3 ms·

> risks to national security …really? Really. Apparently the Secretary of War agrees with him.

• pinkmuffinere 6mo ago
  To be fair, it's not like Hegseth is a super high-signal source. Hegseth says lots of stuff, some of which are even true!
  • wredcoll 6mo ago
    This was such a genuinely weird moment for me when reading the article. "yadda yadda and then also the secretary of defence agreed it was bad" I'm just reading along and going, "yeah that sounds really bad if a secretary level position is being cited... wait a second, isn't that actually the guy who is literally famous for being stupid??" I never expected to be living through a real life version of "the emperor's new clothes", like, how is anyone quoting this guy about anything?
• mpyne 6mo ago
  In fairness the SECWAR is hardly a computing expert. But in this case the SECWAR has been properly advised. If anything it's astonishing that a program whereby China-based Microsoft engineers telling U.S.-based Microsoft engineers specific commands to type in ever made it off the proposal page inside Microsoft, accelerated time-to-market or not. It defeats the entire purpose of many of the NIST security controls that demand things like U.S.-cleared personnel for government networks, and Microsoft knew those were a thing because that was the whole point to the "digital escort" (a U.S. person who was supposed to vet the Chinese engineer's technical work despite apparently being not technical enough to have just done it themselves). Some ideas "sell themselves", ideas like these do the opposite.
  • jacquesm 6mo ago
    > If anything it's astonishing that a program whereby China-based Microsoft engineers telling U.S.-based Microsoft engineers specific commands to type in ever made it off the proposal page inside Microsoft, accelerated time-to-market or not. > It defeats the entire purpose of many of the NIST security controls that demand things like U.S.-cleared personnel for government networks, and Microsoft knew those were a thing because that was the whole point to the "digital escort" (a U.S. person who was supposed to vet the Chinese engineer's technical work despite apparently being not technical enough to have just done it themselves). That is beyond bad. Proof of this?
    • mpyne 6mo ago
      https://www.propublica.org/article/microsoft-digital-escorts-pentagon-defense-department-china-hackers https://www.propublica.org/article/microsoft-digital-escorts...
      • jacquesm 6mo ago
        Holy fuck. Ok, this will change things considerably for some companies I'm working with that had moved their stuff to Azure. Thanks. More than I can express on here.
    • deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
  • CoastalCoder 6mo ago
    I'd like to suggest calling him SECDEF, not SECWAR. IMHO the country should not capitulate to Trump's power grabs, even if Congress refuses to perform their oversight duties.
    • mpyne 6mo ago
      I'm sympathetic to the viewpoint but I'm not in the habit of policing the names people use for themselves. I've certainly done more than my fair share of jobs in the Navy where the office I was formally billeted to had long since ceased to actually exist as described due to office renamings. Often things as simple as a department section being elevated into a department branch and people using the new name even while they wait 1-2 years for the manpower records to be fixed and the POM process to cycle through for program resourcing. But still, seems hard to treat it as a crime at one level when no one blinked an eye at the lower level. Maybe Congress will eventually step in, but in the meantime the American voters made their choice about who they want to run these agencies, so...
      • cwillu 6mo ago
        The main title of the office is still “secretary of defense”, the executive order added a secondary title of the department and the office, it didn't replace the primary titles.
      • jazzypants 6mo ago
        These agencies such as the Department of Defense, whose secretary is...? The department's name is *legally* the Department of Defense. If they want to change it, they can go to Congress and do it the legal way. They have a majority. There's nothing stopping them except for their disregard for the sanctity of the law.
      • jubilanti 6mo ago
        > the American voters made their choice about who they want to run these agencies The American voters don't get to override the U.S. constitution. The American voters also voted in the U.S. Congress, which has the sole authority to name the department and title. My representatives have not voted to change the law. Do you not care about the rule of law? > I'm not in the habit of policing the names people use for themselves. I'm sure you think you're being clever, but this is such a bad faith argument.
  • lmm 6mo ago
    Being compliant with the letter of the requirements at 1/3 of the cost is absolutely an idea that sells itself.
• asteroidburger 6mo ago
  The United States does not have a Secretary of War, and has not since 1947.
  • 7bit 6mo ago
    Uhm: > The United States secretary of defense (SecDef), secondarily titled the secretary of war (SecWar),[b] is the head of the United States Department of Defense (DoD), the executive department of the U.S. Armed Forces, and is a high-ranking member of the cabinet of the United States.[8][9][10] Wikipedia