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

CISA’s acting head uploaded sensitive files into public version of ChatGPT

politico.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 264 posts

Re: CISA’s acting head uploaded sensitive files into public version of ChatGPT

#251

Post by coldtea »

thinkingtoilet wrote: post #161
coldtea wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They say it, but they're wrong. Historically speaking there have been basically about 2 fascist governments, and they fell because they lost wars. And Germany, for one, did run them with high competence, to the extend that it took years for many countries to do anything about. It we loosen "fascist" to just mean any authoritarian government, there are many that run of very long time.

WWII started in 1939 and was done in early 1945, so it didn't take that long. More importantly, maybe the Nazi's were competent at first, but they absolutely fell apart internally due to mistrust, back stabbing, and demanding of loyalty above all else. Hitler famously made many poor military decisions.

Six years for a country holding back the allies is not "that long" - and 6 years more since they came into power?

And as a government they'd still be in power 20 and 30 years later if they didn't start the war (judging from Franco's spain).

Re: CISA’s acting head uploaded sensitive files into public version of ChatGPT

#252

Post by Quarrelsome »

direwolf20 wrote: post #234
Quarrelsome wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how is it low IQ to be honest? People have to make decisions and if the decision is "no", I can handle that. Empowering the person making the decision to the fullest extent is something I'd still be interested in, even if it is to my detriment. Its like when middle-management ask me to lie or withold information from the COO or CEO, its just a no. If they're shit then its on the organisation to sort that out. Second…

A smart person seeking a security clearance would not volunteer information that wasn't asked for, that causes him to be denied the clearance.

smart is not necessarily the same as deceitful. Also the question:

> do you misuse drugs

is very much asking for the information about my drug use. So it was asked for.

Re: CISA’s acting head uploaded sensitive files into public version of ChatGPT

#253

Post by dragonwriter »

somenameforme wrote: post #247
dragonwriter wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It was always called the Department of War [1] from 1789 until 1947. No, what became the Department of Defense didn't exist from 1789 until 1947. The cabinet level Department of the Navy (current Department of the Navy) and the cabinet-level Department of War (later split into the current Department of the Army and Department of the Air Force) did, as separate, co-equal entities with no single civilian head over th…

All you are describing is a restructuring of which the Department of War had gone through repeatedly throughout its history. It's not like it had the same structure, or anything remotely like it, in 1942 as in 1789. The choice of the name was, as you observe, a choice. And it coincides exactly with the move away from public honesty in international relations and events. You have things like WW1 being framed (at the t…

> All you are describing is a restructuring of which the Department of War had gone through repeatedly throughout its history

No, from 1789 to 1947 there were two separate cabinet-level departments, War and Navy.

> It's not like it had the same structure, or anything remotely like it, in 1942 as in 1789

Internal to the two cabinet-level departments? Probably not.

At the cabinet level? There was exactly the same structure: the Department of War with the Army underneath it and the Department of the Navy with the Navy and Marine Corps.

The War Department did not become the Defense Department. In 1947 War was split into Army and Air Force, and a fourth cabinet secretary, the Secretary of Defense was added, heading the combined National Military Establishment that was created over both what had been the War Department and what still was the Navy Department (all still cabinet level departments). In 1949, the three service secretaries (two of which headed parts of what had been the War Department) were formally subordinated to the Secretary of Defense and the NME was renamed the Department of Defense. The Department of War was direct predecessor to the Departments of the Army and Air Force, not the Department of Defense, which was a new level of coordination interposed between the President and the formerly organizationally-separated services.

Re: CISA’s acting head uploaded sensitive files into public version of ChatGPT

#254

Post by zzrrt »

Daishiman wrote: post #217
0xy wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain how leaking the phone metadata of 80% of Americans and compromising the integrity of the 2024 election campaign's private comms is better OpSec than a single leak? It's the worst U.S. government leak of all time, by far.

The 2024 election had no substantial integrity compromises. Nobody with credibility has critiqued its results.

What do you think of https://electiontruthalliance.org/ ? I haven’t deeply read their stuff, and I’m not really qualified to evaluate their statistics, but it seems like there are concerns worth following.

Re: CISA’s acting head uploaded sensitive files into public version of ChatGPT

#255

Post by kulahan »

patrickmcnamara wrote: post #180
kulahan wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are uploading information to the chat system every time you use it. Doubly true if you’re having it analyze or work with documents. I presume pulling this data out is simple if you’re, say, China. There really no security to investigate. Without a private instance, it’s an absolute non-starter for anything classified.

> presume pulling this data out is simple if you’re, say, China Why would you presume that?

Because this is a discussion about national security.

Re: CISA’s acting head uploaded sensitive files into public version of ChatGPT

#256

Post by somenameforme »

dragonwriter wrote: post #253
somenameforme wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All you are describing is a restructuring of which the Department of War had gone through repeatedly throughout its history. It's not like it had the same structure, or anything remotely like it, in 1942 as in 1789. The choice of the name was, as you observe, a choice. And it coincides exactly with the move away from public honesty in international relations and events. You have things like WW1 being framed (at the t…

> All you are describing is a restructuring of which the Department of War had gone through repeatedly throughout its history No, from 1789 to 1947 there were two separate cabinet-level departments, War and Navy. > It's not like it had the same structure, or anything remotely like it, in 1942 as in 1789 Internal to the two cabinet-level departments? Probably not. At the cabinet level? There was exactly the same struc…

This is inaccurate. The Department of War initially had oversight over the Navy as well. The separation of the Navy into a separate department (which did not even exist at the time when the War Department was created) was one of those many restructurings it went through, without ever having a name change until we entered the era of deception.

Re: CISA’s acting head uploaded sensitive files into public version of ChatGPT

#257

Post by burnt-resistor »

duxup wrote: post #184

It's so often the guys that are at the top who are the exception to the rules that are the problem. I knew some folks who worked military communications and they broke rules regularly because senior officers just didn't want to walk across the street to do something secure...

In the 00's, DIA had episodes of career researchers watching porn from secured and monitored systems and then losing their jobs and clearances. One can only conclude they wanted to be fired or were really, really stupid.

Re: CISA’s acting head uploaded sensitive files into public version of ChatGPT

#258

Post by kulahan »

avs733 wrote: post #208
kulahan wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess, but it’s his plane in a sense. If he wants to fly it and destroy the company, it’s his call. You just give the advice. To be clear, I’m referring much more to CEO/owners - maybe more like Zuck than Bezos

The question isn’t whether they want it is whether they have a business need, as with any employee. The CEO of vocal cola has no business need to know the secret formula. Giving it to him has no upside only downside, so you don’t.

So who gets the formula? A chemist with no vested interest? I have no clue why a CEO would be untrustworthy when any other employer wouldn’t be.

Re: CISA’s acting head uploaded sensitive files into public version of ChatGPT

#259

Post by fakeBeerDrinker »

joshcsimmons wrote: post #210
TheSkyHasEyes wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not defending the buy but completely might be inaccurate. He has a masters in comp sci eng. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhu_Gottumukkala I do realize this scholastic achievement is not indication he knows what he is doing.

It’s from UT Arlington - does that even count?

Yes

Re: CISA’s acting head uploaded sensitive files into public version of ChatGPT

#260

Post by sitzkrieg »

observationist wrote: post #41

It's bizarre that someone would choose to use the public, 4o bot over the ChatGPT Pro level bot available in the properly siloed and compliant Azure hosted ChatGPT already available to them at that time. The government can use segregated secure systems set up specifically for government use and sensitive documents. It looks like he requested and got permission to work with "For Unofficial Use Only" documents on ChatG…

today FOUO or CONFIDENTIAL, maybe tomorrow or next week SECRET and after that seemed fine maybe some TOP SECRET or throw in a SAP for fun! call it the maralago bathroom
Post reply on HN