Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> They are receiving access to systems and data relevant to the tasks they have been assigned to do.

No, they're forcefully entering buildings, adding unapproved infrastructure with no oversight and get rubberstamped access to everything, with people in the way being threatened firing.

> There are consequences if any individual acts maliciously or abusing the access

No, there have been no consequences. The only ones we've seen were: 1. they have to stop, 2. they can continue but with supervision of someone. There's been access abuse already and it will not be prosecuted.

> yet the mere possibility of a potential leak

There were effectively leaks already. Where Doge was told no they can't access some data they already looked through, those were leaks.

I'm not sure why you bring up Equifax - yes, they're both bad ¯ \ _ ( ツ ) _ / ¯




> No, they're forcefully entering buildings, adding unapproved infrastructure with no oversight and get rubberstamped access to everything, with people in the way being threatened firing.

That's not what the court was ruling on. Nor is there any evidence that the subject were specifically responsible for these crimes.

>> There are consequences if any individual acts maliciously or abusing the access

> No, there have been no consequences.

That's how consequences work. First the violation, then the consequence. When is based on a number of factors. IN THIS CASE, we're talking about potential acts and consequences. Ofc they have not yet been assigned.

This is not a discussion when the responses are in the form of hypotheticals being assigned to the subjects out of frustration (I'm frustrated by the feckless courts too). None of us are directly involved. Assume good faith. Be kind.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: