6 ms·
This checks out because all those DOGE hires appear to be hackers, and they are now state sponsored. Most of them could never pass a basic background check, muc
by pnutjam 1y ago
This checks out because all those DOGE hires appear to be hackers, and they are now state sponsored.
Most of them could never pass a basic background check, much less a TS or even public trust from one of the more invasive Federal agencies.
- flanked-evergl 1y agocite?
- ceejayoz 1y agohttps://www.reuters.com/world/us/doge-staffer-big-balls-provided-tech-support-cybercrime-ring-records-show-2025-03-26/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/doge-staffer-big-balls-prov... > The best-known member of Elon Musk's U.S. DOGE Service team of technologists once provided support to a cybercrime gang that bragged about trafficking in stolen data and cyberstalking an FBI agent, according to digital records reviewed by Reuters.
- flanked-evergl 1y ago[flagged]
- bryanrasmussen 1y agoa basic background check would invalidate someone with the described background.
- randunel 1y agoIs the article unclear? Would people who collaborate with known criminal groups pass basic background checks? Granted, the sample size is low, but it doesn't look likely the rest of the gang would be any different.
- flanked-evergl 1y agoOne staffer is not "most of them". The article in no way supportes the claim.
- ceejayoz 1y agoDidn't you get a pretty good answer - from a Federal court - last time you asked the same question? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43557456 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43557456
- fourside 1y agoIt’s a common mistake to think that folks like the parent commenter are trying to engage in an intellectually honest discussion.
- ceejayoz 1y agoI'm under no illusions they're commenting in good faith, but at times I find it valuable to highlight that fact.
- sorcerer-mar 1y agoIt is valuable! Thank you for doing it.
- morkalork 1y ago"Hark" goes the sealion, "sources?"
- flanked-evergl 1y agoWell that is kind of the point though, I asked for sources because it is clear that the comment, containing a false and baseless claim (as evidenced by the inability to provide one single supporting source), was not intellectually honest. If we don't challenge these things, then others will start believing them.
- flanked-evergl 1y ago[flagged]
- SoyAnto 1y agoProviding support for known criminal groups would immediately raise flags on any background check. Do you need a source on that claim as well?
- boesboes 1y ago[flagged]
- BurnGpuBurn 1y ago> Reuters could not independently verify EGodly's boasts of cybercriminal activity
- matthewdgreen 1y agoIt is worth pointing out that many of these people are probably violating Federal and possibly even some state laws. Violations of Federal laws can be pardoned, if the President is so inclined. State laws can't. No prosecution will occur during this administration, but this administration will not last forever.
- tremon 1y agoThis administration will last as long as the People allow it to. There is no other way this will end.
- _hyn3 1y agoThose darn hackers. They probably hang out and get their news... someplace.