I was working at a MNC a few years ago and some junior developer did this to one of our codebases "so he could work on it at home" (pre-covid). When it was discovered his access to everything was immediately shut off, company assets confiscated and he was escorted out the building by security.
A DOGE staffer appears to be posting DOGE work on his public GitHub
231–240 of 404 posts
Re: A DOGE staffer appears to be posting DOGE work on his public GitHub
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Bozo” is pretty lightweight for someone actively trying to destroy the foundations of this country’s government and democratic policies.
I feel they are actively shoring up the country’s foundations. For decades, since the Church committee in the 1970s and under Vice President Gore’s Reinventing Government initiative (which IIRC resulted in the removal of 100,000 government employees), disclosure of questionable or hidden programs was a core progressive value.
> disclosure of questionable or hidden programs
We’re seeing more “claims” than “disclosures”. Can you point me any examples of the latter?
Re: A DOGE staffer appears to be posting DOGE work on his public GitHub
#233if you don't want to open twitter, here is xcancel link which i should have put as the og link https://xcancel.com/SollenbergerRC/status/189560929481046439...
Or just setup Redirector* to automatically redirect you to xcancel (and old.reddit.com, and away from whatever other hostile websites there are these days...) * https://github.com/einaregilsson/Redirector
Cool
Re: A DOGE staffer appears to be posting DOGE work on his public GitHub
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
Implying that DOGE bozo is law-compliant while breaking laws and destroying trust is...humor too soon?
>humor too soon? C'mon USA, do something funny.
"Funny", since yesterday I can't get out of my head the clip "You think I'm funny" from the goodfellas
Except the second half never happened.
Re: A DOGE staffer appears to be posting DOGE work on his public GitHub
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
> U.S. federal government employees as part of their official duties “Official duties” is load bearing in this sentence. If the work is found to have been improperly authorised, this DOGE bro is acting in his personal capacity. That means personal liability for his actions and lawbreaking.
I think it’s pretty hard to show an employee is not acting in an official duty in regards to work material. I don’t think this is a sound legal opinion.
[dead]
Re: A DOGE staffer appears to be posting DOGE work on his public GitHub
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
Careful, your tinfoil hat is a bit creased.
All you have to do is look at how Trump is treating Zelenskyy and praising Putin to know that he's in Putin's hip pocket, either out of stupidity or is an actual asset that they have компромат on
> how Trump is treating Zelenskyy and praising Putin to know that he's in Putin's hip pocket
Ukraine has been my pet war for the last few years. I have to disagree.
Trump doesn’t particularly care what happens to Ukraine. He needs the dollars we’re sending to Europe to finance his tax cut and trade war. I’m less convinced Trump is acting at Putin’s direction than that he’s looking for the nearest guy to offload the problem onto.
Re: A DOGE staffer appears to be posting DOGE work on his public GitHub
#237Works created by U.S. federal government employees as part of their official duties are in the public domain, according to 17 U.S.C. § 105, except for classified or restricted information (but none of what he posted is classified or restricted)
This is a ridiculous statement. The US Government (or any government) has processes to publish data so that it is well vetted and understood. Some script kiddie isn't allowed to just post things in public on his own.
[deleted]
Re: A DOGE staffer appears to be posting DOGE work on his public GitHub
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
> U.S. federal government employees as part of their official duties “Official duties” is load bearing in this sentence. If the work is found to have been improperly authorised, this DOGE bro is acting in his personal capacity. That means personal liability for his actions and lawbreaking.
I think it’s pretty hard to show an employee is not acting in an official duty in regards to work material. I don’t think this is a sound legal opinion.
Counter: Especially when they can decide without any resistance from the judicial branch who is an officer, an official, etc. They interpret all laws as being friendly to them and ignore the contradictions when it suits them. This isn’t rule of law and you know it. Sound legal opinions don’t mean shit now.
Re: A DOGE staffer appears to be posting DOGE work on his public GitHub
#239Re: A DOGE staffer appears to be posting DOGE work on his public GitHub
#240It turns out that DOGE is USDS rebranded
that's how they were able to turn up an new "Department" in a week with no oversight. the D in USDS now stands for Department.