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

DOGE worker’s code supports NLRB whistleblower

krebsonsecurity.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 586 posts

Re: DOGE worker’s code supports NLRB whistleblower

#431

Post by Terr_ »

grandempire wrote: post #317
ThinkBeat wrote: post #136

1. DOGE employees access data they were not supposed to. This fairly clear. The story says that DOGE attained access to an account that had huge permissions into what it could see and alter. The person or persons from DOGE may have downloaded 10GB of data. The person may have used this in a manner that is illegal. Or it is illegal to start with. With the understanding that POTUS may or may not be allowed grand such a…

> I dont think POTUS can What data in a federal agency could the chief executive not have authorization to access?

> What data in a federal agency could the chief executive not have authorization to access?

Personally? For starters, he can't access anything the Legislature's laws say he can't.

The Executive is there to implement the law, and that includes obeying them him/her-self.

A President telling other people to break the law on his behalf by threatening to fire them is also a crime of extortion.

Re: DOGE worker’s code supports NLRB whistleblower

#432

Post by spauldo »

spauldo wrote: post #428
godelski wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, they are. It's really more a question of with who and of course don't apply to classified material. But the SHARE IT act really helps formalize what was already happening. Most code is shared and made public. It's paid for by the public. Though it's usually not easily searchable as it's distributed via different platforms, means, and may even require submitting a freedom of information request first. But in…

The "when requested" is the point I was making. FOIA is how you request such software. If you want a copy of the elisp libraries I wrote to automate creation of field devices on military fuel farm SCADA systems, you'll have to submit an FOIA request. Unless someone at the DoD decides to share it out of the goodness of their hearts, you have to ask for it.

I guess I should have been clearer - the "private repository" mentioned in that bill only has to be available for government employees, and even then only on request. Public repositories are an option, but the government doesn't have to choose that option. The main point is to encourage reuse within the government, not to be a source of free public domain software for the public.

Re: DOGE worker’s code supports NLRB whistleblower

#433

Post by dragonwriter »

captainkrtek wrote: post #427
deepfriedrice wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "critique" is nuts. Surely AI generated. If I didn't trust the domain, I'd assume the author to be incredible for seriously referencing something like this. Look at the critique [0] and then look at the code [1]. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20250423135719/https://github.co... [1] https://github.com/ricci/async-ip-rotator/blob/master/src/as...

Yea clearly AI with the keyword bolding, numbered arguments, and so on. Feel like lots of AI produced content follow this structured response pattern.

It's uses a simple, purpose-focused template of a type that is a common recommendation for clear communication, outline numbering, and highlights keywords using monospaced text, as is common practice in technical writing. None of that is unusual for a human, especially writing something that they know is going to be high visibility, to do.

Modestly competent presentation is now getting portrayed as an "AI tell".

Re: DOGE worker’s code supports NLRB whistleblower

#434

Post by grandempire »

Terr_ wrote: post #431
grandempire wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I dont think POTUS can What data in a federal agency could the chief executive not have authorization to access?

> What data in a federal agency could the chief executive not have authorization to access? Personally? For starters, he can't access anything the Legislature's laws say he can't. The Executive is there to implement the law, and that includes obeying them him/her-self. A President telling other people to break the law on his behalf by threatening to fire them is also a crime of extortion.

> he can't access anything the Legislature's laws say he can't.

Can the legislature make rules for the president without constitutional amendment?

I am interested- I’ll see if I can find examples.

Re: DOGE worker’s code supports NLRB whistleblower

#435

Post by Maxious »

frumplestlatz wrote: post #328
bronson wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From recent news it seems unlikely these guys are interested in behaving rationally.

It just doesn’t pass the smell test. - Who decided to threaten the whistleblower and why? - Who approved such an idiotic idea? - Who determined his home address? - Who flew the drone, timed to capture photos of the whistleblower while on his way to/from his home? - Who took the drone photography, printed out the images, and wrote a threatening note? - Who then took all that and physically posted it on his door? That’…

You don't think Big Balls can order a drone on amazon? He was already fired once for intimidating rival companies online https://newrepublic.com/post/191325/elon-musk-doge-teen-cori...

Re: DOGE worker’s code supports NLRB whistleblower

#436

Post by TheDong »

plandis wrote: post #101
progbits wrote: post #45

> Ge0rg3’s code is “open source,” in that anyone can copy it and reuse it non-commercially. As it happens, there is a newer version of this project that was derived or “forked” from Ge0rg3’s code — called “async-ip-rotator” — and it was committed to GitHub in January 2025 by DOGE captain Marko Elez. Original code: https://github.com/Ge0rg3/requests-ip-rotator Forked: https://github.com/markoelez/async-ip-rotator Code…

GPLv3 requires the license to be kept. Seems reportable to the owner of the repo and or GitHub.

The only person who has standing to say anything is the original author of the code, the holder of the copyright.

It's possible, but very unlikely, the copyright license wasn't actually violated because, for example, the fork could have arranged a separate license.

The best example of this is the Qt Project's code: https://www.qt.io/qt-licensing

You can get it under a GPL license for free. You can pay them money to get it under a Commercial license that would let you modify the code without releasing changes.

So, while I doubt it happened, the person who forked it here could have contacted the original author, the copyright holder, and asked for an exemption from the GPL terms.

Re: DOGE worker’s code supports NLRB whistleblower

#437

Post by santoshalper »

spauldo wrote: post #432
spauldo wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "when requested" is the point I was making. FOIA is how you request such software. If you want a copy of the elisp libraries I wrote to automate creation of field devices on military fuel farm SCADA systems, you'll have to submit an FOIA request. Unless someone at the DoD decides to share it out of the goodness of their hearts, you have to ask for it.

I guess I should have been clearer - the "private repository" mentioned in that bill only has to be available for government employees, and even then only on request. Public repositories are an option, but the government doesn't have to choose that option. The main point is to encourage reuse within the government, not to be a source of free public domain software for the public.

Almost everything the government makes IS public domain, including the software.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by_t...

Re: DOGE worker’s code supports NLRB whistleblower

#438

Post by herewulf »

spauldo wrote: post #428
godelski wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, they are. It's really more a question of with who and of course don't apply to classified material. But the SHARE IT act really helps formalize what was already happening. Most code is shared and made public. It's paid for by the public. Though it's usually not easily searchable as it's distributed via different platforms, means, and may even require submitting a freedom of information request first. But in…

The "when requested" is the point I was making. FOIA is how you request such software. If you want a copy of the elisp libraries I wrote to automate creation of field devices on military fuel farm SCADA systems, you'll have to submit an FOIA request. Unless someone at the DoD decides to share it out of the goodness of their hearts, you have to ask for it.

Sounds fascinating! Other than the FOIA bit. Do you have a blog post or something with more detail about this work?

Re: DOGE worker’s code supports NLRB whistleblower

#439

Post by frumplestlatz »

Maxious wrote: post #435
frumplestlatz wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It just doesn’t pass the smell test. - Who decided to threaten the whistleblower and why? - Who approved such an idiotic idea? - Who determined his home address? - Who flew the drone, timed to capture photos of the whistleblower while on his way to/from his home? - Who took the drone photography, printed out the images, and wrote a threatening note? - Who then took all that and physically posted it on his door? That’…

You don't think Big Balls can order a drone on amazon? He was already fired once for intimidating rival companies online https://newrepublic.com/post/191325/elon-musk-doge-teen-cori...

I'm not sure what you're referring to; that article says he leaked internal information to a competitor.

That's not ethically excusable, but it's worlds apart from the kind of very real-world felonies involved in this kind of intimidation.

This kind of intimidation would be an incredible and extremely stupid escalation that carries the potential for decades in federal prison, and for what? DOGE has the ruling party and the full force of the executive branch backing their actions. They have no need whatsoever to engage in behavior so ridiculous and counterproductive.

To be clear, this would have required stalking the whistleblower at and around his home, in person. It would have required creating significant physical evidence that could trivially lead back to the perpetrator. There will be cell phone location records, security camera footage, printer microdots, camera lens/sensor fingerprints.

Re: DOGE worker’s code supports NLRB whistleblower

#440

Post by santoshalper »

9283409232 wrote: post #339
lukev wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow. Are you saying the DOGE boys are trying to give Trump bad press?

The theory I'm seeing is that they are creating an excuse to try to drum up public support for expanding use of AI in government under the guise of security. You already have people in this very thread and every DOGE thread playing Elon's advocate. Give them a vague reason like security and I'm sure they'll be onboard with no questions asked.

That is a really dumb theory, and I'm pretty sure you just made it up.
Post reply on HN