> particularly when those staffers noticed a spike in data leaving the agency. It's possible that the data included sensitive information on unions, ongoing legal cases and corporate secrets
This entire article appears to be speculation about data they MAY have taken with no evidence besides large file size that they are misusing something.
The discussion with the “whistle blower” and other experts is only about how serious it would be IF they misused it.
Am I reading it wrong?
There is evidence DOGE went out of its way to illegally conceal what it was doing. That, alone, is enough to put these kids in jail one day.
What law would they have broken?
My original comment here has not been flagged - but all my responses to other comments have. This is distorting the conversation. There is only one DOGE narrative allowed on this site.
Indeed and sad, it's becoming like Reddit. There is no discourse going on here or nearly anywhere. Sadly on X it's the opposite but equally one sided.
Agreed entirely. The comments in this article read exactly like Reddit, the tone, the downvoting, etc. and I agree about your comments on X being a sort of rightwing mirror of that, too. Super disappointed in Hackernews.
I came from a mobile app to the site just to see your flagged comments.
I would say you were treated with far more respect than you deserve. If i didn't know any better, I would say you were paid to act this stupid.
None of your arguments were in good faith, you constantly moved goal posts, and actively disregard every piece of eveidence that was presented.
You can claim I am biased. I would agree with you. I am biased against this blatant display of imbecilty.
Yes. You claim:
"This entire article appears to be speculation about data they MAY have taken with no evidence besides large file size that they are misusing something ...[and] is only about how serious it would be IF they misused it."
This paragraph makes it clear it's not just about misusing data and large file sizes.
> Those forensic digital records are important for record-keeping requirements and they allow for troubleshooting, but they also allow experts to investigate potential breaches, sometimes even tracing the attacker's path back to the vulnerability that let them inside a network.
Let's be clear:
> Those engineers were also concerned by DOGE staffers' insistence that their activities not be logged, allowing them to probe the NLRB's systems and discover information about potential security flaws or vulnerabilities without being detected.
Neither of these have to do with "large file size" or misusing data.
"Am I reading it wrong?"
Yes. Now, before you go moving goal posts, you made claims, and I've debunked those claims with quotes you said you needed. Because clearly the article is ALSO talking about these other things as problematic as well, so it's not "the entire article". (Also, the "entire article appears"? Appears? Just read it, it talks about numerous things, and is very clear on the different elements it's talking about.)
This isn't the only stuff mentioned, so be careful about claiming "oh, I just missed that" or some such because there are other things that can be referenced, such as the massive amount of text spent on the whistleblower issues and the threats made to them.
And before you talk about this just being "speculation," that's why we have the process we have, so people can make claims that can then be investigated. And that's what's being stopped.
Finally, "no evidence besides large file size" is also not true.
"Am I reading it wrong?"
As someone said, it's more likely you didn't even read it.
I am genuinely curious as to what your point is. Not saying it's wrong, but a succinct summary might be useful.
[flagged]
There were already news from weeks ago how they started to put servers on the internet with access to systems, which should not have access to/from the internet for security reasons.
This is just on top of all the other things. happened.
Someone exfiltrated sensitive data. That isn't in question. The only question is who did it and why. As far as DOGE's involvement, there is no proof but there is plenty of evidence.
[flagged]
The issue is we don't know what they took and they took steps to hide their tracks. This is whacked territory we are in. You can defend it but normally there are checks and controls in government for a reason. The fact that we are normalizing that certain very ideologically groups in government do not have checks and balances is pretty strange - based on nothing more than a "trust us, we are the good guys." This never works out in the end.
[flagged]
It is right in the article:
"The small, independent federal agency investigates and adjudicates complaints about unfair labor practices. It stores reams of potentially sensitive data, from confidential information about employees who want to form unions to proprietary business information."
"But according to an official whistleblower disclosure shared with Congress and other federal overseers that was obtained by NPR, subsequent interviews with the whistleblower and records of internal communications, technical staff members were alarmed about what DOGE engineers did when they were granted access, particularly when those staffers noticed a spike in data leaving the agency. It's possible that the data included sensitive information on unions, ongoing legal cases and corporate secrets — data that four labor law experts tell NPR should almost never leave the NLRB and that has nothing to do with making the government more efficient or cutting spending."
And because DOGE deleted the access records and logs, we cannot prove it either way. That is pretty suspicious.
> Then, Berulis started tracking sensitive data leaving the places it's meant to live, according to his official disclosure. First, he saw a chunk of data exiting the NxGen case management system's "nucleus," inside the NLRB system, Berulis explained. Then, he saw a large spike in outbound traffic leaving the network itself.
> From what he could see, the data leaving, almost all text files, added up to around 10 gigabytes — or the equivalent of a full stack of encyclopedias if someone printed them, he explained. It's a sizable chunk of the total data in the NLRB system, though the agency itself hosts over 10 terabytes in historical data. It's unclear which files were copied and removed or whether they were consolidated and compressed, which could mean even more data was exfiltrated.
> Berulis says someone appeared to be doing something called DNS tunneling to prevent the data exfiltration from being detected. He came to that conclusion, outlined in his disclosure, after he saw a traffic spike in DNS requests parallel to the data being exfiltrated, a spike 1,000 times the normal number of requests.
> And Berulis noticed that an unknown user had exported a "user roster," a file with contact information for outside lawyers who have worked with the NLRB.
And more if you actually read the article. About a third of it is about the data that was taken.
[flagged]
Why did they actively hide their tracks? In law this relates to:
- Spoliation of evidence - Intentionally destroying or concealing evidence can lead to legal sanctions and adverse inferences.
- Consciousness of guilt - Actions taken to cover tracks (deleting logs, hiding records) are often admissible to show awareness of wrongdoing.
- Obstruction of justice - Deliberately impeding an investigation by destroying evidence is itself a crime in many jurisdictions.
Don't forget the whistleblower intimidation!
> Meanwhile, his attempts to raise concerns internally within the NLRB preceded someone "physically taping a threatening note" to his door that included sensitive personal information and overhead photos of him walking his dog that appeared to be taken with a drone, according to a cover letter attached to his disclosure filed by his attorney, Andrew Bakaj of the nonprofit Whistleblower Aid.
I'm so sick of the endless attempts to downplay or misdirect on the outrageous things Republicans/Trump/DOGE happening everyday.
If a Democratic admin were to do this they would be howling and rightly so. Trump and the GOP are turning the federal government into an authoritarian mob state.
Everyone should be outraged - even if it's for only the fact that you yourself may be a target of this or future administrations as it becomes normal practice.
> If a Democratic admin were to do this they would be howling and rightly so. Trump and the GOP are turning the federal government into an authoritarian mob state. You should be outraged - even if it's for only the fact that you yourself may be a target of this or future administrations as it becomes normal practice.
As a Canadian I am already scared of visiting the US. I've re-posted UNRWA, Unicef, MSF and WFP criticism of Israel's actions in Gaza on social media. I could very well be viewed as being a someone who is undermining US foreign policy goals and either detained, deported or at best denied entry to the US.
https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/news-releases/dhs-to-begin-sc...
[flagged]
Sure, I bet if you found a physically threatening note at your work with pictures from someone following you near your home, you'd be cool with it. Totally normal and non-criminal behaivor.
> Whistleblower is a journalist word used to establish the good guy in a story.
It's not a journalist word, there is an official whistleblowing process to Congress and OIG the mentioned employee went through.
But you would either have needed to have read and understood the article you're commenting on or not be commenting in bad-faith.
[flagged]
So you take back your claim that the whistleblower was just a choice of words on the journalist?
Did you read the article yet?
> Am I reading it wrong?
Yes
Good comment.
> Am I reading it wrong?
Based on your comments, you're not reading the article at all.
[flagged]
Stop sealioning. Anyone can read the article. The evidence of suspicious behavior is clear and according to the article corroborated by a dozen experts.
The fact that someone tried to intimidate the whisteblower by posting threatening and stalking messages on his door shows there is something not above board here.
[flagged]