this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2026
338 points (99.7% liked)

Technology

82745 readers
3076 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
338
Federal Cyber Experts Thought Microsoft’s Cloud Was “a Pile of Shit.” They Approved It Anyway. (www.propublica.org)
submitted 9 hours ago by Beep@lemmus.org to c/technology@lemmy.world
38 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
  • “Cloud First”: To move federal agencies to the cloud, the government created a program known as FedRAMP, whose job was to ensure the security of new technology.
  • Security Breakdown: ProPublica found that FedRAMP authorized a Microsoft product called GCC High to handle sensitive government data, despite years of concerns about its security.
  • Potential Conflict of Interest: The government relies, in part, on third-party firms to vet cloud technology, but those firms are hired and paid by the company being assessed.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] albert_inkman@lemmy.world 58 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

The conflict of interest angle here is wild. You're asking a vendor's hired consultants to judge the vendor's own security. That's not a bug in FedRAMP, it's the entire architecture.

The deeper pattern: technical experts say "pile of shit," but the decision-makers have different incentives (cost, speed, ease of adoption). Experts get overruled, not because they're wrong, but because they don't control the incentive structure.

This happens everywhere. Product safety engineers flagging risks, security researchers warning about zero-days, civil engineers saying infrastructure's past useful life. The signals exist. The system just doesn't care.

[–] chirospasm@lemmy.ml 6 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Are you a bot?

[–] Vlyn@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 hour ago

Ignore the downvotes, that account is 100% a bot. Every single reply looks generated, plenty even have em-dashes.