Billionaire Mark Cuban has offered to fund former employees of 18F, a federal technology and design consultancy that saw its budget drastically cut and staff laid off. Cuban's offer aims to enable these individuals to continue working on their existing civic tech projects, though the specifics of the funding mechanism and project selection remain unclear. He expressed interest in projects focused on improving government efficiency and transparency, ultimately seeking to bridge the gap left by 18F's downsizing and ensure valuable public service work continues.
The General Services Administration (GSA) is effectively dismantling 18F, its renowned digital services agency. While not explicitly shutting it down, the GSA is absorbing 18F into its Technology Transformation Services (TTS) and eliminating the 18F brand. This move comes as the GSA reorganizes TTS into two new offices, one focused on acquisition and the other on enterprise technology solutions, with former 18F staff being distributed across TTS. GSA Administrator Robin Carnahan stated the goal is to streamline and consolidate services, claiming it will improve efficiency and service delivery across government. However, the announcement sparked concern among many about the future of 18F's distinct agile approach and its potential impact on the agency's ability to deliver innovative digital solutions.
HN commenters express skepticism about the claimed cost savings from eliminating 18F, pointing out that government often replaces internal, innovative teams with expensive, less effective contractors. Several commenters highlight 18F's successes, including Login.gov and cloud.gov, and lament the loss of institutional knowledge and the potential chilling effect on future government innovation. Others suggest the move is politically motivated, driven by a desire to return to the status quo of relying on established contractors. The possibility of 18F staff being reabsorbed into other agencies is discussed, but with doubt about whether their agile methodologies will survive. Some express hope that the talented individuals from 18F will find their way to other impactful organizations.
The NSA's 2024 guidance on Zero Trust architecture emphasizes practical implementation and maturity progression. It shifts away from rigid adherence to a specific model and instead provides a flexible, risk-based approach tailored to an organization's unique mission and operational context. The guidance identifies four foundational pillars: device visibility and security, network segmentation and security, workload security and hardening, and data security and access control. It further outlines five levels of Zero Trust maturity, offering a roadmap for incremental adoption. Crucially, the NSA stresses continuous monitoring and evaluation as essential components of a successful Zero Trust strategy.
HN commenters generally agree that the NSA's Zero Trust guidance is a good starting point, even if somewhat high-level and lacking specific implementation details. Some express skepticism about the feasibility and cost of full Zero Trust implementation, particularly for smaller organizations. Several discuss the importance of focusing on data protection and access control as core principles, with suggestions for practical starting points like strong authentication and microsegmentation. There's a shared understanding that Zero Trust is a journey, not a destination, and that continuous monitoring and improvement are crucial. A few commenters offer alternative perspectives, suggesting that Zero Trust is just a rebranding of existing security practices or questioning the NSA's motives in promoting it. Finally, there's some discussion about the challenges of managing complexity in a Zero Trust environment and the need for better tooling and automation.
Summary of Comments ( 295 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43231062
Hacker News commenters were generally skeptical of Cuban's offer to fund former 18F employees. Some questioned his motives, suggesting it was a publicity stunt or a way to gain access to government talent. Others debated the effectiveness of 18F and government-led tech initiatives in general. Several commenters expressed concern about the implications of private funding for public services, raising issues of potential conflicts of interest and the precedent it could set. A few commenters were more positive, viewing Cuban's offer as a potential solution to a funding gap and a way to retain valuable talent. Some also discussed the challenges of government bureaucracy and the potential benefits of a more agile, privately-funded approach.
The Hacker News post titled "Mark Cuban offers to fund former 18f employees" generated a number of comments discussing Mark Cuban's offer and the broader implications of the situation surrounding 18F, a digital services agency within the General Services Administration of the US government.
Several commenters expressed skepticism about Cuban's motives, questioning whether this was a genuine offer or a publicity stunt. Some suggested that his offer might be conditional and tied to certain outcomes, or that he might have ulterior motives related to acquiring talent or influencing government policy. Others pointed out that Cuban's offer, while generous, might not be enough to sustain 18F's operations long-term, given the complexities and costs associated with government work.
There was discussion about the potential challenges of accepting private funding for a government agency, including concerns about conflicts of interest, accountability, and transparency. Some commenters argued that accepting private funding could undermine the independence and integrity of 18F and create a precedent for other agencies to seek private funding, potentially leading to undue influence by wealthy individuals or corporations.
A few commenters highlighted the importance of 18F's work and the negative consequences of its potential shutdown, emphasizing the agency's role in modernizing government technology and improving citizen services. They expressed concern about the loss of experienced and skilled employees and the potential disruption to ongoing projects.
Some comments focused on the political aspects of the situation, with some criticizing the decision to cut funding to 18F and others suggesting that this was a deliberate attempt to dismantle government agencies and privatize their functions.
Several commenters debated the merits of government-led versus private sector-led technology initiatives, with some arguing that the government is better equipped to handle certain types of projects, particularly those related to public services and infrastructure, while others maintained that the private sector is more efficient and innovative.
Finally, some comments touched upon the broader issue of government funding and the challenges of balancing budgets while maintaining essential services. Some commenters advocated for increased funding for government technology initiatives, arguing that these investments are essential for improving efficiency and effectiveness.