> Reuters noted that the Deputy Attorney General’s office is in charge of investigations into various crimes, "including hacking and other malicious cyber activity."

Assuming this is true, wouldn't a history of hacking activity actually be an upside? I don't like Musk but I'm not a fan of the negative spin. Hell, when I was 15 I'm sure some things I did could now be charged as "hacking" or "cyberterrorism" or something much harsher than the actual reality under today's laws.

edit after reading further along:

> Among them was Jonathan Rusch, a 25-year DOJ veteran prosecutor now in academia, who told Reuters that Stanley's apparent history of disclosing illegally acquired data should have prompted "serious concerns."

Is this guy a veteran who prosecutes, a guy who prosecutes veterans, or something else? It feels even weirder to spin the Doge employees as inexperienced kids (which they may be) but then to call a 25 year old critic a veteran prosecutor.

I don't think the article is saying that the prosecutor is 25 years old. It's saying that he has 25 years of experience as a prosecutor.

And if the current laws prevent you from getting a security clearance, then that is what it is. Sure the laws can be changed, but in this context it’s probably better to exclude some “reformed” people than letting “criminals” through.