Big Balls Now Exposed to Serious Criminal Charges in at Least Six States

95 points by sans_souse 23 hours ago on hackernews | 16 comments

Really the dumbest story for an adult to be interested in. This is a patsy with no power. They're happy when you obsess on him. Soon they'll be naming newborn babies as the CEOs of banks, so people who have no understanding of how power works can do exposés on how badly behaved they are.

Joel_Mckay | 22 hours ago

Rule #5: "Credit floats up, and blame travels down on the corporate ladder"

This is a universal fact with few exceptions. =3

: BoxOfRain | 21 hours ago
Or even more shortly: shit rolls downhill.

sennalen | 22 hours ago

Everyone involved will get their day in court. This is still the evidence-gathering phase in the bigger picture.

: [OP] sans_souse | 22 hours ago
To me it seems the system is actively working towards making that evidence more and more difficult to trace back to them.
: JojoFatsani | 19 hours ago
Well, not everyone.

JumpCrisscross | 22 hours ago

> This is a patsy with no power

Power is often exercised through patsies. Disabling them—and deterring the next one—really does matter. In this case, turning Big Balls into an example could incentives the next stooge to flip.

TazeTSchnitzel | 22 hours ago

The details of this are so absurd that it took me quite a while to realise this was talking about real events and not some kind of satire.

pstuart | 22 hours ago

We went through the looking glass 10 years ago...

hunterpayne | 16 hours ago

Sure, but its a hit piece. Its not even hiding that its warping relevant details in a disingenuous way. For instance, they say he was "involved in a cyber-crime ring". What this means is that he had a CDN that a cyber crime ring used. Something the article explicitly states farther down. Then there is the "he was active on a discord where cybercriminals hang out". Sure, but he works in security and its common to be on such boards to understand the nature of security threats. Doesn't mean there aren't real things in the article. He did get fired (at 17) for messing up at his first job. But that's about it. That you took the summary at face value...that's on you. But I get it, you have no idea what someone in computer/ops security actually does in their job and he's on the other team so he is bad.

: bathtub365 | 14 hours ago
So, to summarize: he was fired for cause and also assisted cybercriminals.
: compiler-guy | 6 hours ago
Where by "messing up his first job", you mean, "Intentionally leaked proprietary data in one of the stupidest ways possible, was caught, and apparently didn't learn anything from the event."

serf | 22 hours ago

my mind flipped a few times reading that headline.

"Big balls exposed" -- oh no! check your fly!

"big balls now exposed to" -- oh no! an environmental report that affects some men!

"big balls now exposed to serious criminal charges" -- oh no, I need to lawyer up!

"big balls now exposed to serious criminal charges in at least six states" -- "what? oh that fakey nickname for the dipshit that was in a fully fake semi-cabinet position for 20 seconds."

other comment pinned it : they're happy when that guy can take a fall. that's the whole point. chasing that guy to the bottom of the drain is useless.

: sennalen | 22 hours ago
He can flip and testify about Elon's responsibility

hackernud3s | 22 hours ago

If that kid's not careful he could end up president some day.

: penguin_booze | 16 hours ago
Twice, mind you.