Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CVE program faces swift end after DHS fails to renew contract [updated]

csoonline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

891–900 of 1001 posts

Re: CVE program faces swift end after DHS fails to renew contract [updated]

#891

Post by xpe »

lenerdenator wrote: post #768
metalliqaz wrote: post #731

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

> Malicious idiots surrounded by sheepish intelligent people.

Prefixing people with "sheepish intelligent" is bound to oversimplify this. Many of the non-DOGE employees who directly see wrongdoing are likely making calculated decisions on what to do. It depends on many factors, including the law and whistleblower protections.

Many of them are responding in various ways that they hope will have an impact. Some resign in protest. Others file lawsuits. Others leak to the press.

Could they do more? Yes. So let's help them.

What can we do? Just to give two relatively middle-of-the-ground recommendations: First, donate to legal-protection funds for whistleblowers. Second, call your representatives and demand reinstatement of the inspectors general.

Re: CVE program faces swift end after DHS fails to renew contract [updated]

#892

Post by ddejohn »

crazygringo wrote: post #793
roughly wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it will be a lot like last time A lot of people seemed to have had this theory, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

There wasn't any evidence, that's the problem. It was all opinion. Trump said a lot of stuff before this election, but he said a lot of stuff before his first one too. When people disagreed on what he might do, it was all guesses. There was no evidence to base anything on. Would his second term be restrained by people around him like in his first? That would be an evidence-based extrapolation. Would tariffs be all ta…

It's insanely naive to have thought a second Trump admin would not be worse in every possible way. Did you pay attention at all to what was going on with SCOTUS? Project 2025?

Saying "there wasn't any evidence" is borderline bot-speak. Anybody who thought Trump 2.0 was going to be like the first round was simply not paying attention at all and anybody telling others it wasn't going to be like the first admin is either a Russian troll, the mainstream media, or just plain irresponsibly ignorant.

"Nobody could have foreseen this" is about the dumbest take I think I've seen so far.

Re: CVE program faces swift end after DHS fails to renew contract [updated]

#893

Post by derektank »

sollewitt wrote: post #853
dimitrios1 wrote: post #840

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For every example of privatization going wrong, there's least one example (if not two) of it going right. But serious question -- what is the difference these days anyways? Our entire government is effectively privatized anyways from the local level up to the federal. We rely on contractors for almost everything that matters. We just maintain this facade that they are not privatized.

I’ve never seen one that worked long term. The basic premise is “what was done for $X dollars with no profit motive can be done for Just for the most ready to hand example for me, PG&E in SF vs public electricity utilities on the peninsula - the privatized electricity costs twice as much per kWh - and of course it does because the PG&E CEO needs to make $17M from somewhere, the share price needs to go up etc. the ric…

>The basic premise is “what was done for $X dollars with no profit motive can be done for No, the basic premise of privatization is that, assuming the product or service has multiple potential customers, private industry can operate at scale which, alongside competition from other companies, drives down the price and the government can purchase it "off the shelf" at the prevailing commercial rate. Those assumptions don't always hold, utilities being a great example of this, but it's not inherently blind or naive to consider privatizing some components of government function. We don't expect the government to operate its own vehicle assembly lines even if the government needs cars; they just go buy one from Ford or GM.

Re: CVE program faces swift end after DHS fails to renew contract [updated]

#894

Post by jmull »

acdha wrote: post #875
jmull wrote: post #865

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump said he was not going to follow the project 2025 plan. So you're making two immediately contradictory claims that Trump is doing what he said he would, and is following the project 2025 plan. That's not coherent. You're suggesting a privatization plan exists, and want to debate its merits, but I see no sign such a plan is being adopted. E.g. who is enacting the plan? When is the comment period? Who do we send o…

> Trump said he was not going to follow the project 2025 plan. He didn’t convincingly reject it, though, and his distancing was only convincing to people who were looking for an excuse to ignore it with the way he pretended not to know the people behind it when 31 of the 38 authors were members of his first administration, his campaign was in close contact throughout, and he certainly didn’t put much effort into reje…

Yes, he was obviously lying, as he has done about so many things.

Well, it's obvious to some us, anyway.

Re: CVE program faces swift end after DHS fails to renew contract [updated]

#895

Post by obelos »

riffraff wrote: post #207
tw04 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you mean wonder kids.

wunderkind is a loanword, it's one of those cases of a German word being used but being odd in English since it's so similar. Like kindergarten which is often speller as "garden". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wunderkind_(disambiguation)

I'm pretty sure this is a joke reference to Ted Lasso.

Re: CVE program faces swift end after DHS fails to renew contract [updated]

#896

Post by ottercan »

tlogan wrote: post #739
jeff_carr wrote: post #721

The contract with MITRE has been extended. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2025/04/16/cve-... My guess indefinitely. DOGE might be a bunch of idiots, but in the entire DOD, there are non-idiots.

My guess is that they’ll be phased out next year. The long-term goal seems to be transitioning the CVE program into something more like an industry-led consortium. (If you did not notice they operate zero budgeting approach: cut everything and if something is very important reverse it. But you cut first and then ask questions.) It’s worth noting that MITRE is a DoD contractor (with minor contracts from other agencies…

MITRE is not a DoD contractor. They are a not-for-profit institution committed to the public interest that operates six Federally Funded Research and Development Centers.

Re: CVE program faces swift end after DHS fails to renew contract [updated]

#897

Post by alpha_squared »

crazygringo wrote: post #793
roughly wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it will be a lot like last time A lot of people seemed to have had this theory, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

There wasn't any evidence, that's the problem. It was all opinion. Trump said a lot of stuff before this election, but he said a lot of stuff before his first one too. When people disagreed on what he might do, it was all guesses. There was no evidence to base anything on. Would his second term be restrained by people around him like in his first? That would be an evidence-based extrapolation. Would tariffs be all ta…

Sorry, but this is a very misguided take. He tried to do all the same things his first term, but enough people around him kept him in check. Now, he explicitly got "yes" folks around him and purged the career folks who'd uphold the Constitution. He's emboldened like a child who just learned they can command the world to do their bidding without restraint.

Re: CVE program faces swift end after DHS fails to renew contract [updated]

#898

Post by taeric »

dimitrios1 wrote: post #840
bunderbunder wrote: post #822

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep thinking of that time Wisconsin's state government privatized a bunch of IT stuff in the interest of "government efficiency", and the cost taxpayers paid for those specific functions increased by several hundred percent while quality of service went down. At that same time, though, I worked for a contractor that I do believe saved states money compared to doing things in-house. The work we did really required…

For every example of privatization going wrong, there's least one example (if not two) of it going right. But serious question -- what is the difference these days anyways? Our entire government is effectively privatized anyways from the local level up to the federal. We rely on contractors for almost everything that matters. We just maintain this facade that they are not privatized.

Would love to see a list on both sides. It is easy to win an argument when you get to gesture at evidence without being specific.

For your question, the difference is if a government spend succeeds, it should lead to more things that the people can do. If a private company succeeds, it largely funds just the company.

And, ideally, it should be fine that both the government/nation gets benefits while rewarding successful contractors. Nothing wrong with that.

This is hilariously viewable with Musk. People love to point out how he risked so much on Tesla. Ignoring all of the capital that the government risked in the same venture.

Re: CVE program faces swift end after DHS fails to renew contract [updated]

#899

Post by danaris »

jmull wrote: post #865
tlogan wrote: post #829

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Project 2025 lays out a clear vision for the privatization and decentralization of federal functions. It’s not subtle—it explicitly calls for it. Separate from whether we support this or not: Trump is doing—or promising to do—exactly what he said he would. We can disagree with the policies, but it’s not accurate to say he or his team are directionless or incompetent. They have a coherent (if controversial) agenda. So…

Trump said he was not going to follow the project 2025 plan. So you're making two immediately contradictory claims that Trump is doing what he said he would, and is following the project 2025 plan. That's not coherent. You're suggesting a privatization plan exists, and want to debate its merits, but I see no sign such a plan is being adopted. E.g. who is enacting the plan? When is the comment period? Who do we send o…

There seems to be a lot of hay being made over whether Trump is

- deliberately following Project 2025 to the letter, or

- completely ignorant of Project 2025 and not doing what it says

...when it seems very likely that the truth is somewhere between.

Trump himself is doing things the way he always does: in a mixture of long-standing bigotry and idiocy, his own whims, and whatever someone said to him 10 minutes ago (or he saw on Fox & Friends, or whatever).

His administration is heavily populated with people who either helped write Project 2025 or are close with those who did.

DOGE is only loosely connected with the latter, and it's DOGE that has been instrumental in wrecking federal agencies—and while that destruction largely aligns with Project 2025's goals, it's not clear to me that they're specifically following its playbook. Rather, I think they're doing things their own way with high-level guidance from the people who care about Project 2025. It's very possible that their goals could end up conflicting, depending on what Musk wants.

Edit to add: It's also true that Trump said he knew nothing about Project 2025. Whether or not this is true, he said it during the campaign, when Project 2025 had just been widely reported on as a negative thing. I don't think we can read much into Trump's campaign statements intended to publicly distance himself from something he sees as unpopular.

Re: CVE program faces swift end after DHS fails to renew contract [updated]

#900

Post by ddejohn »

alpha_squared wrote: post #897
crazygringo wrote: post #793

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There wasn't any evidence, that's the problem. It was all opinion. Trump said a lot of stuff before this election, but he said a lot of stuff before his first one too. When people disagreed on what he might do, it was all guesses. There was no evidence to base anything on. Would his second term be restrained by people around him like in his first? That would be an evidence-based extrapolation. Would tariffs be all ta…

Sorry, but this is a very misguided take. He tried to do all the same things his first term, but enough people around him kept him in check. Now, he explicitly got "yes" folks around him and purged the career folks who'd uphold the Constitution. He's emboldened like a child who just learned they can command the world to do their bidding without restraint.

It's one of the worst takes I've ever seen, and there are a lot of bad takes out there.

Even the premise of their argument is silly -- "evidence-based extrapolation" lmao that's not how politics work at all.

Post reply on HN