Top
Best
New

Posted by rbanffy 4/15/2025

Whistleblower details how DOGE may have taken sensitive NLRB data(www.npr.org)
1171 points | 542 commentspage 3
keepamovin 4/17/2025|
I think it's obvious that some of those affected by these reforms, or by fraud/abuse cutting, are going to come at DOGE with everything they got, so while I think people should review and monitor DOGE's actions, accusations should be taken with a grain of salt (and maybe a kickback).
tssva 4/17/2025|
What reforms or fraud/abuse cutting? I haven't seen any signs of either coming from DOGE. I have seen plenty of signs of DOGE creating and participating in fraud/abuse.
amai 4/22/2025||
DOGE might have hired too fast without the necessary background checks. So DOGE might now employ a lot of foreign spies (Russian, Chinese, etc) which take their chances.
VagabundoP 4/22/2025|
You say its a bug, but maybe thats a feature.
jonahbenton 4/17/2025||
Every single DOGE access to any level of protected government data is a security breach. Not snark. None of them have clearances.
jki275 4/17/2025|
what do you mean by "clearances"?

If they're accessing data that requires clearances, they have the required clearances. That's mandatory, and no one is going to show them anything without them.

My guess, based on the fact you use terms like "protected government data" is that you don't even know enough about this topic to make up words about it.

watwut 4/17/2025||
No, access to data does not imply clearance. And they are forcing access to data. No it is not legal, but neither Trump nor DOGE nor Musk care about legality.
jki275 4/18/2025||
You're making broad blanket statements that have no basis in anything other than media BS.

There is no "forcing access". It simply doesn't work that way.

If the President clears them, they are cleared. That's perfectly legal. The President is the federal government's OCA.

jonnycomputer 4/15/2025||
And what is NxGenBdoorExtract?
g42gregory 4/16/2025||
Here is the thing that blows my mind: why is there an implicit assumption that this article is an honest reporting and not a propaganda piece? Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that it is. What I am saying is that, at the very least, this question should always be asked first about any reporting.
Llamamoe 4/16/2025||
Because this would be very in line with how DOGE has conducted itself so far.
zelon88 4/16/2025||
NPR is a public entity. It's funding, governance, and leadership structure are well known and well trusted. From Wikipedia...

.....Regarding financing;

>Funding for NPR comes from dues and fees paid by member stations, underwriting from corporate sponsors, and annual grants from the publicly funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting.[4] Most of its member stations are owned by non-profit organizations, including public school districts, colleges, and universities. NPR operates independently of any government or corporation, and has full control of its content.[5]

.....Regarding governance;

> NPR is a membership organization. Member stations are required to be non-commercial or non-commercial educational radio stations; have at least five full-time professional employees; operate for at least 18 hours per day; and not be designed solely to further a religious broadcasting philosophy or be used for classroom distance learning programming. Each member station receives one vote at the annual NPR board meetings—exercised by its designated Authorized Station Representative ("A-Rep").

Now, I do question the authenticity of your question. Everyone knows that NPR is reputable and everyone knows why. Their reputation precedes them. But I entertained your charade and now I implore you to entertain one of mine.

Can you provide me the same detailed information which demonstrates why someone should trust OAN? How about Breitbart? How about Newsmax? Can you please pick one and demonstrate why they are trustworthy using a similar format that I provided for you?

timschmidt 4/18/2025||
> NPR is a public entity. It's funding, governance, and leadership structure are well known and well trusted.

Ehhhh... I remember vividly a moment during the Iraq war in which NPR's ombudsman spent 20 minutes justifying the network's use of the euphemism "enhanced interrogation" when speaking about torture conducted by the CIA and others. It was terminology being pushed by the then-current administration, which NPR chose not only to parrot, but to justify. To the benefit of the administration and the detriment of human rights. I haven't had illusions about the network's accuracy, neutrality, or journalistic integrity since.

24 years?

I guess you could call that well known. Not in a good way.

sitkack 4/17/2025||
> So what that data spike correlated with was data that was transferred off of an internal record-keeping device that was only used for internal case data. So this system only has the private information about union organizers. The privileged business proprietary, technologies, competitors, those kind of things are in that system only. There's no other data. There's nothing else except that.

...

> This is a difficult topic for Dan to discuss, but prior to our filing the whistle-blower disclosure this week, last week, somebody went to Dan's home and taped a threatening note, a menacing note on his door with personal information.

> While he was at work, and it also contained photographs of him walking his dog taken by a drone. So…

cratermoon 4/17/2025||
DOGE is a significant security breach.
pnutjam 4/15/2025||
This checks out because all those DOGE hires appear to be hackers, and they are now state sponsored. Most of them could never pass a basic background check, much less a TS or even public trust from one of the more invasive Federal agencies.
matthewdgreen 4/16/2025||
It is worth pointing out that many of these people are probably violating Federal and possibly even some state laws. Violations of Federal laws can be pardoned, if the President is so inclined. State laws can't. No prosecution will occur during this administration, but this administration will not last forever.
tremon 4/17/2025||
This administration will last as long as the People allow it to. There is no other way this will end.
flanked-evergl 4/15/2025|||
cite?
ceejayoz 4/15/2025||
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/doge-staffer-big-balls-prov...

> The best-known member of Elon Musk's U.S. DOGE Service team of technologists once provided support to a cybercrime gang that bragged about trafficking in stolen data and cyberstalking an FBI agent, according to digital records reviewed by Reuters.

BurnGpuBurn 4/16/2025|||
> Reuters could not independently verify EGodly's boasts of cybercriminal activity
flanked-evergl 4/15/2025|||
[flagged]
ceejayoz 4/15/2025|||
Didn't you get a pretty good answer - from a Federal court - last time you asked the same question? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43557456
fourside 4/15/2025|||
It’s a common mistake to think that folks like the parent commenter are trying to engage in an intellectually honest discussion.
ceejayoz 4/15/2025|||
I'm under no illusions they're commenting in good faith, but at times I find it valuable to highlight that fact.
sorcerer-mar 4/16/2025||
It is valuable! Thank you for doing it.
morkalork 4/15/2025||||
"Hark" goes the sealion, "sources?"
flanked-evergl 4/16/2025|||
Well that is kind of the point though, I asked for sources because it is clear that the comment, containing a false and baseless claim (as evidenced by the inability to provide one single supporting source), was not intellectually honest. If we don't challenge these things, then others will start believing them.
pc86 4/15/2025||||
I looked through the filing cited in this comment and every instance of the word "background" just says that backgrounds for a given employee are either complete or in progress, plus the quote. Nothing indicates anyone failed any background check (to the contrary just by count it seems like about half of them have been completed), and certainly nothing indicates that "most of them could never pass" one. Which again just by virtue of about half of them having been completed already seems to be false on its face.

It's not unusual to give an otherwise-qualified person limited access to certain data while their background checks are completed.

JohnMakin 4/15/2025||
what part specifically about this access seems “limited” to you?
flanked-evergl 4/15/2025|||
[flagged]
SoyAnto 4/15/2025||
Providing support for known criminal groups would immediately raise flags on any background check.

Do you need a source on that claim as well?

johnnyanmac 4/15/2025||
Dude, background checks are brutal. You can be denied because your parents (not you) struggled to pay taxes. You could have acedemic dishonesty that disqualifies you (that one small area where "permanent record" in school may actually cost you something). There are so many little things that no other kind of high paying job cares about in background checks that are suddenly red flags for clearance.

There's a reason Musk especially kept dodging trying to get proper clearance. He isn't even fully cleared to see all aspects of SpaceX. Some of his employees he brought in probably aren't better off.

randunel 4/15/2025||||
Is the article unclear? Would people who collaborate with known criminal groups pass basic background checks?

Granted, the sample size is low, but it doesn't look likely the rest of the gang would be any different.

flanked-evergl 4/15/2025||
One staffer is not "most of them". The article in no way supportes the claim.
bryanrasmussen 4/15/2025||||
a basic background check would invalidate someone with the described background.
boesboes 4/15/2025|||
[flagged]
_hyn3 4/16/2025||
Those darn hackers. They probably hang out and get their news... someplace.
1970-01-01 4/17/2025||
More evidence the current POTUS is in cahoots with Russia.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

ajross 4/15/2025|
I've said this repeatedly, but write this down: before this administration is out we are going to have a major (probably multiple) scandal where DOGE staffers get caught with some kind of horrifying self-enrichment scam based on the data they're hoovering. It could be simple insider trading, it could be selling the data to a FBI sting, it might take lots of forms. But it's going to happen.

These are a bunch of 20-something tech bro ego cases convinced of their crusade to remake government along libertarian axes they learned from Reddit/4chan/HN. These are simply not people motivated out of a genuine desire to improve the public good. And they've been given essentially unsupervised access to some outrageously tempting levers.

f38zf5vdt 4/15/2025||
Personal enrichment? There's already an enormous amount of evidence here to indicate that DOGE is working on behalf of a foreign nation state. It is seeming more and more likely that members of the DOGE team are simply secret agents for a foreign military.

> Within minutes after DOGE accessed the NLRB's systems, someone with an IP address in Russia started trying to log in, according to Berulis' disclosure. The attempts were "near real-time," according to the disclosure. Those attempts were blocked, but they were especially alarming. Whoever was attempting to log in was using one of the newly created DOGE accounts — and the person had the correct username and password, according to Berulis.

JohnMakin 4/15/2025||
or even worse, they’re compromised in some fashion and don’t know it
ajross 4/16/2025||
FWIW, that's getting too far out on the spy novel spectrum. Yes, they could be compromised. But to my point above, if they're indeed working for Putin or Xi or whoever, it's FAR more likely (given the demographic) that it's just because they took a fat bribe.
JohnMakin 4/16/2025||
Not saying they’re compromised by foreign agents, although, I wouldnt put that out of the realm of possibility - but that either they and/or theyre tooling/setup is pwned

this is exactly what you save a zero day for, and something gives me the vibe about some of these guys that they dont take opsec very seriously, probably would not even need one

ndsipa_pomu 4/15/2025|||
I think it's worse than that as the DOGE staffers are presumably picked according to Musk's preferences and he's not going to be looking for generous, well adjusted do-gooders, but selfish, arrogant, greedy racists. Presumably, they're also going to be targetted by other countries intelligence services with a mind to getting hold of the same data.
potato3732842 4/15/2025|||
Doesn't matter if they're good people or not "given essentially unsupervised access to some outrageously tempting levers" that scandal WILL happen eventually.
pjc50 4/16/2025||
> horrifying self-enrichment scam based on the data they're hoovering.

Did you miss the presidential cryptocurrency?

DOGE guys will probably end up wiring money directly to their own bank account, proudly brandish the receipts on national television, and no Republicans will make a move against them.

olyjohn 4/16/2025||
Also it's right there in the name DOGE. It's Elon's favorite coin and of course he's trying to pump it by naming a goddamn government department after it. It's plain as day.
IIsi50MHz 4/19/2025||
Still a pseudo-department, isn't it? I believe its name makes the ersatz claim of being a department, but is in fact a private entity.
More comments...