Is DOGE a threat to national security, or at the very least, Americans' PII?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
#21
*sigh* - I know I'm going to regret this post...but...okay, I'll go play in traffic here...



Gregory Childers said:
Why have they found none?
Click to expand...
The doge.gov website went online as of this morning which, we hope, will provide an accounting of, not just the fraud, but the wasted spending in various departments. I personally look forward to shining that big light into the Department of Education. Our school, IntelliTec, is one of those evil for-profit prop/trade schools that get the shade for high tuitions. Thing is, our sector does not have access to government funding, apart from Title IV and VA, where we have much more stringent rules, such as Gainful Employment, 90/10 (85/15) and so on, as well as our accreditors' requirements for graduation and placement. The big State U schools don't have the same rules as we do. The dirty secret is that the cost to educate a student is the same - public or private. Subsidy makes all the difference. And I have personally observed wasted spending on programs that do not result in outcomes.

In the technical education sector, our drive is to ensure students are employable when they hit the workforce. We partner with CompTIA specifically, but teaching Microsoft, a bit of Cisco - the list goes on. But the private sector's employability is what is graded, lest we lose Title IV. The big box colleges don't have those same constraints. So when we teach, we have to teach to certification and employability - it's a matter of survival for our programs. Again, the big box colleges don't have those same issues - and they are far well funded than we are.
Gregory Childers said:
Why are they using hackers with ties to cybercriminal activity and not forensic auditors?
Click to expand...
How are we defining 'hacker'? The traditional 'play with technology to see how it works' or what we might define as a 'clandestine penetration specialist'?

Personally, some of this young blood can peel through the layers before politicians and their in-pocket judges can react. The speed of information retrieval is vital in an audit; it keeps the guilty from being able to hide the bodies and finding the fraud. But it wouldn't be the first time the government has had people with sketchy backgrounds in its midst with security clearances.
 
#23
Not to knock on @Rick Butler . Some for-profit schools have tainted the pool for others in that field. The same can be applied public and private non-profit institutions. The tuition is usually higher, but doesn't necessarily reflect a higher or better education. One example would be see the average earnings of graduates and the 6 yr completion rates (Refer to the College Scorecard from the Dept. Of Ed.). That will provide a better example of the value of their education. To show their value and employability. That standard is also applied in other areas of higher education. Paying a hire tuition rate doesn't not equate to higher pay in the near term. There are numerous examples to that affect.

To bring this back to @Greg Childers comments. The lack of standards is glaring. If this was a private organization, public traded company, or public entity. There would be a multitude of questions and repercussions (i.e., SuperMicro possible delisting from the NASDAQ).There are generally accepted standards that are applied to review what as done before. Why are they not being applied here? Expedency can be beneficial, but what is lost for the sake of expedency.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tess Sluijter and Gregory Childers
#26
Brandon G said:
Not to knock on @Rick Butler . Some for-profit schools have tainted the pool for others in that field. The same can be applied public and private non-profit institutions. The tuition is usually higher, but doesn't necessarily reflect a higher or better education. One example would be see the average earnings of graduates and the 6 yr completion rates (Refer to the College Scorecard from the Dept. Of Ed.). That will provide a better example of the value of their education. To show their value and employability. That standard is also applied in other areas of higher education. Paying a hire tuition rate doesn't not equate to higher pay in the near term. There are numerous examples to that affect.
Click to expand...
I won't deny that a number of for-profit schools have created a sense of distrust around the prop-education sector, but as I mentioned, the cost to educate a student is no different, whether it's public or private - this is the part we don't hear about. The government subsidizes public education, so the student will pay less - doesn't mean it costs less to educate. Yes, for profit students will pay more in tuition, certainly. But not being on the government doll gives a for-profit school much more latitude to maneuver and adapt curriculum.

In 1965, the US Congress passed the Higher Education Act which allowed for Title IV funding to be used for trade schools, which primarily are for-profit institutions. The public school sector was vehemently against this because of an arrogance that only so-called "real college" professors were qualified to teach higher education.

I've personally experienced this. In one particular instance where I taught Network+, used Tamara Dean's Net+ books, aligned to CompTIA objectives, had a functional lab and virtual environment with GNS3, all of it - ran a class in six weeks where students were about 40-50% ready to challenge the Net+ exam. But because I'm not a "doctor" in a "real college", that somehow, I'm not a real college professor/teacher/instructor/etc. Yet, some dweeb with a name I can't even pronounce is trying to teach 200-level students basic network fundamentals by explaining the calculus of how a router calculates routes (not at all relevant to a Net+ level class) get the distinction and honor of being a "real professor", yet his students still couldn't explain basic subnetting.

And this, and other situations like this, is what the US Department of Education subsidizes with millions of dollars. So I really don't have a problem with DOGE bringing in a very large microscope that we all get to watch.

Again, I'm not interested in having a big political debate about DOGE. But the one thing I keep hearing is how we're supposed to entrust this process to the "real professionals", security auditors, and "standards" - those things are nice. But if the "real professionals" and "standards" have been in play for years and continue to hide obvious fraud, waste, and abuse, well, something needs to change, and not by the same incompetent bureaucrats that have been entrusted already - because they're either unwilling or unable to do their job.

Transparency? Well, that hasn't been the case before DOGE came along - countless millions now being revealed in ridiculous wasteful spending, so arguments about transparency are highly dubious to me. Controls? Put in place by those that benefit from these things not coming to light.

Again, let's look at Ed Snowden - he committed a very illegal, perhaps even treasonous act which revealed many things the government was doing which were highly illegal, raising the argument question, "is it illegal/wrong to tell the truth?" In Security doctrine, open disclosure is a good thing for security. Of course, it means those vulnerabilities that are protected because of obscurity, because it costs too much to fix them or it might make someone look incompetent are exposed.

The arguments against DOGE do not answer the fundamental question - do we really want to see how the government has been defrauding its citizens? Because I've seen the same people who were all for Ed Snowden and Julian Assange, but against Elon Musk and DOGE.

/r
 
#27
Good points from @Rick Butler . I'll speak from an empirical and anecdotal views. I'll preface my remarks that I have done both types of institutions referenced in this thread. For the former, there are numerous examples of for-profits who have gone 'belly-up' for poor practices and questionable standards (ITT Technical Institute, The Art Institutues, the former Ashford Univ., etc). For the latter, these schools will seek students, as I've seen, experienced, told by leadership at a particular well-known technical/trade school group. 'We seek students who can't make it anywhere else'. Please take that comment however you wish.

I will say there a false equivalence being brought up in the discussion. To keep it as an 'apples-to-apples' for sake of discussion. In NJ, the state is incentivizing people to return to college to complete their credentials 'Some College, No Degree)(certifications/diploma/degrees). There is a subsidy with a ROI for the state furnishing part of the cost. There are other workforce development programs (PerScholars) that are drawing from the same pool. Prospective students will vote with their feet and go elsewhere to seek an education.

I do agree that some of those who have doctorates or 'real professors' lack the view of the 'forest for the trees'. They don't know their audience. I would not apply that standard to all areas, regardless of the venue. Are there improvements that are needed? Yes. Are some schools, areas, departments that need improvement? Absolutely. For higher ed standpoint, The one area that provides a level playing field is the median salary after graduation using the College Scorecard.

Simply closing the spigot does not address a leaking pipe. Nor does not having professionals with standards, proper training,and credentialing attempt to fix the leak make it better. The one area I will go back to is this? What are the standards being applied? If the end result is that some schools will have to adjust, then so be it.

The adjustments may be minimal or major. But the adjustments should be made. If some schools cannot adapt to change with the times, then so be it.

To tie this and the earlier DoGE comments. There are standards and practices that are and should be applied. Sometimes the standards applied may not yield the better outcome as we see fit (i.e. 'some dweeb who's name [you] can't pronounce... students still dont know subnetting.').

When the standards are not applied, what is the outcome and what are the means of recourse. The graduate will have a worthless piece of paper that either subsidized or paid full freight . All lot of bluster and bravado that yields less than the cost to place the microscope over the sample. One may look extremely incompetent because of either poor practices (faulty Crowdstrike update) or a lack of due diligence (Windows 8 debacle). If standards and practices were applied, there wouldn't be such tumult in the current environment.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant, but what if is shown is due to poor practices, lack of standards, and deleterious acts, the end result may not be to the benefit of the group. Sometimes it's not those who have to take arms aganist a sea of troubles, but those who gain an outrageous fortune.
 
#28
Well, I think I'm going to leave the debate here - as I really don't fancy a more political conversation (the last few years have made me weary of it all, to be honest). I think we all bring up some good points and concerns and I think we can all agree that this particular situation is not a cut and dry one; there's a lot of charged emotion on both sides of the conversation. I, myself, am not enthusiastic in treading into those waters here on CIN. I believe, from our perspective here, we should find ways to engage our students and perhaps show them that, often, politics and other external forces can have a great pull on how technology is employed, which ones win and lose, and how standards are developed and emplaced. There is no shortage of controversies for sure.

It will be fascinating, nonetheless, as to how all of this pans out in time.
 
#29
Rick Butler said:
The arguments against DOGE do not answer the fundamental question - do we really want to see how the government has been defrauding its citizens? Because I've seen the same people who were all for Ed Snowden and Julian Assange, but against Elon Musk and DOGE.

/r
Click to expand...
An even bigger question would be "Do we trust the world's richest man, whose businesses have billions in federal contracts, responsible for prying into federal departments that oversee his businesses?

It sounds like allowing the foxes to run the henhouse.
 
#30
The kicker of it all is that there is and has been a government website that shows everyone where taxpayer money is going:

USAspending.gov

www.usaspending.gov www.usaspending.gov

Don't misinterpret me, there should be audits, regularly, to make sure that the monies are being spent correctly and adds value, but I don't believe the slash & burn process that is currently being done is the best method. At this point, only time will tell us how vulnerable they have now made these government systems by allowing such open access - to perhaps a group of individuals who have limited experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Home
Media
Resources
Menu