> And it is sensitive data - even if it is open.

This is literally contradictory.

Data does not become sensitive because some random on HN says so. You are speaking with authority but have no idea what you are talking about.

Well, yeah, not from some rando, but that's not some rando, they are an employee of the government department that is trying to gut the government. That aside, the work product that is the result of an alaysis of open data can absolutely be sensitive - not because of the open data, rather because an adversary may be able to infer intent or plans from the tools, access patterns, or outputs of that analysis.

> This is literally contradictory.

Why is it contradictory? It could be sensitive and unsecured. Sensitive doesn't mean 'classified'.

> You are speaking with authority but have no idea what you are talking about.

What do you know about the GP?

He said, ironically speaking with authority on something he had no idea about..

"classification by compilation" is literally part of the Security Classification Guide (SCG) and given as mandatory training to everyone with a clearance at least once a year. Individually unclassified pieces of information can absolutely become sensitive or even classified when aggregated. Read the SCG people, this is not rocket science.

(I am not saying that applies here to this data. Merely stating that none of you have any idea what you are talking about.)

This is nonsense. If infrastructure locations are not classified then every potential malicious actor already knows them.

He is saying the malicious actor is doge itself, if I understood what is being said by the previous comment. Which is the idea behind which I posted the news here on hn

Correct