6 ms·

decades of government rot finally being subjected to the most trivial auditing and you have liberals invoking the Reichstag fire is this where we are? you lite

decades of government rot finally being subjected to the most trivial auditing and you have liberals invoking the Reichstag fire is this where we are? you literally cannot have even demand trivial operational competency without being called a nazi?

garte 2y ago
this is too simplistic, please read up on previous performances of elmo. in a democratic system you should have auditable changes to government systems. this does not seem to be that: ``` “You could do anything with these privileges,” says one source with knowledge of the system, who adds that they cannot conceive of a reason that anyone would need them for purposes of simply hunting down fraudulent payments or analyzing disbursement flow. ``` as a citizen this should concern you.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> demand trivial operational competency I've been moderately on board with DOGE's mission as an advisory group. Hell, even with Musk as SGE. But this is batshit fucking crazy. We put entire countries on grey lists because some oligarch's lacky even has read access to their national payments systems. And those governments at least give the lackey a role. This 25-year old is now a top intelligence target for every agency on the planet. He will probably remain so for the rest of his life. He wasn't elected. The man he is loyal to--who hired him and pays his salary--was never elected. He's so unknown that the first page of search results pulls up unrelated water polo players. Yet he's somehow in a position of, practically speaking, more power than the Federal Reserve?
- palmfacehn 2y ago
  Even if we accept all of this, it doesn't justify the persistent reducto-ad-hitlerum. > We put entire countries on grey lists because some oligarch's lacky even has read access to their national payments systems. And those governments at least give the lackey a role. Presumably someone else had access to the system before the current changes. What's left to object to? Is ageism appropriate here? Going back to the OP's objection, the whole exercise seems like more partisan hyperbole.
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    > What's left to object to? Uhhh, virtually everything is still left? Those regular humdrum protective policies large organizations adopt after they keep getting burned for not having them? For example, security clearances, and background checks, which aren't so much about morality as to ensure the person has no secrets an enemy can they blackmail them with. Or what about financial disclosures for conflicts of interest? Then a different person can be tasked with certain projects to avoid unnecessary temptation to peak, leak, or tweak.
    - palmfacehn 2y ago
      Are we sure that no background checks have been performed? Has anyone claimed that no security clearance has been granted?
      - Terr_ 2y ago
        Yes, the people who tried to obey the laws passed by Congress were "placed on leave" in retaliation. > Musk’s DOGE crew lacked high-enough security clearance to access that information, so the two USAID security officials — John Vorhees and deputy Brian McGill — were legally obligated to deny access. https://fortune.com/2025/02/02/elon-musk-doge-usaid-classified-info-security-chiefs-leave/ https://fortune.com/2025/02/02/elon-musk-doge-usaid-classifi...
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > someone else had access to the system before the current changes. What's left to object to? Those people reported to someone elected, or hired by and confirmed by electeds. His age is irrelevant beyond his lack of government, payments or public financial experience. (You're correct inasmuch as these systems should not have been built to allow such unauditable access.) > it doesn't justify the persistent reducto-ad-hitlerum Totally agree. Some people have been at Defcon 1 since 2016. They're now suffering the fate of the boy who called wolf. But let's remember: in the end, the wolf was real. This time, the boy isn't guarding his personal flock. He's guarding ours. This kid in the Treasury is fucking with our government and our system of money. We need to be hypervigilant, specifically, to ensuring we know what these people are looking at, where they're storing it, what they're changing and what they're deleting. If we learn there's fuckery afoot, that calls for breaking norms, conventions and possibly small laws to counter that. Given the political cards, that must happen at the state level. (This is too new. I have no suggestions.) > the whole exercise seems like more partisan hyperbole I don't think so. There are laws with teeth this man is violating. The Privacy Act and FISMA were mentioned. If he's accessing anything related to tax returns, that's super criminalised, potentially beyond the reach of a pardon since those records include state filings. Potentially more problematically, it may not be possible for him to easily prove he didn't fuck with anything illegally. That shouldn't be enough to convict. But it's almost certainly enough to prosecute, if only to produce a public record showing there wasn't evidence that it happened.
gnomesteel 2y ago
Trivial auditing? If that’s what you think is happening you clearly aren’t paying attention.
IamLoading 2y ago
Why not start with an organization that failed an audit 8 different times, the Pentagon. while its budget bloating every term. I highly doubt it will be touched.

garte 2y ago

this is too simplistic, please read up on previous performances of elmo. in a democratic system you should have auditable changes to government systems. this does not seem to be that: ``` “You could do anything with these privileges,” says one source with knowledge of the system, who adds that they cannot conceive of a reason that anyone would need them for purposes of simply hunting down fraudulent payments or analyzing disbursement flow. ``` as a citizen this should concern you.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> demand trivial operational competency I've been moderately on board with DOGE's mission as an advisory group. Hell, even with Musk as SGE. But this is batshit fucking crazy. We put entire countries on grey lists because some oligarch's lacky even has read access to their national payments systems. And those governments at least give the lackey a role. This 25-year old is now a top intelligence target for every agency on the planet. He will probably remain so for the rest of his life. He wasn't elected. The man he is loyal to--who hired him and pays his salary--was never elected. He's so unknown that the first page of search results pulls up unrelated water polo players. Yet he's somehow in a position of, practically speaking, more power than the Federal Reserve?

palmfacehn 2y ago
Even if we accept all of this, it doesn't justify the persistent reducto-ad-hitlerum. > We put entire countries on grey lists because some oligarch's lacky even has read access to their national payments systems. And those governments at least give the lackey a role. Presumably someone else had access to the system before the current changes. What's left to object to? Is ageism appropriate here? Going back to the OP's objection, the whole exercise seems like more partisan hyperbole.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  > What's left to object to? Uhhh, virtually everything is still left? Those regular humdrum protective policies large organizations adopt after they keep getting burned for not having them? For example, security clearances, and background checks, which aren't so much about morality as to ensure the person has no secrets an enemy can they blackmail them with. Or what about financial disclosures for conflicts of interest? Then a different person can be tasked with certain projects to avoid unnecessary temptation to peak, leak, or tweak.
  - palmfacehn 2y ago
    Are we sure that no background checks have been performed? Has anyone claimed that no security clearance has been granted?
    - Terr_ 2y ago
      Yes, the people who tried to obey the laws passed by Congress were "placed on leave" in retaliation. > Musk’s DOGE crew lacked high-enough security clearance to access that information, so the two USAID security officials — John Vorhees and deputy Brian McGill — were legally obligated to deny access. https://fortune.com/2025/02/02/elon-musk-doge-usaid-classified-info-security-chiefs-leave/ https://fortune.com/2025/02/02/elon-musk-doge-usaid-classifi...
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > someone else had access to the system before the current changes. What's left to object to? Those people reported to someone elected, or hired by and confirmed by electeds. His age is irrelevant beyond his lack of government, payments or public financial experience. (You're correct inasmuch as these systems should not have been built to allow such unauditable access.) > it doesn't justify the persistent reducto-ad-hitlerum Totally agree. Some people have been at Defcon 1 since 2016. They're now suffering the fate of the boy who called wolf. But let's remember: in the end, the wolf was real. This time, the boy isn't guarding his personal flock. He's guarding ours. This kid in the Treasury is fucking with our government and our system of money. We need to be hypervigilant, specifically, to ensuring we know what these people are looking at, where they're storing it, what they're changing and what they're deleting. If we learn there's fuckery afoot, that calls for breaking norms, conventions and possibly small laws to counter that. Given the political cards, that must happen at the state level. (This is too new. I have no suggestions.) > the whole exercise seems like more partisan hyperbole I don't think so. There are laws with teeth this man is violating. The Privacy Act and FISMA were mentioned. If he's accessing anything related to tax returns, that's super criminalised, potentially beyond the reach of a pardon since those records include state filings. Potentially more problematically, it may not be possible for him to easily prove he didn't fuck with anything illegally. That shouldn't be enough to convict. But it's almost certainly enough to prosecute, if only to produce a public record showing there wasn't evidence that it happened.

gnomesteel 2y ago

Trivial auditing? If that’s what you think is happening you clearly aren’t paying attention.

IamLoading 2y ago

Why not start with an organization that failed an audit 8 different times, the Pentagon. while its budget bloating every term. I highly doubt it will be touched.