It is like that to prevent the state from persecuting people on the base that it is hard for a branch of the government to figure out who is someone based on a number from a different branch.
Do you know why they want to prevent the government from persecuting people?
Because it has already happened, and the portuguese don't want it to happen again.
Ex-Yugoslavian countries have had a global ID forever - the JMBG or, in Croatia, OIB [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_Master_Citizen_Number
To make sensible recommendations, DOGE needs data about the major programs within each agency. They can't tackle each agency consecutively, since there are more agencies than days until the deadline, so they are parallelising the work.
The access is read only, and they are not linking personal data between agencies, but rather doing a bunch of separate audits in parallel.
Trump has prohibited Musk from being involved in any reviews where he was a material conflict (FAA for example).
That's an interesting rephrasing for "sidestepping all security to get access".
> The access is read only, and they are not linking personal data between agencies
Yup, that's exacly what someone who wants to change the beneficiaries of a few contracts and payments, as well as fire some of the people overseeing my companies would say.
Hence why people are reacting negatively.
Most likely this involves scrubbing any personal data whenever possible, or anonymising it whenever it's not.
Most of their work doesn't involve personal data at all, and they only come across it incidentally.
Don’t you think it’s a problem you can’t say this with certainty or point to an authority who has assured us this, and there’s no way to verify if it’s true because theres’s no oversight of DOGE?
Would you tolerate such uncertainty from even a SaaS provider? Why should we tolerate it from our government?
Phew, and I was worried for a second...
Edit: to the down voters, go do some basic fact checking for Trump and Musk tweets and then we'll talk.
These means can easily lead to a nightmare. We've been through that a century ago. Look up Dehomag. Never Again.
I am a bit confused by your stressing the access is read-only. Isn't that obviously given (apologies for the redundant words, but I really don't know how to convey my confusion). For what purpose they could ever be given a write access to the hundreds of federal databases they are supposed to analyze?
Also, if they don't have the manpower to go over the data one by one then they don't have the power to go over them in parallel. When you say "parallelising the work" what exactly does that mean? What is it specifically that they are "parallelising"? Is there an engineer/analyst looking at multiple screens simultaneously and arriving conclusions for multiple agencies at the same time?
What does he know of the genesis and status of these payments? Congress directs spending and oversees the administration, not the other way around.
Why does he have to finish in an arbitrary time frame?
This is all justification after the fact for those who support Musk/Trump unconditionally.
It's all fun and games until your Medicare/Social Security/Tax Refund or other legitimate payment gets cancelled arbitrarily, illegally and unconstitutionally.
> Trump has prohibited Musk from being involved in with the review in agencies where he was a material conflict
I'm not saying these are or aren't happening, but it seems like a lot of "good faith" assumptions here. If you assume Musk is an unethical actor, these seem mostly meaningless.
If he got involved in a review of a program where he has a conflict, there's plenty of discontent government employees who would blow the whistle, moreover, if he made any recommendations relating to this, it would be obvious.
Regarding personal data, I'm not sure what technical safeguards they have in place, but given the potential reputational harm to the Trump admin if anything leaked, I'm sure they are doing everything possible to avoid touching it whenever possible, and anonymising it when they have to process it.
Elon is starting to catch on.
https://www.techdirt.com/2025/02/19/its-easy-to-save-billion...
They are literally firing people first and then calling them back? How is that efficiency?
I cannot believe we are talking about these people seriously with all the BS "We saved $* Billion dollars to stop Mind Control News" on the DOGE "website".
You keep saying things that are blatantly untrue, people give you massive evidence they aren't true, then you keep saying them. Why is that?
Elon Musk’s Companies Were Under Investigation by Five Inspectors General When the Trump Administration Fired Them and Made Musk the Investigator
https://wallstreetonparade.com/2025/02/elon-musks-companies-...
https://www.levernews.com/trump-purges-inspectors-general-in...
Agency sent a memo to all agency staff notifying them that “all election security activities” would be paused pending the results of an internal investigation. The memo also stated that the administration was cutting off all funds to the Election Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center—a Department of Homeland Security–funded organization that helps state and local officials monitor, analyze, and respond to cyberattacks targeting the nation’s election hardware and software.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/02/trump-doge-layof...
FDA staff were reviewing Elon Musk’s brain implant company. DOGE just fired them.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/02/17/fda-...
https://gizmodo.com/doge-reportedly-cuts-fda-employees-inves...
Secondly, Trump has clearly stated that Musk is not permitted to act where he has a conflict, and the agency directors will be aware of this.
Thirdly, you're giving examples of DOGE "firing" people in agencies where they aren't even active yet.
Secondly, Trump has clearly stated that Musk is not permitted to act where he has a conflict, and the agency directors will be aware of this.
Trump is honest and can be trusted in your experience?
If these aren't conflicts of interest, what would an actual conflict of interest look like?
Deferred resignation offers ("fork in the road" emails) and terminating all probationary employees (those without civil service protections) are cross-agency recommendations by DOGE since the beginning. It doesn't make sense to say they "aren't even active yet" when 8 days after inauguration the entire civil service was sent the same email that Twitter employees got.
Additionally, the EO establishing DOGE required all agency heads to assign a team from DOGE within 30 days, which has passed. They're everywhere.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/s-just-insanity-atf-now-needs-2...
Guns are constitutionally protected in a way that humans aren't.
This German "our government is not slow and inefficient it's just protection against totalitarianism" is pure cope.
Edit: @helloplanets Source: https://youtu.be/-bMzFDpfDwc?si=eIUkEuDBx3iX_TEx
Source?
You can still say anything, with a modicum of decency.
In the US we see that the only things keeping authoritarianism at bay is larger the people following norms (like the peaceful transfer of power after losing an election), and the executive obeying orders from the judiciary. All it takes is for a group to not to that any more and boom.
Short road to where 'slander' means any criticism (however objectively true and justified) of people in power and you get a swat team at your door and steel boot on your neck.
It is constantly abused, the issue is Germans have gaslit themselves into thinking that it's the right thing to do "because nazism was bad", so they have Nazi levels of speech censorship to fight imaginary Nazism, because once you label someone who disagrees with you as a Nazi you are free to censor them, which then in turn is causing the uprising of actual Nazism because people are tired of being censored for having opinions that oppose the mainstream narrative. Germans are really a difficult bunch to reason with logically.
> because once you label someone who disagrees with you as a Nazi you are free to censor them,
Show examples of it.
You're deflecting valid criticism about Germany's speech censorship with "Americans should shut up". Unbelievable.
In one case it wasn't slander. A person pointed out a politician's Nazi/Stati past on social media and he still sued abusing the "muh dignity" bullshit law.
In its current form, it's a set of SOAP or REST APIs that your organization gets access to after completing paperwork about your needs.
It was established by a 1990 law [1].
There is also a similar legal and technical setup for information on companies [2] where most information is public, and the register of residents [3] which is even more guarded.
[1] https://www.ksz-bcss.fgov.be/fr/page/loi-du-15-janvier-1990-...
[2] https://economie.fgov.be/en/themes/enterprises/crossroads-ba...
I was very much more intrigued about the statement that data can’t be easily/legally shared within the same agency
I worked for the equivalent of the IRS for two month in my country (student job basically). When people asked for a deferred payment, i could accept it if it was the first time, but when they asked for a deffered payment the second time, or for reduced taxes (recent job loss, loss of a house or big events like this), i had the mean to verify who the person asking for this was, but not the mean to approve it.
I verified the information and filled a form, then asked for approval. The person approving had no idea who the person asking was (he had no access to the tool i used to match the internal ID to an actual person), but had the form i filled, and approved of the deferred payment/reduced taxes without any knowledge of who asked. Also i did not know who that person was, and he did not know who i was.
All of that is not very effective, but it reduces the risk of corruption from civil servants: you either have limited information, or limited power (this isn't the case with mayor or other elected officials though).
Consider it from this hypothetical perspective: My mom is an analyst in the health service and has database access to produce various reports. Her access is extensive, to allow reporting on things like whether the courses of antibiotics prescribed by doctors are of the recommended length.
Meanwhile, I'm a rebellious teenager. My doctor asks me how often I smoke, drink, take drugs and engage in promiscuous sex. If my doctor enters my answers into my electronic medical record - should my mom be able to look at my record?
The answer, of course, is that her right to access data depends on what she's doing.
And since the current understanding is that even the combination of an IP address and a timestamp is personally identifiable... many organizations are actively not collecting usage stats. Which leads to the abuse of public funds, but this is a different story.
Americans are ultimately conditioned to accept leadership. Belgians have never and never will agree on anything.
This is why the electoral college is a weak point in American democracy and no wonder it was the actual target of the Jan 6th coup attempt, the Capitol invasion being merely a distraction. Weak points like this must sealed over so that the overall system is more robust to attacks.
Whenever anyone proposes to allow it, the members of the informal "Party for Tax Evasion" scream and denounce the descent towards "Taxation Fascism". It's so pathetically cheeky, that it feels a bit endearing (how dare them, what rascals!)
[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/02/07/apple-e...
There are vast differences between how the different governments operate.
How is the most populous state in the EU doing?
> The German parliament amended two laws on June 10th granting enhanced surveillance powers to segments of the federal police and intelligence services. They allow the use of spyware to hack into phones and computers circumventing encryption used by messaging applications such as WhatsApp and Signal, raising concerns about the right to privacy.
> The new federal police law allows interception of communications of “persons against whom no suspicion of a crime has yet been established and therefore no criminal procedure measure can yet be ordered”. This fails to ensure the necessary protection against unjustified and arbitrary interference in people’s privacy, required under international law. Human Rights Watch and the United Nations have pointed out the importance of encryption and anonymity for data protection and the right to privacy.
> The government argues that new legislation is needed to keep up with technological developments and claims the new powers are to help federal police stifle human trafficking and undocumented migration.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/06/24/germanys-new-surveillanc...
...oh
Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechia, Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, France
but I know my home country Sweden, which used to have solid freedoms, have deteriorated quickly in the last few years.
Which is why I have moved to Switzerland, where the citizenry respect each other privacy(no country is perfect, but I do believe their decentralised direct democracy will keep protecting their liberties).
A recent law has enabled the Swedish police to open mail to private individuals if they suspect there might be drugs in them. This is just one change of many that has reduced the liberties of the citizens.
Don’t get me wrong, the Swedes want it this way. They are no longer a freedom loving people, sadly.
https://www.sverigesradio.se/artikel/police-to-contact-thous...
A good reason might be to back up the serious accusation a few comments above.
> A recent law has enabled the Swedish police to open mail to private individuals if they suspect there might be drugs in them. This is just one change of many that has reduced the liberties of the citizens.
While this isn't ideal in a vacuum, I don't see the alternative. If physical mail is given inviolable privacy, you're pretty much handing bad actors the perfect delivery system on a silver platter. I'm sure there's other examples of decisions that increased Swedish authorities' surveillance capabilities, but to call a country a surveillance state requires a little more than "They can check your mail if they suspect you're using it for drug delivery".
Now there is enough reason to open private mail if the mail is a little squishy and it was sent from the wrong address.
You're saying agencies can be directed to opress people and organisations.
Op is saying agencies don't get to willy nilly look into the db of other agencies.
In contrast the Europeans have descended into petty mass wars and dictatorial regimes multiple times, and each time America has come to save Europe through that very Executive branch.
A bit thankless don't you think?
This is what democracy looks like, Americans should learn from Germany's example:
> According to the court document, the public prosecutor stated “public interest” in pressing criminal charges as the retweet was “punishable as an insult against people of political life”. It potentially constituted “incitement of the people”.
> Publicly insulting a politician has been a criminal offence in Germany since 2021 when a set of laws “against hate and hate speech” were passed under then-chancellor Angela Merkel.
https://brusselssignal.eu/2024/11/german-police-raid-mans-ho...
Also how about never descending into dictatorships and authoritarian regimes?
The erosion of trust in institutions and elections, up to insurrections are way out of that picture. Infront of that background, boasting about a strong executive branch, being cleansed not by merit (opposed to trumps own standard) sounds so absurd to me as a german.
Your orwellian interpretation about limited free speech is rooted in your free speech absolutism. We distinguish between limited freedom speech and unlimited freedom of oppinion. We also have processes involving courts to ban new, factually incorrect statements, aka. non-oppinions, to make it illegal bullshit.
To be fair, those probably are dangerous bullshit.
Europe hasn’t descended into total war since WWII because the US has military bases all over Europe, mostly in Germany.
> The Bavaria resident is also accused of posting Nazi-era imagery and language earlier in 2024. According to prosecutors, this post may have violated German laws against the incitement of ethnic or religious hatred.
> The man was arrested on Thursday as part of nationwide police operations against suspected antisemitic hate speech online.
https://www.dw.com/en/germany-greens-habeck-presses-charges-...
This article is more informative:
Translated (with DeepL.com):
> The public prosecutor's office in Bamberg has now announced: The search had already been requested before the Green politician himself filed a criminal complaint in the case.
> Habeck only filed a criminal complaint in the case more than a month after the search warrant had been requested.
> According to the public prosecutor's office, the suspect is also facing another charge: According to this, in spring 2024, he allegedly uploaded a picture on X with a reference to the Nazi dictatorship, which could potentially constitute the criminal offense of incitement to hatred. According to the investigators, it shows an SS or SA man with the poster and the words “Germans don't buy from Jews” and the additional text “True democrats! We've had it all before!”.
https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/schwachkopf-belei...
That's the level of delusion in your own greatness that led to Trump. USA was the first (representative!) democracy with written constitution at best. And that's if you overlook the fact that only some people were entitled to vote at all.
And no, the executive branch had much less power “in the beginning”. As many people have learned, what America’s constitution says has never really matched what America does. The increasing mindless worship of a dead text, called “originalism”, is part of what will destroy it.
This is the situation in China. In theory NPC is their governing body.
[insert random ad hominem attack here]
As far as the experiences of the Stasi and previous German governments, it must not have too much of a scar: Germany still asks people to register their religion — ostensibly for tax purposes, but if I recall correctly, Germany had a problem in the past with having a list of all people in a specific religion.
Doing that does not require anywhere remotely near the level of data access DOGE has been given.
It’s an important thing about free countries that is seldom appreciated: aspects of their governments are designed to be tar pits, on purpose. It’s a way of restraining government.
I have a personal saying that touches on something adjacent. “I like my politicians boring. Interesting government was a major cause of death in the twentieth century.”
When I think of governments that are both interesting and streamlined I think of the Nazis, the Khmer Rouge, Stalin era USSR, Maoist purges, etc.
This is a virulent anti-democracy movement. These are all popular programs being destroyed.
The people claiming to care about waste are untrustworthy liars. Trump added more to the debt than any prior president. He doesn't care about waste. His entire career is about spending other people's money and then screwing them.
Paying dead people social security isn’t popular. Sending money to the Taliban isn’t popular.
If a program is popular, Congress should line-item fund it rather than allowing unelected bureaucrats give out grants at their whims.
When you say Trump doesn’t care about waste, that isn’t supported by the facts. The deficit isn’t about waste, fraud or abuse, it’s about overspending. They aren’t the same thing.
It's 2025. Surely there's better ways to prevent HIV/AIDS than genital mutilation?
Is that $50,000 annual? Because if so that's less than a rounding error for the budget of almost any country, much less the US. The costs associated with ending this program (organizational, employee time) may even be higher than just continuing to pay it.
> Paying dead people social security isn’t popular.
Is there any public statistical data on this? As far as I know US social security does periodically verify if recipients are still alive. Of course some cases will slip through the cracks, but unless DOGE plans to individually track down every recipient and see them in person I don't see how they can solve this problem. This inevitably happens with pretty much any social security system, anywhere.
> Sending money to the Taliban isn’t popular.
Is there a source for this?
> When you say Trump doesn’t care about waste, that isn’t supported by the facts. The deficit isn’t about waste, fraud or abuse, it’s about overspending. They aren’t the same thing.
He could start by reducing overspending on the US' titanic corporate subsidies, but something tells me he won't.
Inefficiency is a useful property of many systems [0,1]. Current cultural obsessions around the word are a burden and mistake, and the word "efficiency" now feels rather overload with right-wing connotations.
That doesn't mean that being deliberately inefficient will improve resiliency. Also, some of the deliberate inefficiency (i.e. looking at weird thing us healthcae/health-insurance system has going on) is more ... extractive? That sounds like the word I am looking for.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/feb/08/judge-tem...
They have tried to get data of all payments to US citizens including pensions, 401k, benefits and allowances etc. All foreign aid and diplomacy payments are included, and they have been charged with trying to find ways to illegaly stop these payments.
Be very careful in supporting what Musk and DOGE do. They are unelected, and have been given unprecedented access to government data. Scary times are ahead.
False. It was a temporary injuction until the judge has time to review it.
> They are unelected,
So are 2.5 million other employees and advisors in government.
Do you actually have a cogent argument, or are just inherently anti-Musk and playing loosey goosey with the justification?
The dude made a Nazi salute in public in broad daylight. So yes, I'm inherently anti-Musk because I'm inherently anti-Nazi because Nazis are inherently anti human rights and anti basic freedoms.
Can you tell me a cost reduction plan involving police or military or do i have to label it law-and-order with a sharp salute for you to understand what i am talking about?
Communication is so messy man, two sides, same iterpretation ... just tell me when i can lower my arm of friendship, that absolutely noone could misunderstand.
Historically, that has not been the case, hence the question.
> Can you tell me a cost reduction plan involving police or military or do i have to label it law-and-order with a sharp salute for you to understand what i am talking about?
Just yesterday this[0] was a headline: "Hegseth wants Pentagon to cut 8% from defense budget for each of the next 5 years"
[0] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hegseth-pentagon-8-percent-cuts...
The 2.5 million you speak of operate within agencies whose mandates have been given by Congress and their actions are subject to judicial reciew. There is no Comgressional mandate for DOGE. They are the rogue agency people like you spent years worrying about.
"The United States Digital Service is hereby publicly renamed as the United States DOGE Service (USDS) and shall be established in the Executive Office of the President."
And I’m not sure why you think a “congressional mandate” is required for the executive to do things, it’s not. Especially for an agency that a former President created on his own.
As for data access, my understanding is the digital services agency already had data access to other agencies through pre-existing agreements (it goes back to the original mandate to fix the Obamacare website which required pulling data from numerous databases).
[1]https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/esta...
I give credit to Trump and Musk for playing the DC game like professional politicians.
It’s pretty clear you can’t get anything done in DC without it.
There is. It was given during Obama. You might not like it, but it looks like DOGE is likely to be completely legal and working within the frameworks of the government.
It was in fact multiple injunctions because people at DOGE kept trying to work around it in increasingly stupid ways.
> So are 2.5 million other employees and advisors in government.
Those employees are employed by a government agency established, funded and given their mission by Congress. The heads of these agencies are approved by the US Senate.
None of these statements above apply to Elon Musk or "DOGE."
We did this to ourselves.
I think it's worth pointing out that it's not a given Congress would have approved it all. For a start, it would take longer to legally setup the instruments that Musk wanted. Also, the current situation allows Republicans to conveniently wash their hands of any negative consequences. Which is likely a big reason they're not pushing on this at all, as demanding a vote would require them to take a clear side on DOGE.
I wonder how much of your concern is driven this type of paranoid hyperbole
A judgement that was presided by a well-known anti-Trump judge whose OWN daughter worked for "Authentic Campaigns" - which took significant payments to the tune of millions of dollars from the Biden-Harris campaign - and also $16 million from Schiff ? The judge should have recused himself as applicable under "Section 100.3(E)(1) of the Rules of Judicial Conduct", but then I guess it would have been hard to find another partisan judge if he had done so.
What a joke - that conviction truly proved to the ENTIRE world that the U.S. is a corrupt BANANA republic and does not possesses the moral authority to preach about "opposition treatment" to nations of the Global South. The next time a US Secretary of State threatens sanctions while preaching high-faluting nonsense about the principles of democracy, this judgement will definitely be brought up.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/doge/judge-denies-states-bi...
Nobody complained about "unelected" Obama or Biden appointees accessing the treasury or SSN, but now that Trump is exposing corruption en-masse and stopping the gravy train, many folks are suddenly very concerned. The FUD is unfortunately not working.
All this will probably go to the Supreme Court. And just like Biden ignored the Supreme Court ruling on student loans and even boasted about it proudly on twitter - saying they cannot block the executive, the precedent was also setup for Trump to do the same.
https://imgur.com/gallery/doge-math-wow-very-bad-much-corrup...
It's not the stupidest argument, but it applies to every last staff member of the us treasury.
None of the bureaucrats are elected, and this data has been gathered by the government to perform its functions. Insofar as Elon's team are pretty much just a couple of new bureaucrats bought in by Trump; they can use this data to streamline government. The office of president is pretty powerful; odds are he can appoint people to do work for him. It'd be crazy if he can't.
The problem is the government shouldn't be storing a whole bunch of sensitive data. It is like being shocked that someone in the NSA is actually looking at all the data they collect - there is a big problem there, but it is that they're collecting and storing the data. Obviously once they have it people will look at it. That is why it is being gathered and stored. It should be criminal to store on the grounds of privacy; but it isn't.
"On the grounds of privacy it should be criminal for the agency authorised to fund medical treatments to store people's sensitive medical records related to treatments they pay for" sounds like a much less defensible proposition than "on the grounds of privacy it should be criminal for what is nominally the government's IT advice body to hire a bunch of script kiddies without proper vetting or any genuine auditing credentials to download said sensitive medical records, store them as insecurely as they like, cross reference them with whatever other sensitive data they find on the grounds that they might be able to use them to tweet dubious claims about waste"...
We can call anyone a script kiddie. I know some people who do data analysis for government health departments. Calling them a script kiddie wouldn't be respectful but they are youthful and do run scripts. The process appointing Musk is was more public and accountable than the one appointing my friends. Musk even gets public debate on the subject of whether hiring his people is a good idea or not. They're being very well vetted.
People are weird. I feel like a lot of ink gets spilled pointing out that one day the government will be controlled by people you don't like no matter who you are. But that argument doesn't seem to get through to all these people who panic every time it turns out that democracies don't always elect the same people with the same ideologies over and over. Government isn't trustworthy and people shouldn't be discovering that en masse in February 2025.
I mean, even if it was as simple "$n recurring payments for $drug to $SSN over $period", that absolutely is sensitive private information, especially when linked to originally entirely separate but equally critical records about someone's employment by a body tasked with firing people...
It absolutely makes sense for records to be audited with great care by qualified people in an airgapped environment with anonymization by default, but that's not what's happening here, is it? It's like I'm actually pretty convinced that it's necessary for the state to be able to arrest and incarcerate people, but I'm not convinced that the "due process" bit doesn't matter or that untrained edgelords to be making the decisions on incarceration is fundamentally the same as having police, prosecution and a trial to lock people up. I don't think the answer to the fact I might not like every executive the electorate votes in (or every law that exists) is to defund police, I think the answer is to have due process, and not due process that is de facto abolished on the day a new executive assumes power. It's much the same with governments being able to store some data
> We can call anyone a script kiddie. I know some people who do data analysis for government health departments. Calling them a script kiddie wouldn't be respectful but they are youthful and do run scripts.
I think it's a pretty accurate description for a 19 year old whose short and undistinguished career history involves being fired from an internship at a cybersecurity firm for leaking its secrets to a competitor, and soliciting DDoS attacks on The Com.
Certainly better than "very well vetted".
I imagine young people you know that do data analysis for health departments have more auditing experience, fewer red flags, very carefully controlled access to data and senior people training them and checking their work. They would, I imagine, also be competent enough to be unlikely to confuse $8b and $8m when estimating cost savings...
Like tax returns? What legitimate need does management consultant have to see the individual tax returns of any person without any accountable transparency?
It gets back to this basic issue of what this data is that I don't want anyone to know but the government needs to have a permanent record of. The overlap of those two things should be tiny. If it is so terrible that Musk & team can't look at it, why is it OK to be recorded? It isn't like the security of these departments is expected to be that great; data leaks. All the data that a large organisation holds is likely to become public sooner or later even if that happens because it is sold on the darknet. And the employees that looks it it regularly are who-knows-who doing who-knows-what on a good day.
It is not illegal. You can bookmark this comment for when it finally winds its way through the courts. Whether you love or hate the idea, this is a clearly legitimate exercise of executive authority and this judge is going to get smacked down hard, and the foolish abuse of TROs is going to wind up getting their use by lower-court judges severely curtailed. Read the legal justification in the orders yourself.
Unfortunately a lot of people have lost their minds over this, and are burning through their credibility - some judges and journalists included. I don't know why, other than Musk is a moron and a polarizing figure. The Alantic breathlessly quoting government employees terrified to file their taxes because they're afraid Elon Musk will have their bank account number and routing info had my eyes rolling into the back of my head. This is fearmongering, not journalism.
I don't understand why we can't oppose this without reporting on it honestly. The problem on matters like this seems to be getting much worse over time.
> They are unelected, and have been given unprecedented access to government data.
So is everyone else in the Treasury Department.
> They have simply...
Oh yes, because this is all very simple. What is "waste"? How is it defined? Who decides what is waste and what isn't?
> This Executive Order establishes the Department of Government Efficiency to implement the President’s DOGE Agenda, by modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity.
There's nothing about government spending programs or staffing in there. Also the EO includes this funny sentence: "USDS shall adhere to rigorous data protection standards."
We see every day how technically inept and incompetent he is, I just wonder when the other shoe is going to drop for the average observer.
It is the emperor's new clothes writ large, and why I find Bezos's comment about taking him at face value so funny, is he slyly telling us he thinks the guy a fool, a troll, and nothing more?
We’re on a community that discusses, amongst other things, the running of firms and startups.
Just because someone is simply tasked with X, doesn’t mean we all agree to ignore the big picture. The big picture of
1) Complex projects
2) Security
3) High functioning teams
4) Ethics
This is fundamentally unethical, and irresponsible. I 100% think you agree with me on the irresponsible part.
You may sincerely stand on the reduction of waste, which frankly no one is going to argue. But a team this small, for a project this vital? This fast?
What was that saying? Good, Fast, Cheap? Pick 2? Why the flippty flip, is anyone here OK with fast and cheap?
Hell, What precisely are these people doing? What are the project milestones? Where can we see what’s going on?
And if the transparency of their actions is a cybersecurity risk - then which independent body is checking them?
Edit: Forget their elected, unelected status. Why should we turn around and trust them? What are they planning to do. I don’t want more outrage - you could find the whole thing was running on alien souls. What is the replacement method, and what is the gain we can expect from the changes?
If they’ve taken charge - then they should do the work, and do it well. And if it’s tech related or s/w related stuff, then talk about it, and explain.
More seriously, if it was true it would be a stupid task, with stupidly inappropriate people selected to do it. What is actually happening is idiot destruction. Whether that was the intent or simply the obvious outcome of stupidity is irrelevant to the damage being done.
I can't believe I'm reading such comments
Laws rarely include technical language like SQL joins.
Compare this to a physical storage of paper documents that need to be SQL joined, the effort required is several magnitudes more.
What it is good for is data breaches, it effectively limits the data that can be leaked at once.
This is a big reason they can’t get anything done or retain talent.
Government is no different.
European democracies have been dying from the same sclerosis their legacy multinationals have.
The US is going through actual change. The outrage over things not being done as they always have is nonsensical.
"Make recommendations" ?
Firing the folks that maintain nuclear weapons sounds like an action, not a recommendation:
* https://apnews.com/article/nuclear-doge-firings-trump-federa...
Firing the folks dealing with bird flu sounds like an action, not a recommendation:
* https://apnews.com/article/usda-firings-doge-bird-flu-trump-...
Then there's the folks making a list of all the agents who were pulled off other tasks and told to investigate Jan 6:
* https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-administration-compili...
Also firing a whole bunch of folks at the FAA even though it's already short staffed:
* https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly9y1e1kpjo
Seems to be it's less about finding savings and more about blindly purging people with no regard to how useful or inefficient things actually are.
Edit: OP dramatically edited their post. It originally made all kinds of claims of process and propriety that just aren't happening. This was the original that I was replying to:
”Most of the animosity comes from misunderstanding. Trump tasked "DOGE" with reviewing government spending across it's 400+ agencies, and coming up with recommendations on how to reduce wasteful spending. They have 1 year to complete this task. To make sensible recommendations, DOGE needs data about the major programs within each agency. They can't tackle each agency consecutively, since there are more agencies than days until the deadline, so they are parallelising the work.
The access is read only, and they are not linking personal data between agencies, but rather doing a bunch of separate audits in parallel.
Trump has prohibited Musk from being involved in with the review in agencies where he was a material conflict (FAA for example).”