We have been well-trained to fear hackers stealing identities and accessing sensitive information, like student data, health records, or financial details, or, for seniors, extra warnings about scams targeting older adults.
But what is a hacker? Let’s see what the dictionary says.
1: one that hacks
2: a person who is inexperienced or unskilled at a particular activity
a tennis hacker
3: an expert at programming and solving problems with a computer
4: a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system
3 and 4 seem most relevant to this specific article.
Are hackers good or bad?
As with many things, it depends. Kaspersky, a cybersecurity company, defines white hat, black hat, and gray hat hackers. If you ever watched Westerns, you could easily figure out what those mean. White hat = good guy, black hat = bad guy.
But what is a gray hat hacker? According to Kaspersky, “gray hat hackers may sometimes violate laws of usual ethical standards, but they do not have the malicious intent typical of a black hat hacker.”
Maybe like McGee on NCIS? We have known empirically for 22 years that he uses his skills to do good, to solve crimes. Well, on occasion he pushes the boundaries of firewalls established to keep him out, but we forgive him because he is on the right side of the law.
Malicious Intent
News reports concerned about DOGE gaining access to government systems are causing fear. Thirteen states are suing the government over that access. Is fear and concern justified?
It is one thing to hack the Office of Personnel Management and ferret out the names of employees to whom a buyout could be offered. But there is far more dangerous data that could be hacked.
Like military or national security data. What would a hacker do with that data? I’m not sure I want to know.
A recent article gives us insight into one of the DOGE employees(?) with recent access to Department of Energy IT systems which contain some information about the National Nuclear Security Administration. I looked up the young man mentioned. Luke Farritor, 23, is a brilliant University of Nebraska alum who was the first ever to decode an ancient scroll. He is also a recent SpaceX intern. This video link shows a bright and respected University student who used his love of history and technology to enrich the world’s knowledge.
Mr. Farritor didn’t create alarm bells for me. He seems like a smart young man who is using his incredible knowledge well. He says he solved the scrolls using Artificial Intelligence which allowed reasoning not otherwise available (my paraphrase of his YouTube explanation).
One way or another, it’s probably fair to say that Mr. Farritor is a hacker, as are the others engaged by DOGE to access sensitive data.
Does it matter if he is a white hat or black hat hacker?
Where does “malicious intent” begin?
We have a bunch of young technology whizzes browsing Federal government data.
Let’s imagine how this process goes. Someone in charge (not the hacker generally) tells the hacker to produce a file.
To do that the hacker must read the code, build an understanding of the data points, and extract the data.
Does the hacker interpret the data? Did the hacker have malicious intent upon doing the job he was asked to do? Is he a gray hat hacker, or worse a black hat hacker, and if so, should we be concerned?
Malicious intent may not lie with the hacker in the case of the US government. Malicious intent may come at the beginning (what do I want to do/know) and end of the job (what do I want to do with that information) where wisps of malice may enter the picture.
What is DOGE supposed to do?
Reportedly, DOGE is the brainchild of Project 2025. There is even a section dedicated to its purpose:
It certainly sounds like a worthwhile project.
I can’t argue whether or not the Federal government is bloated. I just don’t know enough to make that statement. That said, I suspect there is some streamlining that should be done. Back in the 1970s when I worked in the government (military) I thought the government was bloated and I suspect it still is now. It is difficult to argue with modernizing quality and efficiency in technology.
But what really is DOGE doing?
Joyce Vance, in Civil Discourse, speaks to Mr. Musk’s stated goal of cutting billions from the federal budget. We can hope that he makes good decisions with the data he asks the hackers to provide.
We already know that the White House has offered a buyout of 8 months’ pay to federal workers. Where did they get the list of Federal employees?
Did it come from official channels or was it hacked?
What other sensitive information might be circulating and what might be the outcome of how it is used?
In the title of this article, I asked, “Should we be scared of hackers?”
I suggest that it isn’t the hackers that should scare us, but those who are asking for the information and deciding the outcomes.
Footnote: On February 7, 2025, a Federal judge halted DOGE’s access to the Treasury database. Too bad but it is too late. They’re in there. That’s how hacking works.
