BUTTER MALES!!!
You know… headlines should be a bit more specific.
Sensitive files could mean a lot of things. Like, he uploaded CSAM. or national security secrets. or his personal identfying documents.
Doesn’t really matter, since he’s incompetent and should be removed.
headlines should be a bit more specific.
The information is literally in the first sentence of the article that I don’t think you read:
The interim head of the country’s cyber defense agency uploaded sensitive contracting documents into a public version of ChatGPT last summer, triggering multiple automated security warnings that are meant to stop the theft or unintentional disclosure of government material from federal networks, according to four Department of Homeland Security officials with knowledge of the incident.
It’s not journalists’ fault that you want to consume the news as a series of disconnected headlines like you’re in a dopamine famine. This headline conveys the gist excellently; the fact that they were contracting documents is superfluous, while the fact they were sensitive is the entire problem.
Also, it can’t mean he “uploaded national security secrets” because that’s definitionally not what “sensitive” means in the context of US government documents.
it’s funny.
You’re critizing me for using a headline to determine if the article is worth my time to actually read, while not actually reading my comment. (And by the way, that’s exactly what headlines are for.)
And no, not every article posted here is worth my time or my interest.
And yes, in the context of journalism, “sensitive documents” could be anything that is either classified or confidential. that distinction is important. and in a journalistic setting (which this is, and not ‘the context of the us government’… ya dingbat), it could be anything from “how much TP is being consumed in the restrooms” which could be considered an analog for staffing levels, to classified materials (aka national secrets.)
Oh. and here’s politico reporting on Kegseth’s signal leaks. Attack details are definitely highly classified and not merely confidential.
So it was worth the time for a comment but not to read?
If you aren’t going to read the article you really don’t have useful input for the comments.
it was worth the time to comment and bitch about wasting my time.
the headline was clickbait.
How can you know? You still haven’t even read the article.
You do not know what clickbait means.
which this is, and not ‘the context of the us government’… ya dingbat
“in the context of US government documents”… ya dingbat. Living with functional illiteracy must be so difficult, but it understandably makes it really hard to just dip into an article and check the first paragraph before commenting.
Anyway, I acknowledge now that Politico has used “sensitive” in place of “classified”. The point about that not being what “sensitive” means, however, is ancillary to the point that it is not hard at all to just check an article every once in a while, and it’s not journalists’ fault that you’re unwilling to do that. The headline got across its point fine. We’re not ten years old, and the news isn’t a TikTok feed. It took me 10 seconds to click the article and read just the first paragraph. I have really bad attention problems, and this is sad even to me.
since you’re also apparently "too lazy to check linked sources:…
here’s the screenshot of the politico article I linked:
an article that’s about Kegseth’s signal leaks regarding the attacks against the Houthis that absolutely did contain classified information
So you can argue that it should be that way all you want, but politico is the one you need to be arguing with. have fun with that.
since you’re also apparently "too lazy to check linked sources:…
I hope you realize I said:
Anyway, I acknowledge now that Politico has used “sensitive” in place of “classified”.
The part about “functional illiteracy” was my way of trying to be a rude asshole, but now I’m actually concerned.
The incompetence is a feature, not a bug.
I thought Barron was working on the cyber! What happened?
The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough. And maybe it’s hardly doable.
