DOGE staffer 'Big Balls' provided tech support to cybercrime ring, records show

Nature of the Allegations

• Article says a DOGE staffer previously ran a CDN that was used by a known cybercrime group, which publicly thanked his company for DDoS protection and hosting.
• Some commenters see this as confirming earlier suspicions about DOGE’s connections to shady hacker circles.

Is This Serious or a Non-Story?

• One camp argues this is a nothingburger: lots of infrastructure providers (Cloudflare, Akamai, VPNs, Signal, Tor, crypto projects) are used by criminals; that doesn’t make them criminal collaborators.
• Others think it’s significant because this appears to be a very small CDN whose only known or primary customer was a cybercrime outfit, promoted within a cybercrime community, not a mainstream platform with incidental abuse.

Legal vs Moral Responsibility

• Debate over whether providing CDN/DDoS services can be “aiding and abetting”:
  • Some say that would only apply if the service was purpose-built or marketed for crime (bulletproof hosting, explicit promises to hide identity, etc.).
  • Others argue that if the operator knew the customer was a criminal group and continued anyway, that’s complicity, regardless of how generic the tech is.
  • Several note that criminal liability hinges on intent and knowledge; evidence of that in this case is unclear from the article.

Security Clearances and Government Access

• Strong concern that someone with undisclosed ties to a cybercrime milieu is being given privileged access to federal systems without normal clearance, background checks, or least-privilege controls.
• Comparisons made to hiring ex-hackers:
  • Mitnick consulted for the FBI after conviction and vetting, and in a limited advisory role.
  • Here, commenters see a teenager with no demonstrated reform placed effectively “inside the systems,” with handlers and safeguards removed.

Broader Political Context

• Many comments tie this to a larger pattern: Trump allegedly bypassing norms, attacking law firms, and accelerating authoritarian tendencies.
• Some argue “innocent until proven guilty” doesn’t apply to clearance decisions; those are about risk, not criminal proof.
• Fears that DOGE’s actions may force a future administration to rip and replace compromised systems; others doubt there will be a meaningful “next” administration change.
• Side discussion on “deep state” as career officials loyal to the country vs. loyalty to a leader, and on whataboutism (Hillary’s emails vs. current Signal use) as a way to probe hypocrisy vs. a distraction.