3 ms·

I'm not sure what what op meant. At least two people there were teenage hackers, but not in a positive sense. They were part of crime organisations. But even c

I'm not sure what what op meant. At least two people there were teenage hackers, but not in a positive sense. They were part of crime organisations. But even concentrating on the age part - people in their 20s are working NSA and others. They're extremely unlikely to have access to the most sensitive information unsupervised since they're not senior enough. And definitely don't have a Yolo level decision making responsibilities. The restrictions, reporting, clearances and rules following in some of those places are unlike anything Doge ever did.

Alupis 1y ago
[flagged]
- JCattheATM 1y ago
  > That's not how security clearances work. It is under a kakistocracy.
- viraptor 1y ago
  > That's not how security clearances work. Not sure what you meant by that. Even if you get the clearance of some level, it doesn't mean you get immediate access to everything you want. There are still limits on what work you're actually given. > Neither do the people we're talking about. In theory they don't. But then you get the recent story about the terrible AI document review that resulted in real actions. There's so little control that by stupid actions they ended up effectively making decisions. They literally got banned from working on some information without a supervisor because they were so reckless.
  - Alupis 1y ago
    > Even if you get the clearance of some level, it doesn't mean you get immediate access to everything you want. There are still limits on what work you're actually given. Right, and that's the case here too. They are receiving access to systems and data relevant to the tasks they have been assigned to do. There are consequences if any individual acts maliciously or abusing the access and data they have been granted - just like any other government department/agency/employee. There's so much fearmongering going on regarding this story it's seriously amusing. Just a few years ago Equifax leaked every adult's financial information, including social security numbers and more - and yet the mere possibility of a potential leak (of the exact same information, by the way) is being treated like armageddon. It's politics ramped up to the maximum level...
    - viraptor 1y ago
      > They are receiving access to systems and data relevant to the tasks they have been assigned to do. No, they're forcefully entering buildings, adding unapproved infrastructure with no oversight and get rubberstamped access to everything, with people in the way being threatened firing. > There are consequences if any individual acts maliciously or abusing the access No, there have been no consequences. The only ones we've seen were: 1. they have to stop, 2. they can continue but with supervision of someone. There's been access abuse already and it will not be prosecuted. > yet the mere possibility of a potential leak There were effectively leaks already. Where Doge was told no they can't access some data they already looked through, those were leaks. I'm not sure why you bring up Equifax - yes, they're both bad ¯ \ _ ( ツ ) _ / ¯
      - Supermancho 1y ago
        > No, they're forcefully entering buildings, adding unapproved infrastructure with no oversight and get rubberstamped access to everything, with people in the way being threatened firing. That's not what the court was ruling on. Nor is there any evidence that the subject were specifically responsible for these crimes. >> There are consequences if any individual acts maliciously or abusing the access > No, there have been no consequences. That's how consequences work. First the violation, then the consequence. When is based on a number of factors. IN THIS CASE, we're talking about potential acts and consequences. Ofc they have not yet been assigned. This is not a discussion when the responses are in the form of hypotheticals being assigned to the subjects out of frustration (I'm frustrated by the feckless courts too). None of us are directly involved. Assume good faith. Be kind.
- jauntywundrkind 1y ago
  There's so much reporting around the DOGE folks that is just off the wall bonkers. Locking themselves into CFPB and other agencies, after demanding not just admin level accounts but root access too systems that no one should access except in emergency cases. These folks have seemingly unmitigated access to systems, in completely unhinged wild ways. They also are executioners for the civil service. The recent reports on how NSF grants were all ran by a disinterested non communicative DOGE child seem to be all to common, just one of what this legion of state-ociding invaders are up to. https://www.techdirt.com/2025/06/02/a-23-year-old-crypto-bro-is-now-vetoing-nsf-grants-while-staring-at-his-water-bottle/ https://www.techdirt.com/2025/06/02/a-23-year-old-crypto-bro... Any attempt to dismiss the extreme panic & freak out that should be happening here is wild.
  - carlosdelgardo 1y ago
    It's not wild. If anything, the abuse of anonymity on shared internet spaces is to be expected. There is no way under any normal circumstances that someone with the background of a script kiddie like BB would be hired to sweep the halls of Congress, let alone to have any kind of clearance to any private data of note.
- monktastic1 1y ago
  > a government department Looks like the propaganda worked. DOGE is not a "government department" and there is very little visibility into how it's run.
  - jaimsam 1y ago
    [dead]
dinkumthinkum 1y ago
Teenagers, as you say, are entrusted by the government with weapons that can destroy and cause untold amount of damage on personnel and property and nobody has complained about that. There even 17-year-olds with such responsibility. Also, plenty of people in their early 20s either have access to sensitive data or have access to code accessing such data.
- martin-t 1y ago
  You say entrusted like it's some great honor. Teenagers are _used_ in wars because they are easy to manipulate, indoctrinate and control.
- viraptor 1y ago
  > weapons that can destroy and cause untold amount of damage on personnel and property and nobody has complained about that. Yeah... No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_protests_against_the_Vietnam_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_protests_against_the_V... "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" was about teens being sent out as well.

Alupis 1y ago

[flagged]

JCattheATM 1y ago
> That's not how security clearances work. It is under a kakistocracy.
viraptor 1y ago
> That's not how security clearances work. Not sure what you meant by that. Even if you get the clearance of some level, it doesn't mean you get immediate access to everything you want. There are still limits on what work you're actually given. > Neither do the people we're talking about. In theory they don't. But then you get the recent story about the terrible AI document review that resulted in real actions. There's so little control that by stupid actions they ended up effectively making decisions. They literally got banned from working on some information without a supervisor because they were so reckless.
- Alupis 1y ago
  > Even if you get the clearance of some level, it doesn't mean you get immediate access to everything you want. There are still limits on what work you're actually given. Right, and that's the case here too. They are receiving access to systems and data relevant to the tasks they have been assigned to do. There are consequences if any individual acts maliciously or abusing the access and data they have been granted - just like any other government department/agency/employee. There's so much fearmongering going on regarding this story it's seriously amusing. Just a few years ago Equifax leaked every adult's financial information, including social security numbers and more - and yet the mere possibility of a potential leak (of the exact same information, by the way) is being treated like armageddon. It's politics ramped up to the maximum level...
  - viraptor 1y ago
    > They are receiving access to systems and data relevant to the tasks they have been assigned to do. No, they're forcefully entering buildings, adding unapproved infrastructure with no oversight and get rubberstamped access to everything, with people in the way being threatened firing. > There are consequences if any individual acts maliciously or abusing the access No, there have been no consequences. The only ones we've seen were: 1. they have to stop, 2. they can continue but with supervision of someone. There's been access abuse already and it will not be prosecuted. > yet the mere possibility of a potential leak There were effectively leaks already. Where Doge was told no they can't access some data they already looked through, those were leaks. I'm not sure why you bring up Equifax - yes, they're both bad ¯ \ _ ( ツ ) _ / ¯
    - Supermancho 1y ago
      > No, they're forcefully entering buildings, adding unapproved infrastructure with no oversight and get rubberstamped access to everything, with people in the way being threatened firing. That's not what the court was ruling on. Nor is there any evidence that the subject were specifically responsible for these crimes. >> There are consequences if any individual acts maliciously or abusing the access > No, there have been no consequences. That's how consequences work. First the violation, then the consequence. When is based on a number of factors. IN THIS CASE, we're talking about potential acts and consequences. Ofc they have not yet been assigned. This is not a discussion when the responses are in the form of hypotheticals being assigned to the subjects out of frustration (I'm frustrated by the feckless courts too). None of us are directly involved. Assume good faith. Be kind.
jauntywundrkind 1y ago
There's so much reporting around the DOGE folks that is just off the wall bonkers. Locking themselves into CFPB and other agencies, after demanding not just admin level accounts but root access too systems that no one should access except in emergency cases. These folks have seemingly unmitigated access to systems, in completely unhinged wild ways. They also are executioners for the civil service. The recent reports on how NSF grants were all ran by a disinterested non communicative DOGE child seem to be all to common, just one of what this legion of state-ociding invaders are up to. https://www.techdirt.com/2025/06/02/a-23-year-old-crypto-bro-is-now-vetoing-nsf-grants-while-staring-at-his-water-bottle/ https://www.techdirt.com/2025/06/02/a-23-year-old-crypto-bro... Any attempt to dismiss the extreme panic & freak out that should be happening here is wild.
- carlosdelgardo 1y ago
  It's not wild. If anything, the abuse of anonymity on shared internet spaces is to be expected. There is no way under any normal circumstances that someone with the background of a script kiddie like BB would be hired to sweep the halls of Congress, let alone to have any kind of clearance to any private data of note.
monktastic1 1y ago
> a government department Looks like the propaganda worked. DOGE is not a "government department" and there is very little visibility into how it's run.
- jaimsam 1y ago
  [dead]

dinkumthinkum 1y ago

Teenagers, as you say, are entrusted by the government with weapons that can destroy and cause untold amount of damage on personnel and property and nobody has complained about that. There even 17-year-olds with such responsibility. Also, plenty of people in their early 20s either have access to sensitive data or have access to code accessing such data.

martin-t 1y ago
You say entrusted like it's some great honor. Teenagers are _used_ in wars because they are easy to manipulate, indoctrinate and control.
viraptor 1y ago
> weapons that can destroy and cause untold amount of damage on personnel and property and nobody has complained about that. Yeah... No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_protests_against_the_Vietnam_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_protests_against_the_V... "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" was about teens being sent out as well.