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

151–160 of 264 posts

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

#151

Post by LastTrain »

NoGravitas wrote: post #85
lysace wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never worked in a company where an obviously incorrect CEO-demanded security exemption (like this one) would have been allowed to pass. Professionalism, boards (with a mandatory employee member/representative, after some size) and ethics exist. 30 years in about 8 software companies, Northern Europe. Often startups. Between 4 to 600 people. When they grow large the work often turns boring, so it's time to find…

Ah, Northern Europe is probably the difference. This passes all the time in the US. It's probably more common in non-tech companies, as well.

I’m in the US, SE since 1998, startups to multinationals. What the GP said holds true for me too. There are serious professionals in the world - I don’t know why some people want to drag every one else down to the level of the current US administration- they are exceptionally inept.

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

#152

Post by direwolf20 »

pixl97 wrote: post #145
direwolf20 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Donald Trump saw the footage of the murder of Renee Good, he said "Oh". He didn't know what ICE were doing until then. He trusted his cabinet who were telling him they were getting illegal immigrants and left wing terrorists.

No, he did not trust his cabinet at all, which is why he put a bunch of yes men in place to ensure they fucked up and did the dumbest thing. DT has had a long history of operating like a mafia boss where the design of the people he chooses around him is to put scapegoats on when the criminal activities he's involved in is caught.

He chose people who give him good emotions, because he has dementia. He didn't know that would mean they would screen the world from him, because he has dementia. If he did know that, he wouldn't understand it because he has dementia.

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

#153

Post by chrisco255 »

jfreds wrote: post #80
stronglikedan wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been the same with every administration, unfortunately. It's just a side effect of such an unnecessarily big goverment.

Inviting a reporter from the Atlantic to your signal chat where you coordinate military plans has nothing to do with government being too big

If they are so leaky then why were they able to capture Maduro without a single American casualty? On one hand you claim incompetence and yet no one was tipped off. So maybe the Signal group chat wasn't as important as it was made out to be?

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

#154

Post by hsbauauvhabzb »

lysace wrote: post #76
NoGravitas wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's also the case in businesses. No one denies the CEO a security exemption.

I have never worked in a company where an obviously incorrect CEO-demanded security exemption (like this one) would have been allowed to pass. Professionalism, boards (with a mandatory employee member/representative, after some size) and ethics exist. 30 years in about 8 software companies, Northern Europe. Often startups. Between 4 to 600 people. When they grow large the work often turns boring, so it's time to find…

The phrase ‘Don’t you know who I am?’ Will be taken differently depending on corporate culture.

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

#155

Post by chrisco255 »

tw04 wrote: post #148

I for one, after doing a bit of reserach, was shocked to find out the person in question is apparently completely unqualified for the job (if him pasting sensitive information into public ChatGPT didn't already make that abundantly clear). But the highlight from his Wikipedia page is this one: >In December 2025, Politico reported that Gottumukkala had requested to see access to a controlled access program—an act that…

Polygraphs have to be one of the most awkward / bizarre requirements for accessing a program. They are not scientifically reliable.

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

#156

Post by coldtea »

lysace wrote: post #76
NoGravitas wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's also the case in businesses. No one denies the CEO a security exemption.

I have never worked in a company where an obviously incorrect CEO-demanded security exemption (like this one) would have been allowed to pass. Professionalism, boards (with a mandatory employee member/representative, after some size) and ethics exist. 30 years in about 8 software companies, Northern Europe. Often startups. Between 4 to 600 people. When they grow large the work often turns boring, so it's time to find…

>I have never worked in a company where an obviously incorrect CEO-demanded security exemption (like this one) would have been allowed to pass

You don't have worked in enough companies then.

Just for the sake of argument, you think anybody would have denied Jobs or Bezos or Musk one?

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

#157

Post by scottyah »

nostrademons wrote: post #50
dmix wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article says > [ChatGPT] is blocked for other Department of Homeland Security staff. Gottumukkala “was granted permission to use ChatGPT with DHS controls in place,” adding that the use was “short-term and limited.” He had a special exemption to use it as head of Cyber and still got flagged by cybersecurity checks. So obviously they don't think it's safe to use broadly. They already have a deal with OpenAI to bui…

Somehow I think that the weak link in our government security is at the top - the President, his cabinet, and various heads of agencies. Because nobody questions what they're allowed to do, and so they're exempt from various common-sense security protocols. We already saw some pretty egregious security breaches from Pete Hegseth.

Hah no, weak links are everywhere at all levels. The stories just don't generate revenue for news companies.

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

#158

Post by coldtea »

direwolf20 wrote: post #67
BiscuitBadger wrote: post #24

There have to be GovCloud only LLMs just for this case. I swear this government is headed by appointed nephews of appointed nephews. I keep thinking back about that Chernobyl miniseries; head of the science department used to run a shoe factory. No one needs to be competent at their job anymore

They say that most fascist governments fall apart because they actively despise competence, which it turns out you need if you are trying to run a country.

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.

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

#159

Post by snarky_dog »

BiscuitBadger wrote: post #24

There have to be GovCloud only LLMs just for this case. I swear this government is headed by appointed nephews of appointed nephews. I keep thinking back about that Chernobyl miniseries; head of the science department used to run a shoe factory. No one needs to be competent at their job anymore

[dead]

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

#160

Post by Nicook »

lysace wrote: post #76
NoGravitas wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's also the case in businesses. No one denies the CEO a security exemption.

I have never worked in a company where an obviously incorrect CEO-demanded security exemption (like this one) would have been allowed to pass. Professionalism, boards (with a mandatory employee member/representative, after some size) and ethics exist. 30 years in about 8 software companies, Northern Europe. Often startups. Between 4 to 600 people. When they grow large the work often turns boring, so it's time to find…

CTO at a successfull cybersecurity startup I worked at long ago was exempt from critical security updates. She refused to restart her computer out of fear for her Excel state.
Post reply on HN