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.
