4 ms·

How exactly is this doxxing? When you're backchanneling cabinet-level access to a sizable chunk of the country's personal data (and a nontrivial amount of class

How exactly is this doxxing? When you're backchanneling cabinet-level access to a sizable chunk of the country's personal data (and a nontrivial amount of classified information to boot) you're now essentially operating as a public figure. This is reporting in the public interest. Nothing they revealed isn't available already as verifiable public information.

johnnyanmac 2y ago
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.
- rsoto2 2y ago
  They're public figures... is it doxxing if I tell everyone the members of One Direction?
- shipscode 2y ago
  What law are they breaking?
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    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Personal Data and United States Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern” (“the Order”) (though this may be rescinded by Trump) If any of those BS Crypto plans[0] have any weight to them That's a straight out constitutional overstep Article I, Section 8, Clause 5: "The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-needs-to-stop-now-elon-musk-confirms-radical-doge-us-treasury-plan/ 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.
- heavyset_go 2y ago
  > 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.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- nyc_data_geek1 2y ago
  Elon Musk isn't an elected official either. This shitshow needs to be brought to light, as it is the best disinfectant.
- unclebucknasty 2y ago
  >not public officials They chose this approach. No one is under any obligation to abet and protect them.
- stefap2 2y ago
  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.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    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.
eru 2y ago
> 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.)
- tw04 2y ago
  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.
  - eru 2y ago
    > 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.
    - tw04 2y ago
      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.
      - eru 2y ago
        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?
- 2y ago
scottoreily 2y ago
[dead]

johnnyanmac 2y ago

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.

rsoto2 2y ago
They're public figures... is it doxxing if I tell everyone the members of One Direction?
shipscode 2y ago
What law are they breaking?
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  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-needs-to-stop-now-elon-musk-confirms-radical-doge-us-treasury-plan/ 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.
heavyset_go 2y ago
> 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.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
nyc_data_geek1 2y ago
Elon Musk isn't an elected official either. This shitshow needs to be brought to light, as it is the best disinfectant.
unclebucknasty 2y ago
>not public officials They chose this approach. No one is under any obligation to abet and protect them.
stefap2 2y ago
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.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  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.

eru 2y ago

> 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.)

tw04 2y ago
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.
- eru 2y ago
  > 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.
  - tw04 2y ago
    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.
    - eru 2y ago
      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?
2y ago

scottoreily 2y ago

[dead]