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

241–250 of 264 posts

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

#241

Post by AnimalMuppet »

bdangubic wrote: post #240
sham1 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course this comment is mostly ironic, but noting for the whole class, when the MAGA talked about DEI they only ever meant ethnic and sexual minorities, competence be damned! That is of course the thing about ideologies like it: loyalty before all else.

DEI is basically “someone else got a gig not because of their abilities but because _____” The entire Trump administration, every single person, is a DEI hire.

DEI at its worst is exactly what you say. (At its best, it's "we hire for abilities, but we also look for abilities in non-traditional people".

But, even though that's what DEI can be, not all "someone got a git not because of ability" is DEI. Cronyism, racism, and sexism all do that, too.

In the case of this administration, I think the traditional term is "yes men" - people who are hired not for ability, but because they will not say no to the boss.

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

#243

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

reactordev wrote: post #170
itisit wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And in all manner of regulated industries. People simply cannot resist throwing anything and everything at the magic text machine. A company can control its IT assets, but if the content is displayable on a screen, rest assured users will just take photos and upload to their personal LLM accounts to get the generative answers they endlessly desire.

I’m actually shocked that security teams aren’t up in arms over this exfiltration of company secrets. I know some companies that are running their own models and agents but the vast majority are copilot/claude/codex’ing away sending all that sweet sweet IP to 3rd parties

You can get agreements with all of the providers around data sharing etc and host the models themselves through AWS or another cloud provider. That's what clueful companies are doing, as expecting people not to use this stuff is doomed to fail.

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

#244

Post by somenameforme »

dragonwriter wrote: post #221
granoIacowboy wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Secretary of War

In law, it is still the Department of Defense and Secretary of Defense, no matter what cutesy nicknames the executive branch invents.

It was always called the Department of War [1] from 1789 until 1947. At that point it was repackaged as the Department of Defense when we started framing invading countries half-way around the world as 'defense'. Prior to that rhetoric around war was far more honest. We tried to buy a sizable chunk of Texas from Mexico. They rejected our offer so we invaded and took it, because we wanted it.

It's only in 1947 and later that somehow invading countries half-way around the world and shipping weapons to anybody with a buck began being framed as 'defense' or somehow saving the world from whatever - tyrant, terror, communism, burdens of oil, and so on. So in many ways I think it would be far more apt to say that 'Department of Defense' is the cutesy name. They're not defending anything - nukes and geography take care of that, more or less, on their own.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Wa...

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

#245

Post by dragonwriter »

dragonwriter wrote: post #221
granoIacowboy wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Secretary of War

In law, it is still the Department of Defense and Secretary of Defense, no matter what cutesy nicknames the executive branch invents.

There’s something in a dead reply that's a popular enough myth that its worth responding to:

> Something every single soldier and officer learns is that the entire department was previously called the Department of War. It was repackaged after WW2 as the Department of Defense when invading countries half-way around the world began being sold to the public as 'defense.'

This is a weirdly common belief, but it is not true. Up through WWII, the US had two cabinet level military departments, instead of the current one. Those two departments were the Department of War, under which was the Army, and fhe Department of the Navy, under which was the Navy and Marine Corps.

This was changed by two laws in the late 1940s. The first, the National Security Act of 1947, among other things:

* Split the Air Force and Army from each other, splitting the Department of War into two new cabinet-level Departments, the Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force.

* Created an additional cabinet level Secretary of Defense to coordinate the combined military structure, which it called the National Military Establishment.

This was followed by the National Security Amendments Act of 1949, which:

* removed the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force from the Cabinet and formally subordinated them to the Secretary of Defense

* renamed the National Military Establishment (which was frequently referred to by the inconveniently-pronounced, for its role, initialism NME) the Department of Defense (which conbined with the preceding point is the source of the unusual departments-within-a-department structure of the DoD.)

The Department of War did once exist, but it was never a name for the same thing as the Department of Defense. It was one of two coequal entities that were subsumed by the National Military Establishment, the only reason it still doesn't exist as a subordinate entity within the NME, now DoD, like the Department of the Navy does is that it was split in two.

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

#246

Post by dragonwriter »

somenameforme wrote: post #244
dragonwriter wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In law, it is still the Department of Defense and Secretary of Defense, no matter what cutesy nicknames the executive branch invents.

It was always called the Department of War [1] from 1789 until 1947. At that point it was repackaged as the Department of Defense when we started framing invading countries half-way around the world as 'defense'. Prior to that rhetoric around war was far more honest. We tried to buy a sizable chunk of Texas from Mexico. They rejected our offer so we invaded and took it, because we wanted it. It's only in 1947 and lat…

> 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 them beneath the President.

The National Military Establishment under the cabinet-level Secretary of Defense was created as a unified military structure in 1947 over both the Department of the Navy (which remained a cabinet-level department) and what had been the Department of War (which was split into the cabinet-level Departments of the Army and the Air Force). And in 1949 the three service departments were fully subordinated within the NME instead of being cabinet level, and the NME was renamed the Department of Defense (pribably not entirely because it was really awkward having the combined military organization use an initialism that sounded like “enemy”, but...)

More detailed version in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46825849

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

#247

Post by somenameforme »

dragonwriter wrote: post #246
somenameforme wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was always called the Department of War [1] from 1789 until 1947. At that point it was repackaged as the Department of Defense when we started framing invading countries half-way around the world as 'defense'. Prior to that rhetoric around war was far more honest. We tried to buy a sizable chunk of Texas from Mexico. They rejected our offer so we invaded and took it, because we wanted it. It's only in 1947 and lat…

> 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 time) as 'The War to End All Wars' but I think that was probably naivete whereas after we started calling war 'defense' we entered into the era of 'police actions' instead of wars, like the Korean War, and outright false flags such as the Gulf of Tonkin Incident for Vietnam. All the while the CIA was running around acting like a rabid chimp all across the world. It was entering into an era where deceiving the public became standard operating procedure, of which framing war as defense was but one typical aspect.

I believe we are now leaving that era, and I think that is a good thing for everybody.

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

#248

Post by 0xy »

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.

Is your position that the 2024 election, despite having a foreign power intercept the phone communications of both campaigns (confirmed and on record), had no integrity compromises?

What do you consider a compromise of integrity if not a hacking of political campaigns?

Also, please clarify whether the 2016 DNC hack is an exemption to your prior answer so I can weigh your bias.

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

#249

Post by Daishiman »

0xy wrote: post #248
Daishiman wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Is your position that the 2024 election, despite having a foreign power intercept the phone communications of both campaigns (confirmed and on record), had no integrity compromises? What do you consider a compromise of integrity if not a hacking of political campaigns? Also, please clarify whether the 2016 DNC hack is an exemption to your prior answer so I can weigh your bias.

Why don't you enlighten us since you seem to know so much about the topic? I know that none of the people who are experts at detecting the statistical artifacts that appears during voting roll have questioned the integrity of the US election.

In fact the only people questioning it are conspirancy-minded people who don't know that there are robust methodologies to detect election fraud.

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

#250

Post by heliumtera »

wafflemaker wrote: post #198
heliumtera wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And we all heard they reverse engineered alien anti gravity technology in the 80s.

All I've heard was that they were aware it's anti gravity. Nothing about reverse engineering. Care to say more about that?

Bob Lazar claims he was allocated in this project where not only they found working device capable of emiting gravitational waves out of phase with earth gravitational waves, but they achieved the same effect bombarding a mysterious unknown at the time element. He called the material element115 (the logical guess, element 114 properties was known/was synthesized), while emiting one proton and decaying back to element 115 the effect was achieved.

Apparently he was in fact allocated on a top secret project at los Alamos and his expertise was alternative propulsion back everything else is folklore, but it is deep folklore if you're interested in conspiracy theories

Post reply on HN