Comment by dmix

Comment by dmix 3 days ago

32 replies

View on Hacker News

The article says

> [ChatGPT] is blocked for other Department of Homeland Security staff. Gottumukkala “was granted permission to use ChatGPT with DHS controls in place,” adding that the use was “short-term and limited.”

He had a special exemption to use it as head of Cyber and still got flagged by cybersecurity checks. So obviously they don't think it's safe to use broadly.

They already have a deal with OpenAI to build a government focused one https://openai.com/global-affairs/introducing-chatgpt-gov/

grayhatter 3 days ago

> So obviously they don't think it's safe to use broadly.

More likely, everything gets added to the list because there shouldn't be false positives, it's worth investigating to make sure there isn't an adjacent gap in the security systems.

Reply View 4 replies
  • kulahan 3 days ago

    You are uploading information to the chat system every time you use it. Doubly true if you’re having it analyze or work with documents.

    I presume pulling this data out is simple if you’re, say, China.

    There really no security to investigate. Without a private instance, it’s an absolute non-starter for anything classified.

    Reply View 3 replies
    • patrickmcnamara 3 days ago

      > presume pulling this data out is simple if you’re, say, China

      Why would you presume that?

      Reply View 2 replies
      • dmbche 3 days ago

        A nationstate has a lot of capacity to do things they shouldn't be doing

        Reply View 0 replies
      • kulahan 2 days ago

        Because this is a discussion about national security.

        Reply View 0 replies
nostrademons 3 days ago

Somehow I think that the weak link in our government security is at the top - the President, his cabinet, and various heads of agencies. Because nobody questions what they're allowed to do, and so they're exempt from various common-sense security protocols. We already saw some pretty egregious security breaches from Pete Hegseth.

Reply View 26 replies
  • NoGravitas 3 days ago

    That's also the case in businesses. No one denies the CEO a security exemption.

    Reply View 16 replies
    • lysace 3 days ago

      I have never worked in a company where an obviously incorrect CEO-demanded security exemption (like this one) would have been allowed to pass. Professionalism, boards (with a mandatory employee member/representative, after some size) and ethics exist.

      30 years in about 8 software companies, Northern Europe. Often startups. Between 4 to 600 people. When they grow large the work often turns boring, so it's time to find something smaller again.

      Reply View 7 replies
      • NoGravitas 3 days ago

        Ah, Northern Europe is probably the difference. This passes all the time in the US. It's probably more common in non-tech companies, as well.

        Reply View 1 reply
        • LastTrain 3 days ago

          I’m in the US, SE since 1998, startups to multinationals. What the GP said holds true for me too. There are serious professionals in the world - I don’t know why some people want to drag every one else down to the level of the current US administration- they are exceptionally inept.

          Reply View 0 replies
      • Nicook 3 days ago

        CTO at a successfull cybersecurity startup I worked at long ago was exempt from critical security updates. She refused to restart her computer out of fear for her Excel state.

        Reply View 0 replies
      • craftkiller 3 days ago

        I used to work devops for a startup. The _only_ person who was exempted from 2-factor auth was the CEO. It's the perfect storm: a tech illiterate person with access to everything and the authority to exclude himself from anything he finds inconvenient.

        Reply View 0 replies
      • coldtea 3 days ago

        >I have never worked in a company where an obviously incorrect CEO-demanded security exemption (like this one) would have been allowed to pass

        You don't have worked in enough companies then.

        Just for the sake of argument, you think anybody would have denied Jobs or Bezos or Musk one?

        Reply View 1 reply
        • lysace 3 days ago

          I saw what joining Apple did to a friend in the early 2000s.

          (Extreme burnout, did not get rich from the pain. It was just pointless destruction.)

          Reply View 0 replies
      • hsbauauvhabzb 3 days ago

        The phrase ‘Don’t you know who I am?’ Will be taken differently depending on corporate culture.

        Reply View 0 replies
    • kulahan 3 days ago

      Why would you? He’s literally the only person ostensibly in charge of the direction of the company. Destroying the company through a security exemption or a bad business deal - both are the leader making a poor decision due directly to his seat of power.

      Give sound advice of course, but ultimately it’s the exec’s decision make.

      Reply View 6 replies
      • defrost 3 days ago

        There are many reasons to deny a CEO ... in a good company structure such denials are circled back around to the board for review.

        Case in point: Allowing a CEO with no flight training to "have the keys" to the company <rare, expensive, uniquely outfitted, airframe> because they want to take it for a spin.

        Sheparding Royalty in Monarchies has been a neccessary, delicate, loaded, and life threatening role for centuries.

        Being a C-suite Groom of the Stool isn't a happy job, but somebody has to do it.

        Reply View 5 replies
    • AnimalMuppet 3 days ago

      Been there. The CEO of an internet security company was the one who clicked on the wrong email attachment and turned a virus loose.

      I mean, I don't know if he had a security exemption, or if anyone who clicked on it would have infected us. But he was the weak link, at least in that instance.

      Reply View 0 replies
  • scottyah 3 days ago

    Hah no, weak links are everywhere at all levels. The stories just don't generate revenue for news companies.

    Reply View 1 reply
  • b00ty4breakfast 3 days ago

    whether he is personally and directly responsible for this specific incident, his leadership absolutely sets the tone for the rest of the federal government.

    Reply View 0 replies
  • dboreham 3 days ago

    It goes back long before the current regime. People may remember a certain cabinet secretary who ran her own exchange server in the basement.

    Reply View 4 replies
    • bell-cot 3 days ago

      Humans generally find "food safety expert sickens guests with tuna salad he left out overnight on warm countertop" to be a far more damning charge than "fire safety expert sickens ... warm countertop".

      Dig up a live mic catching Hillary calling the IOC a bunch of self-serving scum just as Obama was begging them to award the 2016 Olympics to Chicago, and we might call it comparable.

      Reply View 0 replies
    • macintux 3 days ago

      It’s always fascinating how massive corruption is “whatabout”’d because someone years ago did something stupid.

      Reply View 2 replies
      • trelane 3 days ago

        Do you mean now, or then?

        Bad is still bad, no matter what the party doing it.

        Reply View 0 replies