3 ms·

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 eve

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.
- palmfacehn 2y ago
  Many feel that the status quo represents wolves looting the taxpayers. 3T in deficit spending is a bit much. Where was the "hypervigilance" before this? There was no public spotlight on the engineers appointed to manage these systems previously. If we are to be balanced in our consideration here, it would be reasonable to consider the possibility that the established media voices may be objecting to an entrenched network of corruption unwinding. These are the stated reasons for the audit. It is worth at least considering them at face value. Reasonable people should be able to debate these things without resorting to reducto-ad-hitlerum. Given that none of the coverage presented by the sources has even considered the opposition's argument, it isn't unreasonable to characterize it as unbalanced partisanship. Yes, a young engineer has access to this data. Previously an unnamed engineer appointed by an unelected bureaucrat also had access. Yet the partisans were not invoking crass analogies at that time. Nobody was raising the alarms about IRS agents or Treasury employees having access to the same data. Regardless of where we are on the partisan spectrum, we should be able to recognize this as hypocritical and more than a little bit suspicious. https://xcancel.com/elonmusk/status/1886301159398535632 https://xcancel.com/elonmusk/status/1886301159398535632 https://xcancel.com/ThomasEWoods/status/1886078877363327337 https://xcancel.com/ThomasEWoods/status/1886078877363327337

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.

palmfacehn 2y ago
Many feel that the status quo represents wolves looting the taxpayers. 3T in deficit spending is a bit much. Where was the "hypervigilance" before this? There was no public spotlight on the engineers appointed to manage these systems previously. If we are to be balanced in our consideration here, it would be reasonable to consider the possibility that the established media voices may be objecting to an entrenched network of corruption unwinding. These are the stated reasons for the audit. It is worth at least considering them at face value. Reasonable people should be able to debate these things without resorting to reducto-ad-hitlerum. Given that none of the coverage presented by the sources has even considered the opposition's argument, it isn't unreasonable to characterize it as unbalanced partisanship. Yes, a young engineer has access to this data. Previously an unnamed engineer appointed by an unelected bureaucrat also had access. Yet the partisans were not invoking crass analogies at that time. Nobody was raising the alarms about IRS agents or Treasury employees having access to the same data. Regardless of where we are on the partisan spectrum, we should be able to recognize this as hypocritical and more than a little bit suspicious. https://xcancel.com/elonmusk/status/1886301159398535632 https://xcancel.com/elonmusk/status/1886301159398535632 https://xcancel.com/ThomasEWoods/status/1886078877363327337 https://xcancel.com/ThomasEWoods/status/1886078877363327337