It's still doxxing because these are not elected officials.

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.

What law are they breaking?

IANAL, but at a glance:

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Personal Data and United States Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern” (“the Order”) (though this may be rescinded by Trump)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.

> It's still doxxing because these are not elected officials.

They're acting in official capacity. I've lived in towns where the mayor is not elected. They're still public figures.

Elon Musk isn't an elected official either. This shitshow needs to be brought to light, as it is the best disinfectant.

>not public officials

They chose this approach. No one is under any obligation to abet and protect them.

They're public figures... is it doxxing if I tell everyone the members of One Direction?

It is legal to make a federal government employee’s name, role, and salary publicly accessible because taxpayer-funded positions fall under the scope of public interest and open-records laws, which promote transparency and accountability in the use of government funds. You can find this information on official databases like the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) website, which routinely publishes data about federal employees’ salaries and positions, as well as on other government websites that provide access to public records.

He's not a public employee though. Well, wasn't when I posted the comment. News moves fast.

I'm still not sure if the kids were actually hired though.

> This is reporting in the public interest.

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.)

Whether trump can legally create a whole new government department by executive order is up for debate, but he did it and hired these people into roles within it. By my math they have 0 right to hide from the expected scrutiny of any other public official.

> By my math they have 0 right to hide from the expected scrutiny of any other public official.

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.

What government organization in the US federal government hides the names of their leaders? Can you name one? Even our security agencies make those names publicly known.

I don't see what that has to do with anything in the discussion so far?

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?

Journalists reporting on people abusing government power is good. These people should be deeply scrutinized and shouldn't be able to hide while they destroy the machinery that hundreds of millions of people depend on.

So? I explicitly expressed no opinion on that.

> ...the doxxing _might_ be entirely justified and be in the public interest. I don't know.

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.