3 ms·

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 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).
    - dialup_sounds 2y ago
      Is it really the same thing, though? What access to government IT systems did Mitnick have in his role consulting with the FBI? What qualifications does Corastine have to be a "senior advisor" at the State Department?
- acdha 2y ago
  Mitnick was advising the FBI, not running their systems. There is a huge difference between listening to a talk or having an outside consultation offer advice and giving them highly-privileged direct access. Even that was controversial enough that it made the news, too.
  - fastball 2y ago
    I agree. But that wasn't the argument made in the comment above mine.

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).
  - dialup_sounds 2y ago
    Is it really the same thing, though? What access to government IT systems did Mitnick have in his role consulting with the FBI? What qualifications does Corastine have to be a "senior advisor" at the State Department?
acdha 2y ago
Mitnick was advising the FBI, not running their systems. There is a huge difference between listening to a talk or having an outside consultation offer advice and giving them highly-privileged direct access. Even that was controversial enough that it made the news, too.
- fastball 2y ago
  I agree. But that wasn't the argument made in the comment above mine.