but I wasn't referring to Mitnick, I was referring to the DOGE employee, who is different in important respects from Mitnick.
    • reaperducer 2y ago
      So no, your assertion that 20 years ago everyone would be horrified such a situation is dead wrong. Did you reply to the wrong comment? Mitnick was 30 years ago. Things changed thereafter, and the patent is correct. Did you reply to the wrong comment?
      • fastball 2y ago
        He was charged 30 years ago, but consulted for many years after his release (only 25 years ago). So definitely his activities would be included in the last 20 years. Even if that wasn't the case, why should something that was OK 30 years ago be so crazy that we shouldn't do it now? Hint: no reason at all, "people would be horrified at X behavior Y years in the past" is and always was a poor argument, even when it's true (which again in this case it is clearly not).
• aredox 2y ago
  Whataboutism (and comparing wildly different things, muddling them into a superficial similarity) is going to kill your country.
  • _heimdall 2y ago
    I find it important to consider what is motivating whataboutism in general. It usually comes off to me as a mazy argument, but its an attempt to point out inconsistency of one's opinions. The problem isn't when someone raises a "but what about..." argument, the problem is if someone uses it to retroactively justify something. Its totally fair, in my opinion, to ask why someone should care about this Signal chat if they didn't care about Hillary Clinton's personal email server. On the flip side, its also reasonable to ask why someone wouldn't care about this signal chat if they previously wanted to put Hillary in prison for using her email server for official communications.
    • aredox 2y ago
      But you need to compare comparable things. Those whatabout arguments are almost always based on very superficial similarity - it "looks" to be the same thing, when those are by nature profundly different.
      • _heimdall 2y ago
        For sure, the approach can often be used to make logical comparisons where they aren't really equivalent. The Hillary Clinton email server situation feels very similar to this Signal thread issue to me though. Both involved government officials using unofficial forms of communication for official work, likely confidential work in both cases. I say likely because this one seems like it would have been classified if reviewed, and for Hillary we just don't know what was on the email server and I don't know of a public report that investigated communications that involved both her server and official servers.
        • acdha 2y ago
          For Hillary, we do know. Her server was not in violation of policy at the time for unclassified data - the policies were strengthened later – and she did not intentionally store classified data there. The FBI said nothing was classified at the time after their investigation but identified a hundred emails which should have been: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/08/hillary-clintons-claim-that-zero-emails-were-marked-classified/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/08/hillary-c... In this case, I think the difference is intent and ambiguity. This information was clearly known to be classified (remember last week when they were arguing that the flight details of immigrant deportations were classified and couldn’t be shared with a federal judge? Kinda hard to say information about military strikes which haven’t happened yet is less sensitive.) and it’s clearly something at the level to qualify as a federal record, but they don’t show any signs of having stored a copy.
• acdha 2y ago
  Being a consultant is a far more limited role than what’s been reported with DOGE being given administrative-level access to many systems with sensitive data without following the normal processes for background checks, training, auditing, copying data, etc. That’s the difference between hiring a former burglar to give you advice and putting them in charge of building security.
• exe34 2y ago
  > a consultant for the FBI after doing his time I take it little Richard has done his time too?
• JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > doesn't seem like much of a story to me when we have Kevin Mitnick being convicted for hacking crimes at 25 and being a consultant for the FBI after doing his time This kid wasn’t convicted. He’s never shown contrition or growth. He’s a cybercriminal who was given the keys to our payments systems by Musk.
  • fastball 2y ago
    This kid wasn't charged. That is a required step before being convicted. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
    • nickthegreek 2y ago
      What happened to denying security clearances?
      • fastball 2y ago
        To be honest, the whole security clearance process has always seemed (to me at least) much closer to McCarthyism/security theater than an effective way to prevent infiltration by actual spies and such.
        • johnnyanmac 2y ago
          well we've done a good job this year showing the alternative of "just let whoever in" is much, much worse. Bravo.
          • fastball 2y ago
            Have we? What have been the repercussions so far?
            • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
              > What have been the repercussions so far? We really have to wait for an American pilot to be shot down, don’t we. Seeing the flames isn’t enough; the house has to burn down.
• BLKNSLVR 2y ago
  The FBI has handlers to filter and proxy between the privileged information and the consultant, and whilst it might be a bit leaky as trust between the parties is earned over time, in the case of DOGE staffers, all the handlers have been fired, and it's juniors holding the golden keys and interfacing directly with data. There's no comparison.
• addandsubtract 2y ago
  At least Mitnick went through a security clearance / background check before being given any type of access. I doubt the same can be said about "Big Balls".
• danso 2y ago
  Isn't there a substantial difference between someone who has been convicted and has subsequently reformed (at least to the satisfaction of the justice system), versus someone whose indiscretions were never disclosed prior to his employment?
• more_corn 2y ago
  Oh, sweet so Mr Balls has done time and paid his debt for his crimes then?