In that case, yes, the OPM already “doxxes” most federal employees, even making their salary data public. It’s seen as a worthwhile tradeoff to give taxpayers transparency into how their money is spent.
These aren't low level federal employees doing menial work with the Medicare claims.
Part of the problem is we're not sure who is paying them and who ultimately they report to. Are they doing what's best for Musk and his business interests or what's best for the US? Even Altman has called out Musk in a similar fashion.
What's happening now is the exact opposite of transparency and accountability.
No, it quite obviously does not. "Doxxing" specifically involves information that was not intentionally public to begin with. If you write "John Lee Ratcliffe works for the CIA", that's obviously not doxxing, because he's the director of the CIA, which is a public title.
> In that case, yes, the OPM already “doxxes” most federal employees, even making their salary data public.
...which is clearly and categorically different than anything happening here, as OPM is the agency responsible for part of the management of said employees, and the rules that constrains it are decided by the President and/or Congress. That is categorically different than an individual, whether it's Elon or a Wired writer, going out of their way to publish private information that was not already intentionally made public, and who is not in a position of authority to have rightful custody of that information and has the ability to release it - especially if the intent behind publishing the information was to cause the individuals harm out of a political agenda, as in the Wired case.
It absolutely is doxxing according to the dictionary definition[1] of "to publicly identify or publish private information about (someone) especially as a form of punishment or revenge".
These are also not high-level senior officials or elected officials or those with public-facing personas - these are technical engineers whose positions do not mean that they are "always ripe to have their names and photographs in public reporting".
> Even if there was an effort to keep this information secret, it would almost certainly be subject to FOIA requests.
This is just factually wrong. Exemption 6 to FOIA[2] is "Information that, if disclosed, would invade another individual’s personal privacy." - which in practice means personnel names, among other things.
That's three falsehoods in a single paragraph.
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doxxing
[2] https://www.justice.gov/d9/what_are_the_9_foia_exemptions.pd...
I think the article we're discussing only reported their names, right? That is not "private information" about people who are public employees. And it is the role of journalism to report on public employees, not "a form of punishment or revenge".
They are high level officials! That's exactly the problem. They probably thought they were just taking technical roles, and I'm sympathetic to that, but that's not what they are doing, by the reporting in, again, the article we're discussing. (Did you read the article?)
They are reportedly joining high level meetings and have high level clearances in the agencies where they're working. Again, I'm sympathetic if they got there and were thrust into this stuff and are thinking "this isn't what I signed up for! I'm in way over my head!", but if that's the case, they should have said that and bowed out of this as gracefully as possible. Again, I'm sympathetic that this is a very difficult thing for a very young and ambitious person to have the wisdom to do, after taking what appears to be a dream job with a person they have probably looked up to their whole lives. But that's both exactly why they shouldn't have these high responsibility roles, and exactly why they are such useful patsies for the powerful people using them. This is why powerful people like to use young people (especially young men) to do their dirty work!
Your link on FOIA contains the quoted text, but not the claim that it "in practice means personnel names, among other things". I don't believe that is accurate, but would be interested in further citation.
The issue is that Elon Musk is highlighting them specifically in a negative way that will lead to very predictable, very personal, very negative outcomes without any recourse.
But yes, there is a difference between media reporting on what high-level government officials are doing and government (or quasi-government) officials singling out low level employees for ridicule. It's the difference between punching up and punching down.
But this is not among the worst things Musk is doing, and if it were a right-wing magazine doing reporting on employees in the federal government rather than someone using their role within the government itself to do it, I might find it distasteful but would have no real qualms about it.
I see those as different in reality. We can argue that semantically they can get twisted around as the same thing (government employees getting publicly named in a critical way), but that ignores extremely relevant real-world circumstances.
I do think it's bad to "doxx" people in the sense of sharing their addresses and phone numbers. But that's not what the article we're discussing does.
This article simply strikes me as normal reporting that is no different than "Treasury Secretary Bessent has hired so and so as an undersecretary for such and such, and this is what so and so has done and said in the past". These people seem to be working essentially at that undersecretary level. We always know who such people are, and we should.
- Public figures are public by influence; public servants are employees and can/should have their information revealed when necessary.
- Revelation of information of employees under public pay is not 'doxxing'. Making it seem as if it's 'doxxing' is stretching the definition, like saying someone merely touching you has committed 'violence'. Your intentional use of a more serious concept for a less serious one is misleading.
- Your private employer has no duty to the public, they answer only to the end stakeholders. In contrast, public servants must be accountable and known to the public - it's literally in their name, 'public' and 'servants'. Why you should confuse your status with that of public servants is bewildering.
I'm kind of surprised that no one has made the argument that there is something special about these individuals, the work they're doing, or the circumstances of their work. There are, after all, exceptions to the "normal rules." But the fact that no one is making this argument is, at the end of the day, quite telling.
Well at least you acknowledge your position is not motivated by law or normal judgment.
EDIT: "Wasn’t he authorized by the President, the chief executive?"
The President doesn't have the authority to do that.
One of the ways the president is limited is that the he can't authorize people to commit crimes. e.g. he couldn't instruct his AG to open an investigation into his political opponent under false pretenses in order to hurt his electoral chances. If the AG were to do that, it would be a crime. So the question isn't whether the president has authorized Musk to do something, but whether or not the president even has the power to do the thing he delegated.
And what is the power in question? It's control over spending appropriated by Congress. And that's where separation of powers comes in. Congress is supposed to control the purse strings, and the president is supposed to make sure the money is spent on the priorities of the people, taking care of prosecuting fraud and abuse. The point of giving Congress this power is to give the people a mechanism to set their priorities on how their own money is spent. It shouldn't be the case that one guy comes in and then gets to decide how to spend all out money.
But that appears to be what they are trying to do, in claiming that their cuts are all under the guise of reducing fraud and abuse. But really what they're trying to do is do an end-run around Congress. They want all the money, but they don't want to have Congress vote on it, because they don't actually have the votes to implement the agenda they want to, since Congress is so divided. So instead they're just taking the funding they have and allocating it in ways that support only the agenda items they want to see implemented.
ok, but since the investigative (FBI) and the prosecutorial (US Attorney) apparati are under the control of the executive, if the local USA goes along with Trump and against the law, the remedy is....what exactly?
In practice this is extremely unlikely because the threshold for the vote in the Senate is high enough that you'd need bipartisan consensus, and the US Constitution wasn't really written expecting the party system to exist.
The constitution gives Congress sole authority to control spending and any payments Musk stops is a extreme violation of the Constitution. I really hope this ends with Musk either in prison for life or with his US citizenship revoked and him deported back to South Africa.
https://web.archive.org/web/20250106031150/https://www.usaid...
https://web.archive.org/web/20250106124223/https://www.white...
https://web.archive.org/web/20250109103910/https://www.white...
So on page 137 it looks like Biden got congress to approve the executive branch having $86 trillion to spend over the next 10 years.
Trump and Elon want that money. Let them have it. I'd rather see it go towards taking us to Mars rather than whatever Biden was doing.
You still believe the lies that con artist Musk tells you? He isn't ever going to Mars. Tesla is never going to have FSD so good they are willing to take legal liability for accidents the way Waymo does.
Two things are true at once:
1. The rule of law is real and important.
2. The rule of law is not a magical thing that enforces itself, and many people seek to undermine it for their own enrichment, so those of us who believe #1 is correct (which is most people in the US) must understand the levers of power and use them to maintain t it.
Despite the current struggles, I think we have some real advantages in this fight. One of those is actually just capitalism. We have financialized trust in the US government, via the bond market. That trust is not entirely downstream of the rule of law, but it is to a fairly large degree. We have already seen once that an effort by the administration to squelch on its contractual obligations was quickly reversed, which was this basic mechanism at action. The worst things DOGE could do with this (illegal) control over the Treasury would be unworkable for this same reason.
There are still horrible outcomes that aren't subject to this constraint (and in my opinion, we need to reform the pardon power in order to maintain the rule of law moving forward), but it's not true that there are no constraints.
Checkmate, Justin.
Meanwhile, in the nursery the rule of law is quietly taking its afternoon nap.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3...
What Trump and Musk are doing with DOGE and the federal payment system is in blatant violation of this separation of powers.
Something called impoundment?
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S3-3-7/...
Why on earth do you think the people destroying the system would be excluded from criticism?
While it seems you are implying that is not cool, it’s actually unremarkable and common government transparency.
https://cthrupayroll.mass.gov/#!/year/2025/card/1
Federal pay is already supposed to be public knowledge and is highly regulated based on role https://www.federalpay.org/. Although who knows if that's true anymore. Seems like all precedent is up in the air nowadays
I got all pissed in college when I read a magazine article about how the football coach at the state school I attended was the highest paid state employee that year. There was nothing weird about that article, and I think it's very similar to your hypothetical.
I do, ideologically, think that it's much better for reporters to focus on powerful people near the top, but I don't think it's weird to report on government employees, in general.
Just unfortunate that the resources are going there.
But even if Wired did, it still wouldn't be "doxxing", which used to imply publishing not just names but addresses and other PII (like SSNs) for non-public, non-governmental figures.
That's not doxxing, that's accountability of the government to the people. Doxxing is when a person is doing a participant in an online discussion group and information they haven't made public about their real world identity, etc., is made public, it is not when people are performing high level government management functions and their identity is attached to their actions.
When Musk does it:
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1858916546338590740
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1858914228624924963
When others do it:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ParlerWatch/comments/1igw3cs/elon_m...
https://x.com/jessesingal/status/1886479301081522599
(The names it includes are already in the Wired article)
This is reporting in the public interest. Nothing they revealed isn't available already as verifiable public information.
But then again... these are people outright breaking the law and I sure do want to know who's potentially tampering with my data. If the courts won't do it, someone has to put names and faces to this.
U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
U.S. Code § 371 - Obstructing or Impairing Legitimate Government Activity
Executive Order 14117 of February 28, 2024, “Preventing Access to Americans' Bulk Sensitive Personal Data and United States Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern” (“the Order”) (though this may be rescinded by Trump)
If any of those BS Crypto plans[0] have any weight to them That's a straight out constitutional overstep
Article I, Section 8, Clause 5: "The Congress shall have Power . . . to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; . . ."
I'm probably only scratching the surface here. I'm not surprised if there's a dozen other laws with legal ledger around this. You don't want any one man messing with the economy.
[0]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2025/02/02/this-...
>Now, as fears emerge Trump’s administration is “dangerously” undermining the U.S. dollar, Musk has confirmed he wants to put the U.S. Treasury on a blockchain, the technology that underpins bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies—including Musk’s pet project dogecoin.
They're acting in official capacity. I've lived in towns where the mayor is not elected. They're still public figures.
They chose this approach. No one is under any obligation to abet and protect them.
I'm still not sure if the kids were actually hired though.
This might be true, however...
> Nothing they revealed isn't available already as verifiable public information.
... collating publicly available information and publishing it in one place would still meet my definition of doxxing.
(In this case, the doxxing _might_ be entirely justified and be in the public interest. I don't know.)
Yes, I explicitly did not challenge that. (Though I have no clue whether I should agree with it, either.)
I challenged the justification of "Nothing they revealed isn't available already as verifiable public information."
Something being a good thing (or true or whatever), doesn't automatically make all arguments in favour of that thing good arguments.
It looks like you can't believe that there are bad arguments for good causes; and instead want to keep arguing that the cause is good, and thus all arguments must be good?
No, you did express an opinion. Reporting on people carrying out unconstitutional and illegal orders is clearly in the public interest and framing that as "doxxing" reveals that opinion.
Mocking != doxing.
Musk was horrid to do that, but it's a different thing.
"This community has been banned
This subreddit has been temporarily banned due to a prevalence of violent content. Inciting and glorifying violence or doxing are against Reddit’s platform-wide Rules. It will reopen in 72 hours, during which Reddit will support moderators and provide resources to keep Reddit a healthy place for discussion and debate."
Reddit banned it because they were threatened by Elon. And the 'doxing' everyone is talking about is the naming of Elon's rightwing goons who took over federal systems lol. He said the same 'tHeY aRe cOmMItTinG a CrImE' bullshit against wired and other outlets who reported on his goons.
As for violent content on reddit lets be real please. If you want to talk about violence open a Israel-Palestine thread not /r/whitepeopletwitter lol..
DOGE also has no legitimate need or legal right to access the federal payment system. He is in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and should be arrested and put on trial along with any other DOGE employee who has accessed the federal payment system.
Here is what Claude has to say:
If an employee of the US government were to gain access to the federal payment system and stop a payment that was authorized by Congress what crime would they be guilty of?
This scenario would likely constitute several federal crimes under Title 18 of the United States Code:
The primary offense would be embezzlement and theft of public funds under 18 U.S.C. § 641, as the employee would be misappropriating or interfering with government money.
Since this involves computer systems, they would also violate 18 U.S.C. § 1030 - the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). Specifically, subsection (a)(4) which prohibits accessing a protected computer with intent to defraud.
The act would additionally qualify as conversion and misapplication of government funds under 18 U.S.C. § 648, since it involves an officer or employee converting public money to unauthorized purposes.
Furthermore, this action would violate the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. § 1341) which prohibits federal employees from preventing the execution of budget appropriations made by Congress.
If the employee acted with others, conspiracy charges under 18 U.S.C. § 371 could apply.
The maximum penalties vary by statute but can include:
Up to 10 years imprisonment for embezzlement
Up to 5 years for CFAA violations
Up to 10 years for conversion of public money
Up to 2 years for Anti-Deficiency Act violations
And DeepSeek R1
If a U.S. government employee unlawfully accessed the federal payment system to stop a congressionally authorized payment, they could face several criminal charges, depending on the specifics of their actions. Key potential violations include:
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) - 18 U.S.C. § 1030:
If the employee exceeded authorized access or acted without authorization to manipulate the payment system, they could be charged under the CFAA, which criminalizes unauthorized access to computer systems.
Obstruction of Federal Proceedings or Official Duties - 18 U.S.C. § 1505 or § 1913:
§ 1505: Obstruction of agency proceedings or congressional actions.
§ 1913: Prohibits using appropriated funds to lobby or interfere with government decisions, though applicability may depend on intent.
Interfering with congressionally mandated payments could constitute obstruction of lawful government functions.
Theft or Conversion of Government Funds - 18 U.S.C. § 641:
If the payment was lawfully owed and the employee’s actions deprived the recipient of funds, this could be seen as theft or conversion of government property.
False Statements or Fraud - 18 U.S.C. § 1001:
If the employee falsified records, submitted false information, or lied to justify stopping the payment, they might face charges for making false statements.
Conspiracy - 18 U.S.C. § 371:
If others were involved, conspiracy charges could apply to defraud the U.S. or commit other offenses.
Malfeasance or Misconduct in Office:
While not a specific federal statute, general misconduct or breach of public trust could lead to charges under broader provisions or administrative penalties (e.g., termination, fines).
Intent: Prosecution would require proof of willful intent to obstruct or defraud.
Harm: The impact (e.g., financial loss, disruption of government operations) could influence charges and sentencing.
DOGE also has no legitimate need or legal right to access the federal payment system. He is in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and should be arrested and put on trial along with any other DOGE employee who has accessed the federal payment system.
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) - 18 U.S.C. § 1030:
If the employee exceeded authorized access or acted without authorization to manipulate the payment system, they could be charged under the CFAA, which criminalizes unauthorized access to computer systems.
Obstruction of Federal Proceedings or Official Duties - 18 U.S.C. § 1505 or § 1913:
§ 1505: Obstruction of agency proceedings or congressional actions.
§ 1913: Prohibits using appropriated funds to lobby or interfere with government decisions, though applicability may depend on intent.
Interfering with congressionally mandated payments could constitute obstruction of lawful government functions.
Theft or Conversion of Government Funds - 18 U.S.C. § 641:
If the payment was lawfully owed and the employee’s actions deprived the recipient of funds, this could be seen as theft or conversion of government property.
False Statements or Fraud - 18 U.S.C. § 1001:
If the employee falsified records, submitted false information, or lied to justify stopping the payment, they might face charges for making false statements.
Conspiracy - 18 U.S.C. § 371:
If others were involved, conspiracy charges could apply to defraud the U.S. or commit other offenses.
Malfeasance or Misconduct in Office:
While not a specific federal statute, general misconduct or breach of public trust could lead to charges under broader provisions or administrative penalties (e.g., termination, fines).If DOGE stops any payments that Congress has approved they are violating
Theft or Conversion of Government Funds - 18 U.S.C. § 641
Musk is also lying his ass off about USAID to justify what he is doing so he would be violating
Conspiracy - 18 U.S.C. § 371:
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) - 18 U.S.C. § 1030:
If the employee exceeded authorized access or acted without authorization to manipulate the payment system, they could be charged under the CFAA, which criminalizes unauthorized access to computer systems.
Obstruction of Federal Proceedings or Official Duties - 18 U.S.C. § 1505 or § 1913:
§ 1505: Obstruction of agency proceedings or congressional actions.
§ 1913: Prohibits using appropriated funds to lobby or interfere with government decisions, though applicability may depend on intent.
Interfering with congressionally mandated payments could constitute obstruction of lawful government functions.
Theft or Conversion of Government Funds - 18 U.S.C. § 641:
If the payment was lawfully owed and the employee’s actions deprived the recipient of funds, this could be seen as theft or conversion of government property.
False Statements or Fraud - 18 U.S.C. § 1001:
If the employee falsified records, submitted false information, or lied to justify stopping the payment, they might face charges for making false statements.
Conspiracy - 18 U.S.C. § 371:
If others were involved, conspiracy charges could apply to defraud the U.S. or commit other offenses.
Malfeasance or Misconduct in Office:
While not a specific federal statute, general misconduct or breach of public trust could lead to charges under broader provisions or administrative penalties (e.g., termination, fines).It's a very odd time. The USA is emerging into a combination of a Kleptocracy, a Kakistocracy, Autarky and Technocracy. It's like somebody's dream pivot fractured into every ocracy under the sun.
I don't have to subscribe to a belief in a conspiracy to advantage Russia, to beleive the SITUATION will advantage people who benefit from an unstable US polity.
I also don't have to subscribe to a belief it was "the plan" to believe the super-rich will ride over this wave, and pick the cream off as it floats upward. Thats what they do, all the time. This is just a particularly active milk churn and there's going to be a LOT of cream.
I myself do not find left-right divide that much useful, at least to describe this melting pot of our time.
Banning users with moderate opinions is not normal in everyday life, but is routine in many subreddits. Including users sharing opinions held by moderate democrats.
Reddit is not a community, it's a collection of communities. Each may be an echo chamber, but it's an echo chamber in its own way.
These days, all the default subs are left leaning, most are far-left leaning, which means most users have a partisan experience. This then impacts the overall makeup of the site’s userbase which cascades this bias through every other subreddit.
Sure, there are a small number of relatively low traffic communities that have held out, but they are now an insignificant proportion of the content on the site.
It’s a natural artefact of the voting systems it uses for recommending content. These tend to result in echo chambers because political extremism results in more engagement, and thus more extreme users vote more and have a larger influence on what is shown.
This is then amplified by the echo chamber effect, which distills the user base into ever more extreme positions as the moderate users find their opinions outside the evolving fringe of acceptable opinion.
The reason I class it as far-left now, even though I wouldn’t in the past, is two things:
Firstly, it is now plagued with extremist content, including calls to violence, which are tolerated by users and moderates alike.
Secondly, the opinions expressed have a left bias relative to other members of the left. There are plenty of moderate democrats, including people like Obama, who would quickly find themselves banned from many default subreddits for their more moderate tolerant opinions.
I'm just glad we have social networks which are left-wing to bring balance to the system.
It’s a nonstop barrage of nazi labels, overblown news, and comments that “hint” at more direct involvement and violence.
It's so weird that I've even started to doubt whether most of those comments are from real people.
I personally tried to follow all the news for a week. I tried to read the articles and research what was shared on reddit. Oftentimes my interpretation of these news wasn't nearly as dramatic as what reddit was aligning on. At the end, I figured it's too much work to double check every single piece of news, so I just stopped using reddit for some time.
Well, remaining uninformed is certainly one way to prevent hysteria.
Not getting every single detail of a story as it develops isn't really a big deal to me and, I'd also argue that following these news on reddit won't really make you more informed (I already shared one example where the news was discussed but the conversation was entirely off from the reality). Reddit only makes you feel more informed, but that doesn't mean that you actually are.
Now you have a huge trade war going on, he keeps threatening the soveriegnty of multiple long time allies, a billionaire has extensive access to government data (the same one that did that nazi salute), along with ICE being ramped up all in the first couple weeks of his term. Our president also ran a crypto scam that made him billions right before his term started. He also keeps joking about running for a third term and is challenging a 150 year constitutional law on birthright citizenship with an executive order. Even you have to admit that this is a lot going on compared to anything we've seen before.
Here is one example of an overblown piece of news: https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1ib9csy/donald_trum...
A lot of comments and energy were expended there. Everyone talked as if it were the end of NATO and that the U.S. was abandoning Europe. In reality, it was just a 20% reduction in force (which was the first sentence in the linked article).
On the flip side, the trade war with Canada deserved heavy criticism—and luckily, it was well covered (I count that as a win).
From the list you just shared, I don't really have a good sense of the relative severity of each and I think it's because there is no place where these topics could be discussed (even HN isn't immune as you can see from one of the comments below)
What makes it far-left are the calls for violence all over the place, and the rejection of opinions from more moderate democrats.
When even the hyper sensitive ADL can admit that musk did not do a Nazi salute, but your users cannot, you’ve become a far-left echo chamber.
That’s like a frog saying the water isn’t getting warmer.
Today it is a far-left echo chamber in most large subreddits.
The process of change was gradual. Like all echo chambers it is a result of distillation, with marginal moderate users progressively leaving in response to seeing the shrinking frontier of acceptable discourse.
Writing this made me realize not just how different Reddit was, but also the issues of the time and the ways they were thought of and talked about. It's almost hard to map onto contemporary parties, policies or issues.
So partly orthogonal to the main left-right axis.
That doesn't mean it's OK to call for violence against them! But Wired isn't doing that. It does mean that news outlets need to report on who they are and what they're doing, even if they fear (even if they know) that third parties might issue death threats.
The way it's supposed to work is the executive sends an aspirational budget to congress that embodies his policy agenda, our representatives vote on the budget, the congress appropriates the money that we send the government to the executive branch, and then the executive branch spends that money, again, faithfully. That's the oath he took. What that means operationally is that he can't just defund things we voted for in the budget that doesn't match his political agenda. Doing so should be impeachable, because it would represent a breach of his oath. It doesn't matter that he has a different agenda, he's the president for everyone.
Since he's not doing it this way, that's why people are pointing it out as unconstitutional, and illegal.
For DOGE to be legal what it needs to operate in just an advisory capacity. It should recommend things to cut, but there has to be reasons, an auditable process, transparency, and meaningful oversight. For starters, Musk has a massive conflict of interest in that he's a recipient of government contracts. So he himself shouldn't even be part of this process without first answering to that. If we keep going down this path, the people advocating for it now will not like being on the receiving end when that level of capriciousness is directed against them.
Finally, this is not capricious, this is absolutely well considered. If you haven’t realised the government has spent vast quantities of money, printed advanced quantities of money to do it, and caused record in inflation.
Why? Its ok when our betters engage in such behavior and who could be better than the rich?
When some poors like "journalists" try to do this, they're just upending the system for their own gain. It would really be tolerating corruption if you just tolerated them ripping up our current system of governance just because they preferred a different set of rules. Elections have consequences and its just gauche to ignore the results like this.
It’s a fundamental matter of opinion driving the discourse - not the misappropriation of some objectively correct morality.
When it comes to these people specifically, they need to be publicly called out. What's happening is unprecedented and possibly illegal. I know most of the press has been bought off or strong-armed to look the other way by the new administration, but at least someone is still doing reporting.
Sometimes HN really confuses me.
I hope people condemning the former also condemn the latter.