this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2025
783 points (97.6% liked)
Technology
74545 readers
3722 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
OP, please revise your title to match the article, it is currently misinformation.
The complaint is about where the oversight comes from. This is not some random cloud server.
Don't you think after 5 months without oversight who exactly has access to that server that the difference between this and a random s3 bucket is nearly nil? But you are right, in the light of integrity the title should reflect the facts as they present themselves currently.
I do, yes, it's blazingly stupid and others have been jailed for less.
But I've noticed a number of misleading post titles recently, like the just today there was obe about a cyclist getting hit by a car when it was actually the cyclist turning into traffic. Tragic, but the title misleads. So I've started pointing them out.
Maybe I just long for the days when titles aren't rewritten to drive opinion and engagement (regardless of if I agree or disagree).
I agree that "random server" is a bad choice of words, but do want to add additional information context as the concern isn't necessarily unwarranted. Another qoute from the article:
Its also sounds like they did spin up a new database with limited security/oversight to "move" faster. Why that's worrisome is they aren't denying there is a risk or lack of security, they are just saying it's justified.
Could you please explain like I'm 10?
The SSA stores a lot of sensitive data. Normally with sensitive data you want to be very careful with who can access it and how.
What is potentially worrisome in this situation is it seems like the SSA is taking on the "move fast and break things" attitude of Silicon Valley.
More technically, most government agencies use AWS and Azure (cloud providers) to host data. So spinning up a new server isn't inherently bad. However, creating a new server that is secure and has the correct access controls (user permissions regarding who can see/change content) can be challenging. The whistle blower believes they are not doing this right, and it sounds like the head of the SSA isn't disagreeing, just saying he thinks the risk is worth it.
That makes sense, thanks for the explanation
Oh yea, agree it's a dumb move. This should be on-prem data IMO.
BUT WONT SOMEONE THINK OF THE SENSATIONALISM?