9 ms·

So in what way does this help the American people?

chaostheory 1y ago
My guess is that they were overtly trying to show Russia that we aren’t a direct threat to them anymore in the vain attempt to avoid fighting a two front war in the upcoming global war. Unfortunately, Putin is likely going to keep invading up to Germany’s Fulda Gap. If we’re still a part of NATO, we would have no choice but to declare war.
- netsharc 1y ago
  That feels overly deferrential to Putin... It's like a person with muscles witnessing a beating and then when the perpretaror notices, looking away and saying "I didn't see anything!".
  - cwillu 1y ago
    So, cowardice?
    - kevin_thibedeau 1y ago
      He'll do anything to keep his kompromat from being disclosed.
      - ModernMech 1y ago
        There's no kompromat, Trump and Putin just have the same goals. This whole idea that Putin has kompromat on Trump and that's the only reason he would be deferential to Putin rests on the idea that the American president is aligned morally, politically, and strategically with the long-term interests of America. Sadly, this is not true. The oath Trump took was empty. Trump does not have a pro-America agenda; he has a pro-Trump agenda. His whims are not morally, politically, or strategically aligned with the goals and prospects of the American people, they're aligned with a global billionaire class, to which Putin belongs. That is why they get along. They are allies.
        unethical_ban 1y ago
        This is what I have said for a long time. Trump the individual cares about Trump, he operates like an animal. He may not overtly hate the country, but he has no feeling of obligation or patriotism. I don't think he knows what patriotism is. If something he does helps America, it is because it helps him, or because it inflates his ego via people applauding him.
  - anonymars 1y ago
    Or worse, rifling through the victim's pockets (mineral deal) and demanding a thank you. So far John McCain had this one right. Show Putin weakness at your peril. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLAzeHnNgR8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLAzeHnNgR8
    - netsharc 1y ago
      The mineral deal smells like a sharing the spoils of war with Putin, I wonder if Putin mentioned it on that phone call they had. Thinking of a Moscow-Washington phone call makes me think of https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=6&v=6T2uBeiNXAo https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=6&v=6T2uBeiNXAo > Why do you think I'm calling you? Just to say hello? Of course I like to speak to you. Of course I like to say hello. Oh SNL, please make a spoof of this...
  - JKCalhoun 1y ago
    Yeah, Chamberlain-level deferential.
- sofixa 1y ago
  > Unfortunately, Putin is likely going to keep invading up to Germany’s Fulda Gap Russia can barely handle a stalemate with Ukraine. They have zero chance offensively against Poland and the Baltics, let alone the full blown might of the EU+UK (which also have independent nuclear weapons in France and to an extent the UK). That doesn't mean that a Polish offensive can march into Moscow, but it doesn't have to for Putin to lose power. He's showing his strongman strong army bullshit to be little more than a paper tiger, and at some point even the nihilistic to death Russians will get tired of the meat grinder for literally no reason.
  - varjag 1y ago
    > Russia can barely handle a stalemate with Ukraine. See, people look at the stalemate and often draw false conclusions. It's not that Russia was too weak militarily, it's that Ukraine put up one hell of a fight. And all these economy size comparisons are mostly meaningless. Sure Russia may have a GDP of Italy but by the same logic Ukraine (which is a fraction of Russian GDP) should have lost long ago. > They have zero chance against Poland and the Baltics Russia's chances against the Baltics are pretty good, I would say 1 in 3. And for Putin it's a proposition with no downside: at worst he loses another few hundred thousand subjects.
    - sofixa 1y ago
      > See, people look at the stalemate and often draw false conclusions. It's not that Russia was too weak militarily, it's that Ukraine put up one hell of a fight While Ukraine unquestionably put up a hell of a fight, the fact that the numerically superior army with the better and more numerical equipment, backed by the multiple times bigger and richer country failed is a failure. Especially when you consider that Ukraine doesn't have a navy and barely had an air force and anti-air, yet Russia failed at establishing air or naval control, let alone dominance. > Russia's chances against the Baltics are pretty good, I would say 1 in 3. Russia has no chance of having a war against the Baltics only. Any aggression against them will be met with a swift reaction from Poland, which has a better equipped army than Ukraine. If Ukraine can destroy the best Russian units and hold to a stalemate the majority of the remainder for years, Poland will wipe the floor with the war criminals.
- sennalen 1y ago
  This is WW3 playing out. Russia installed its people in America to dismantle our defenses.
bell-cot 1y ago
Might you be assuming that the current management cares about actual "help the American people" stuff?
whynotmaybe 1y ago
I guess that after "In god we trust" on the bank notes, it's now "god helps those who help themselves" for the rest. > The phrase is often mistaken as a scriptural quote, though it is not stated in the Bible. Some Christians consider the expression contrary to the biblical message of God's grace and help for the helpless, and its denunciation of greed and selfishness. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helps_those_who_help_themselves https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helps_those_who_help_the...
- ryao 1y ago
  I would think that phrase is related to the phrase, “he who does not work, does not eat”, which is in the Bible: https://biblehub.com/2_thessalonians/3-10.htm https://biblehub.com/2_thessalonians/3-10.htm The phrase “he who does not work, does not eat” was never intended by its author to be applied to those who were physically incapable of working. You might say otherwise, but Saint Paul had been a very traditional adherent of the Jewish faith, which had required farmers to leave portions of their harvest for the poor and destitute. The idea that he thought those who were physically incapable of working should not eat is absurd. It is unlikely he had a change of heart on this matter after his conversion to Christianity given that he had viewed Christianity as the continuation of Judaism. Anyway, I always thought the phrase “God helps those who help themselves” meant you had to do a bare minimum within your capability to take care of yourself if you want help. I think it is a corruption to claim the phrase “God helps those who help themselves” in any way implies that God does not help those who are incapable of helping themselves.
  - catlikesshrimp 1y ago
    Since there is plenty of room for uncharitable interpretations, it would be controversial. More controversy about religion. The status quo "in god we trust" is universally hopeful. "God help us" can sound helpless (cheek in tongue)
    - ryao 1y ago
      This is the first that I have heard of them. The apparent inspiration for the phrase had never meant to be interpreted to justify a lack of charity. Only those with poor understandings of Christianity’s history and teachings would think otherwise. I would think the “uncharitable interpretations” of the phrase “God helps those who help themselves” are by those with poor understandings as well.
jillesvangurp 1y ago
They get to collaborate with the rest of the world on security instead of relying on their government protecting them. This will push companies that are exposed to lawsuits to up their game and re-organize. And given their exposure to lawsuits, I doubt they'll drop the ball. They can't afford to. This is one area where the private sector should not need a lot of help. I have a European perspective to this. This isn't as bad as it looks. The rest of the world should in any case not rely on the US federal government for their security. So, there was always going to be some duplication of effort needed here. And given the whole tariff situation, there is of course quite a bit of interest in non US based alternatives to your favorite US based trillion $ companies and their services and lots of companies giving the evil eye to any US based service providers. I've been seeing a lot of that lately with our German customers; especially in the public sector. Short term mildly disruptive for some companies but not something to panic over.
- JeremyNT 1y ago
  > And given their exposure to lawsuits, I doubt they'll drop the ball. They can't afford to. Color me skeptical. How many companies have lost sensitive due to extreme carelessness, time and again? The cost of taking security seriously is greater than the cost of settling after the fact. I feel like even the biggest data breaches result in little more than victims being offered free credit monitoring.
  - jillesvangurp 1y ago
    I don't think anything changes here in a material way.
- tarkin2 1y ago
  It helps the American people because they will need to rely on foreign countries for their cyber security? Heck, those nuclear subs and aircraft carriers are only making the American people less likely the collaborate with the rest of the world on security too. Bin the entire lot
hollywood_court 1y ago
It doesn't. The entire purpose is to help Trump's boss.
scythe 1y ago
I'm not endorsing it, but it's roughly consistent with Trump's underlying philosophy that the international systems that USG manages are a subsidy from the US taxpayer to the rest of the world, and one which goes unappreciated. Under this premise, the USG would save money at little cost if they were replaced by industry consortiums or other countries' state initiatives. If my extrapolation is correct, even GPS might eventually be in the line of fire. I need to be clear that I do not endorse this view. The role of the United States in facilitating global cybersecurity, not to mention navigation, trade among much else, almost surely pays dividends far beyond what it costs us. The amount of international goodwill that the United States enjoys is remarkable particularly in light of our various foreign policy "mistakes", and I think we have these systems to thank.
- throwawaymaths 1y ago
  id agree with cybersecurity, but maybe not navigation? Even accounting for secondary effects, Currently supporting free navigation, especially in the Indian ocean and red sea mostly benefits other country, as the us is ~energy independent.
  - oivey 1y ago
    That’s not how economics works. Local energy price surges will also drive global prices up. The US is part of the global energy market. I guess you could ban export of energy and institute price controls, though.
  - XorNot 1y ago
    US oil and gas is not constrained to being sold solely within the US, nor is it publicly owned by the government. It has never mattered that the US is technically energy independent, because it's not independent of a number of other resources, and it cannot sustain the sort of cost increases which reductions in global oil and gas supply would lead to: because again, threesome resources aren't publicly owned - the higher revenues flow to the oil companies, not the tax payer.
- nyeah 1y ago
  Let's keep things simple. You endorsed it. Here's a famous example of that endorsement style: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/56968/speech-friends-romans-countrymen-lend-me-your-ears https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/56968/speech-friends-...
keepamovin 1y ago
[flagged]
simpaticoder 1y ago
>So in what way does this help the American people? Shutting down Mitre and the CVE is against American interests, both public and private. That said, you can make an argument, one that revolves around cost (was the CVE DB worth $50M a year, especially given its backlog?). The other part of that argument rests on assuming there will be a private or semi-private replacement for the service, that there may be many of them, and therefore they will improve. One might assert, as libertarians do, that every service that's not monopoly of force should be private. These aren't great arguments. $50M does seem like a lot, and maybe it could be reduced. I'd love to see an actual analysis of their operations rather then just ending the program. The second argument is worse. NIST and NOAA are examples of agencies that punch above their weight in terms of cost/benefit (the CFPB as well), and it seems like for-profit NIST and NOAA doesn't make much sense. But yes its worth considering the pros and cons of publicly funded service versus the private versions, in general. Even a bad argument is better than no argument, and the current admin does not bother to make one.
- ashoeafoot 1y ago
  If they write more than two paragraphs for defanging usa == russian.botnik
- JKCalhoun 1y ago
  You seem to be doing a cost/benefit analysis. The sense we have is that the people doing the dismantling either have not done such an analysis or are at the very least keeping it from the public.
  - Suzuran 1y ago
    They have absolutely done a cost/benefit analysis. It works like this: "If it does not benefit me personally, directly and financially, then it costs too much."
  - Yeul 1y ago
    In my country such things are discussed in parliament during endless sessions about the yearly budget. They are not decreed by a god emperor at a whim.
mrweasel 1y ago
It saves money on the government budget... or so they think. I doubt that there's anything sinister going on. It's just numbers in a government spreadsheet, and the Trump administration sees money going to projects that benefit people outside the US, regardless of their internal value, and just assumes that it's the US money spend on other nations. They are not smart enough, well informed enough, nor do they particularly care to educate themselves or listen to other smarter people, they just see a number in the budget which they don't understand, so it can go. I suppose the assumption is that if it's truly important enough, someone will turn it into a business.
- apercu 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - Sharlin 1y ago
    Evoking Hanlon's razor: The first Trump admin was mostly just incompetent. The second is in many ways much more incompetent, but now it is also actively malicious.
    - skeeter2020 1y ago
      last time the had to make it up after winning the election. They spent 4 years getting ready this time
    - ModernMech 1y ago
      > The first Trump admin was mostly just incompetent. Mostly is doing a lot of work here. The first Trump admin incited an insurrection. That wasn't incompetence, that was malicious. Hanlon's razor isn't it, you have to calculate p(malicious activity | caused an insurrection to stay in power) and you will arrive at a much higher posterior probability they are malicious rather than incompetent.
llmthrow103 1y ago
Since when has the American government acted based on what will or will not help the American people?
spamizbad 1y ago
It doesn't. It's a side-effect of the populist right's "human capital" problem. Lots of nefarious theories abound about how this will be used to clamp down on our rights, and that may ultimately happen, but that will merely be a reaction to the consequences of their blundering actions. Today, the conventional wisdom among the Trump administration is these cybersecurity programs are a waste of money and that magically the private sector will swoop in and save us. We're now all going to experience the high cost of low human capital.
- close04 1y ago
  Those who cause the crisis will show up soon to sell the solution, in the form of private ventures that make them a lot of money. This mirrors a lot the physical destruction of other countries only to come back for "reconstruction" which filled some pockets with unimaginable amounts of money.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
mfer 1y ago
To play devils advocate here, a thought comes to mind... Should the US be the one to handle the CVE database globally? The current administration wants to see other parts of the world help carry the load. A little scare could be the push needed to make this either distributed or handled by a coalition. This could be a positive for the US (who doesn't want to be the sole funder) and for those who don't want the US to have sole control.
- jwagenet 1y ago
  As with many other cuts and activities by the administration, it’s not that some programs don’t deserve scrutiny, but that the cuts are careless and shortsighted.
  - XorNot 1y ago
    Well, and also irrelevant. The budgetary numbers this is being claimed to be in service too will not be reached even if you dismantled every single program like this and all the related ones. It's the equivalent of taking a day off work to haggle over the price of a bus ticket.
- thesuitonym 1y ago
  Your premise is flawed. Reframe the question like this: Should the US be the sole arbiter of software vulnerabilities? Absolutely not! But that doesn't mean the US should cut off the spigot. Other countries should start their own version of CVE, so they can check each other's work, and disclose vulnerabilities that certain governments may desire to keep secret.

My guess is that they were overtly trying to show Russia that we aren’t a direct threat to them anymore in the vain attempt to avoid fighting a two front war in the upcoming global war. Unfortunately, Putin is likely going to keep invading up to Germany’s Fulda Gap. If we’re still a part of NATO, we would have no choice but to declare war.

netsharc 1y ago
That feels overly deferrential to Putin... It's like a person with muscles witnessing a beating and then when the perpretaror notices, looking away and saying "I didn't see anything!".
- cwillu 1y ago
  So, cowardice?
  - kevin_thibedeau 1y ago
    He'll do anything to keep his kompromat from being disclosed.
    - ModernMech 1y ago
      There's no kompromat, Trump and Putin just have the same goals. This whole idea that Putin has kompromat on Trump and that's the only reason he would be deferential to Putin rests on the idea that the American president is aligned morally, politically, and strategically with the long-term interests of America. Sadly, this is not true. The oath Trump took was empty. Trump does not have a pro-America agenda; he has a pro-Trump agenda. His whims are not morally, politically, or strategically aligned with the goals and prospects of the American people, they're aligned with a global billionaire class, to which Putin belongs. That is why they get along. They are allies.
      - unethical_ban 1y ago
        This is what I have said for a long time. Trump the individual cares about Trump, he operates like an animal. He may not overtly hate the country, but he has no feeling of obligation or patriotism. I don't think he knows what patriotism is. If something he does helps America, it is because it helps him, or because it inflates his ego via people applauding him.
- anonymars 1y ago
  Or worse, rifling through the victim's pockets (mineral deal) and demanding a thank you. So far John McCain had this one right. Show Putin weakness at your peril. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLAzeHnNgR8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLAzeHnNgR8
  - netsharc 1y ago
    The mineral deal smells like a sharing the spoils of war with Putin, I wonder if Putin mentioned it on that phone call they had. Thinking of a Moscow-Washington phone call makes me think of https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=6&v=6T2uBeiNXAo https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=6&v=6T2uBeiNXAo > Why do you think I'm calling you? Just to say hello? Of course I like to speak to you. Of course I like to say hello. Oh SNL, please make a spoof of this...
- JKCalhoun 1y ago
  Yeah, Chamberlain-level deferential.
sofixa 1y ago
> Unfortunately, Putin is likely going to keep invading up to Germany’s Fulda Gap Russia can barely handle a stalemate with Ukraine. They have zero chance offensively against Poland and the Baltics, let alone the full blown might of the EU+UK (which also have independent nuclear weapons in France and to an extent the UK). That doesn't mean that a Polish offensive can march into Moscow, but it doesn't have to for Putin to lose power. He's showing his strongman strong army bullshit to be little more than a paper tiger, and at some point even the nihilistic to death Russians will get tired of the meat grinder for literally no reason.
- varjag 1y ago
  > Russia can barely handle a stalemate with Ukraine. See, people look at the stalemate and often draw false conclusions. It's not that Russia was too weak militarily, it's that Ukraine put up one hell of a fight. And all these economy size comparisons are mostly meaningless. Sure Russia may have a GDP of Italy but by the same logic Ukraine (which is a fraction of Russian GDP) should have lost long ago. > They have zero chance against Poland and the Baltics Russia's chances against the Baltics are pretty good, I would say 1 in 3. And for Putin it's a proposition with no downside: at worst he loses another few hundred thousand subjects.
  - sofixa 1y ago
    > See, people look at the stalemate and often draw false conclusions. It's not that Russia was too weak militarily, it's that Ukraine put up one hell of a fight While Ukraine unquestionably put up a hell of a fight, the fact that the numerically superior army with the better and more numerical equipment, backed by the multiple times bigger and richer country failed is a failure. Especially when you consider that Ukraine doesn't have a navy and barely had an air force and anti-air, yet Russia failed at establishing air or naval control, let alone dominance. > Russia's chances against the Baltics are pretty good, I would say 1 in 3. Russia has no chance of having a war against the Baltics only. Any aggression against them will be met with a swift reaction from Poland, which has a better equipped army than Ukraine. If Ukraine can destroy the best Russian units and hold to a stalemate the majority of the remainder for years, Poland will wipe the floor with the war criminals.
sennalen 1y ago
This is WW3 playing out. Russia installed its people in America to dismantle our defenses.

bell-cot 1y ago

Might you be assuming that the current management cares about actual "help the American people" stuff?

whynotmaybe 1y ago

I guess that after "In god we trust" on the bank notes, it's now "god helps those who help themselves" for the rest. > The phrase is often mistaken as a scriptural quote, though it is not stated in the Bible. Some Christians consider the expression contrary to the biblical message of God's grace and help for the helpless, and its denunciation of greed and selfishness. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helps_those_who_help_themselves https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helps_those_who_help_the...

ryao 1y ago
I would think that phrase is related to the phrase, “he who does not work, does not eat”, which is in the Bible: https://biblehub.com/2_thessalonians/3-10.htm https://biblehub.com/2_thessalonians/3-10.htm The phrase “he who does not work, does not eat” was never intended by its author to be applied to those who were physically incapable of working. You might say otherwise, but Saint Paul had been a very traditional adherent of the Jewish faith, which had required farmers to leave portions of their harvest for the poor and destitute. The idea that he thought those who were physically incapable of working should not eat is absurd. It is unlikely he had a change of heart on this matter after his conversion to Christianity given that he had viewed Christianity as the continuation of Judaism. Anyway, I always thought the phrase “God helps those who help themselves” meant you had to do a bare minimum within your capability to take care of yourself if you want help. I think it is a corruption to claim the phrase “God helps those who help themselves” in any way implies that God does not help those who are incapable of helping themselves.
- catlikesshrimp 1y ago
  Since there is plenty of room for uncharitable interpretations, it would be controversial. More controversy about religion. The status quo "in god we trust" is universally hopeful. "God help us" can sound helpless (cheek in tongue)
  - ryao 1y ago
    This is the first that I have heard of them. The apparent inspiration for the phrase had never meant to be interpreted to justify a lack of charity. Only those with poor understandings of Christianity’s history and teachings would think otherwise. I would think the “uncharitable interpretations” of the phrase “God helps those who help themselves” are by those with poor understandings as well.

jillesvangurp 1y ago

They get to collaborate with the rest of the world on security instead of relying on their government protecting them. This will push companies that are exposed to lawsuits to up their game and re-organize. And given their exposure to lawsuits, I doubt they'll drop the ball. They can't afford to. This is one area where the private sector should not need a lot of help. I have a European perspective to this. This isn't as bad as it looks. The rest of the world should in any case not rely on the US federal government for their security. So, there was always going to be some duplication of effort needed here. And given the whole tariff situation, there is of course quite a bit of interest in non US based alternatives to your favorite US based trillion $ companies and their services and lots of companies giving the evil eye to any US based service providers. I've been seeing a lot of that lately with our German customers; especially in the public sector. Short term mildly disruptive for some companies but not something to panic over.

JeremyNT 1y ago
> And given their exposure to lawsuits, I doubt they'll drop the ball. They can't afford to. Color me skeptical. How many companies have lost sensitive due to extreme carelessness, time and again? The cost of taking security seriously is greater than the cost of settling after the fact. I feel like even the biggest data breaches result in little more than victims being offered free credit monitoring.
- jillesvangurp 1y ago
  I don't think anything changes here in a material way.
tarkin2 1y ago
It helps the American people because they will need to rely on foreign countries for their cyber security? Heck, those nuclear subs and aircraft carriers are only making the American people less likely the collaborate with the rest of the world on security too. Bin the entire lot

hollywood_court 1y ago

It doesn't. The entire purpose is to help Trump's boss.

scythe 1y ago

I'm not endorsing it, but it's roughly consistent with Trump's underlying philosophy that the international systems that USG manages are a subsidy from the US taxpayer to the rest of the world, and one which goes unappreciated. Under this premise, the USG would save money at little cost if they were replaced by industry consortiums or other countries' state initiatives. If my extrapolation is correct, even GPS might eventually be in the line of fire. I need to be clear that I do not endorse this view. The role of the United States in facilitating global cybersecurity, not to mention navigation, trade among much else, almost surely pays dividends far beyond what it costs us. The amount of international goodwill that the United States enjoys is remarkable particularly in light of our various foreign policy "mistakes", and I think we have these systems to thank.

throwawaymaths 1y ago
id agree with cybersecurity, but maybe not navigation? Even accounting for secondary effects, Currently supporting free navigation, especially in the Indian ocean and red sea mostly benefits other country, as the us is ~energy independent.
- oivey 1y ago
  That’s not how economics works. Local energy price surges will also drive global prices up. The US is part of the global energy market. I guess you could ban export of energy and institute price controls, though.
- XorNot 1y ago
  US oil and gas is not constrained to being sold solely within the US, nor is it publicly owned by the government. It has never mattered that the US is technically energy independent, because it's not independent of a number of other resources, and it cannot sustain the sort of cost increases which reductions in global oil and gas supply would lead to: because again, threesome resources aren't publicly owned - the higher revenues flow to the oil companies, not the tax payer.
nyeah 1y ago
Let's keep things simple. You endorsed it. Here's a famous example of that endorsement style: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/56968/speech-friends-romans-countrymen-lend-me-your-ears https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/56968/speech-friends-...

keepamovin 1y ago

[flagged]

simpaticoder 1y ago

>So in what way does this help the American people? Shutting down Mitre and the CVE is against American interests, both public and private. That said, you can make an argument, one that revolves around cost (was the CVE DB worth $50M a year, especially given its backlog?). The other part of that argument rests on assuming there will be a private or semi-private replacement for the service, that there may be many of them, and therefore they will improve. One might assert, as libertarians do, that every service that's not monopoly of force should be private. These aren't great arguments. $50M does seem like a lot, and maybe it could be reduced. I'd love to see an actual analysis of their operations rather then just ending the program. The second argument is worse. NIST and NOAA are examples of agencies that punch above their weight in terms of cost/benefit (the CFPB as well), and it seems like for-profit NIST and NOAA doesn't make much sense. But yes its worth considering the pros and cons of publicly funded service versus the private versions, in general. Even a bad argument is better than no argument, and the current admin does not bother to make one.

ashoeafoot 1y ago
If they write more than two paragraphs for defanging usa == russian.botnik
JKCalhoun 1y ago
You seem to be doing a cost/benefit analysis. The sense we have is that the people doing the dismantling either have not done such an analysis or are at the very least keeping it from the public.
- Suzuran 1y ago
  They have absolutely done a cost/benefit analysis. It works like this: "If it does not benefit me personally, directly and financially, then it costs too much."
- Yeul 1y ago
  In my country such things are discussed in parliament during endless sessions about the yearly budget. They are not decreed by a god emperor at a whim.

mrweasel 1y ago

It saves money on the government budget... or so they think. I doubt that there's anything sinister going on. It's just numbers in a government spreadsheet, and the Trump administration sees money going to projects that benefit people outside the US, regardless of their internal value, and just assumes that it's the US money spend on other nations. They are not smart enough, well informed enough, nor do they particularly care to educate themselves or listen to other smarter people, they just see a number in the budget which they don't understand, so it can go. I suppose the assumption is that if it's truly important enough, someone will turn it into a business.

apercu 1y ago
[flagged]
- Sharlin 1y ago
  Evoking Hanlon's razor: The first Trump admin was mostly just incompetent. The second is in many ways much more incompetent, but now it is also actively malicious.
  - skeeter2020 1y ago
    last time the had to make it up after winning the election. They spent 4 years getting ready this time
  - ModernMech 1y ago
    > The first Trump admin was mostly just incompetent. Mostly is doing a lot of work here. The first Trump admin incited an insurrection. That wasn't incompetence, that was malicious. Hanlon's razor isn't it, you have to calculate p(malicious activity | caused an insurrection to stay in power) and you will arrive at a much higher posterior probability they are malicious rather than incompetent.

llmthrow103 1y ago

Since when has the American government acted based on what will or will not help the American people?

spamizbad 1y ago

It doesn't. It's a side-effect of the populist right's "human capital" problem. Lots of nefarious theories abound about how this will be used to clamp down on our rights, and that may ultimately happen, but that will merely be a reaction to the consequences of their blundering actions. Today, the conventional wisdom among the Trump administration is these cybersecurity programs are a waste of money and that magically the private sector will swoop in and save us. We're now all going to experience the high cost of low human capital.

close04 1y ago
Those who cause the crisis will show up soon to sell the solution, in the form of private ventures that make them a lot of money. This mirrors a lot the physical destruction of other countries only to come back for "reconstruction" which filled some pockets with unimaginable amounts of money.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

mfer 1y ago

To play devils advocate here, a thought comes to mind... Should the US be the one to handle the CVE database globally? The current administration wants to see other parts of the world help carry the load. A little scare could be the push needed to make this either distributed or handled by a coalition. This could be a positive for the US (who doesn't want to be the sole funder) and for those who don't want the US to have sole control.

jwagenet 1y ago
As with many other cuts and activities by the administration, it’s not that some programs don’t deserve scrutiny, but that the cuts are careless and shortsighted.
- XorNot 1y ago
  Well, and also irrelevant. The budgetary numbers this is being claimed to be in service too will not be reached even if you dismantled every single program like this and all the related ones. It's the equivalent of taking a day off work to haggle over the price of a bus ticket.
thesuitonym 1y ago
Your premise is flawed. Reframe the question like this: Should the US be the sole arbiter of software vulnerabilities? Absolutely not! But that doesn't mean the US should cut off the spigot. Other countries should start their own version of CVE, so they can check each other's work, and disclose vulnerabilities that certain governments may desire to keep secret.