Reacting to a [flagged]: This is on-topic for HN, since it involves someone discussing how they plan to re-architect huge software systems and design new featur

Reacting to a [flagged]: This is on-topic for HN, since it involves someone discussing how they plan to re-architect huge software systems and design new features... Even if they are terrible choices that could also break some laws. One of the examples in the article may sound familiar to those of us at larger-companies. Imagine an authentication service, with nice clear boundaries between it and the other systems and subsidiary-companies users are traveling to. Those other systems each possess their own different teams and problem-domains, including business-logic around permissions and privacy. Some of those differences may be hard-requirements. (In the case of government, from actual laws that enable the organization.) However Some Executive wants the authentication system to be twisted into a master person-info database, aggregating sensitive private information from all of the other ones, in the name of "preventing fraud." Exactly what kind of fraud it would prevent or why the cross-domain expertise should be coded in there is not examined. So that's the login.gov thing. Even this excerpt of the meeting is feels depressingly familiar to me, a situation where some new manager is desperately trying to leave their stamp on things with a New Initiative that will justify further promotions: > “I think we were on the topic of login aggregating data. It's an illegal task,” the employee question, which was read aloud by a woman facilitating the meeting, said. “The Privacy Act forbids agencies sharing personal information without consent.” > “The idea would be that folks would give consent to help with the login flow,” Shedd said. “But again, that's an example of something that we have a vision, that needs worked on, and needs clarified. And if we hit a roadblock, then we hit a roadblock. But we still should push forward and see what we can do.”