4 ms·

I think we both know the answer. Most of these DOGE people wouldn’t have been allowed in the building, much less the system root a couple of months ago because

by moshun 2y ago

I think we both know the answer. Most of these DOGE people wouldn’t have been allowed in the building, much less the system root a couple of months ago because they’d never pass a clearance check.

1oooqooq 2y ago
technically, a clearance and background check have never been done on political appointees. the fbi openly says so. at least this is not new... the new thing is the low level of petty criminals being apointed.
- acdha 2y ago
  Political appointees don’t get root, and they still had to get clearance for sensitive materials (as it’s legally required for the people securing a SCIF not to allow anyone who doesn’t have clearance in the door). Part of why the new administration is trying to bull through the process is that his first term had many delays due to appointees failing those checks.
  - jfengel 2y ago
    How do you know who has a clearance? Is there a database they check? Or is it word of mouth from their boss?
    - acdha 2y ago
      Yes, there’s a database and people who audit access, ensure that permissions are periodically reviewed (i.e. just because you needed access 5 years ago doesn’t mean your current duties still require the same access), and other events can trigger reviews (e.g. a large amount of personal debt could make someone a greater risk).
      - reaperman 2y ago
        Which department/agency maintains the database of who-has-which-clearance?
        acdha 2y ago
        The Office of Personnel Management runs a lot of the standardized stuff, including the system which people use to submit the standard forms, but agencies have their own offices and variations: https://ourpublicservice.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/background-checks-and-security-clearances.pdf https://ourpublicservice.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/back...
  - 1oooqooq 2y ago
    they get root if the job requires. appointees are interviewed, not vetted by the fbi like federal employs. the dowvote brigade could read the article since im rentioning a literal quote from there.
    - acdha 2y ago
      Political appointees typically work on policy, they’re not shelling into servers and moving data around. This is especially true of the “special government employee” category Musk is using where it’s short-term (not more than 130 days in a 365 day period) and intended for consulting type expert advice rather than bypassing the normal hiring rules. > the dowvote brigade could read the article since im rentioning a literal quote from there. Alternately, consider that they’re recognizing that the scope of this situation is different both in terms of the level of access and nature of the work and unwillingness to follow policies. For example, when they tried to barge into the SCIF at USAID the staff who tried to stop them were under a legal obligation to do so - they’re charged with requiring everyone who enters to have a clearance. Historically, people got those and so it was never codified into law that they had to. Similarly, if people were requesting the access needed to perform their official task and using agency accounts and equipment to do so, you didn’t need an “auditor” to get approved at the level needed to be a system administrator. This is turning into a big scandal not just because it’s so highly politicized but also because bulling through so many process protections dramatically increases the potential risk. As a simple example, reports have these guys getting admin access and using personal email accounts and equipment. Consider what happens if someone emails them a PDF saying it has evidence of fraud and it has a nasty payload. If they have unnecessary levels of access or have demanded that restrictions be removed, the fallout for that will be much worse than it would be if they were following the rules. Every federal agency has people employed specifically to prevent all of those layers of failure from happening.
- CuriousCosmic 2y ago
  Background checks have always been done on political appointees. They aren't a requirement for getting the position but historically they've been done prior to appointment so that leadership knows if they are a security risk. And for appointees that require congressional confirmation the checks have been giving to congress prior to hearings for the same reason. They weren't required but they very much have been done for political appointees in every admin in recent history except this one.
  - 1oooqooq 2y ago
    exept they haven't https://www.vox.com/trump-administration/388627/fbi-background-checks-trump-gaetz-hegseth-nominees-senate-congress-transition https://www.vox.com/trump-administration/388627/fbi-backgrou...
    - CuriousCosmic 2y ago
      That article you linked says exactly what I said. They aren't required but they are customary.
- throw0101d 2y ago
  > technically, a clearance and background check have never been done on political appointees. the fbi openly says so. "Trump team agrees to DoJ background checks for nominees" * https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/03/trump-team-background-checks https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/03/trump-team-b... "FBI background checks of presidential nominees, explained": * https://www.npr.org/2025/01/15/nx-s1-5260953/fbi-background-checks-confirmation-presidential-nominee https://www.npr.org/2025/01/15/nx-s1-5260953/fbi-background-... This has been the case since Eisenhower in 1953: * https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/10450.html https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/execu...
throwaway2037 2y ago
> much less the system root This comments section is getting wild. Do you have any proof that DOGE team members have been granted "system root" (whatever that means)? When I Google, it is unclear how many DOGE team members have security clearance and at what level.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  > When I Google, it is unclear how many DOGE team members have security clearance and at what level. They are flooding the zone. That's by design. At one point they had "read-only access" to records. Then later people say they had full access and have backups. The only definitive proof we have publicly Is that a federal judge made two orders; One to restrict access to the treasury for all of DOGE except for the 2 people allegedly already working in treasury. And One to order deletion of any records they have backed up. All other reports come from first or second hand sources. AFAIK, no one truly knows DOGE did in the Treasury, and we won't know until a court proceeding later this month.

by moshun 2y ago

1oooqooq 2y ago

technically, a clearance and background check have never been done on political appointees. the fbi openly says so. at least this is not new... the new thing is the low level of petty criminals being apointed.

acdha 2y ago
Political appointees don’t get root, and they still had to get clearance for sensitive materials (as it’s legally required for the people securing a SCIF not to allow anyone who doesn’t have clearance in the door). Part of why the new administration is trying to bull through the process is that his first term had many delays due to appointees failing those checks.
- jfengel 2y ago
  How do you know who has a clearance? Is there a database they check? Or is it word of mouth from their boss?
  - acdha 2y ago
    Yes, there’s a database and people who audit access, ensure that permissions are periodically reviewed (i.e. just because you needed access 5 years ago doesn’t mean your current duties still require the same access), and other events can trigger reviews (e.g. a large amount of personal debt could make someone a greater risk).
    - reaperman 2y ago
      Which department/agency maintains the database of who-has-which-clearance?
      - acdha 2y ago
        The Office of Personnel Management runs a lot of the standardized stuff, including the system which people use to submit the standard forms, but agencies have their own offices and variations: https://ourpublicservice.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/background-checks-and-security-clearances.pdf https://ourpublicservice.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/back...
- 1oooqooq 2y ago
  they get root if the job requires. appointees are interviewed, not vetted by the fbi like federal employs. the dowvote brigade could read the article since im rentioning a literal quote from there.
  - acdha 2y ago
    Political appointees typically work on policy, they’re not shelling into servers and moving data around. This is especially true of the “special government employee” category Musk is using where it’s short-term (not more than 130 days in a 365 day period) and intended for consulting type expert advice rather than bypassing the normal hiring rules. > the dowvote brigade could read the article since im rentioning a literal quote from there. Alternately, consider that they’re recognizing that the scope of this situation is different both in terms of the level of access and nature of the work and unwillingness to follow policies. For example, when they tried to barge into the SCIF at USAID the staff who tried to stop them were under a legal obligation to do so - they’re charged with requiring everyone who enters to have a clearance. Historically, people got those and so it was never codified into law that they had to. Similarly, if people were requesting the access needed to perform their official task and using agency accounts and equipment to do so, you didn’t need an “auditor” to get approved at the level needed to be a system administrator. This is turning into a big scandal not just because it’s so highly politicized but also because bulling through so many process protections dramatically increases the potential risk. As a simple example, reports have these guys getting admin access and using personal email accounts and equipment. Consider what happens if someone emails them a PDF saying it has evidence of fraud and it has a nasty payload. If they have unnecessary levels of access or have demanded that restrictions be removed, the fallout for that will be much worse than it would be if they were following the rules. Every federal agency has people employed specifically to prevent all of those layers of failure from happening.
CuriousCosmic 2y ago
Background checks have always been done on political appointees. They aren't a requirement for getting the position but historically they've been done prior to appointment so that leadership knows if they are a security risk. And for appointees that require congressional confirmation the checks have been giving to congress prior to hearings for the same reason. They weren't required but they very much have been done for political appointees in every admin in recent history except this one.
- 1oooqooq 2y ago
  exept they haven't https://www.vox.com/trump-administration/388627/fbi-background-checks-trump-gaetz-hegseth-nominees-senate-congress-transition https://www.vox.com/trump-administration/388627/fbi-backgrou...
  - CuriousCosmic 2y ago
    That article you linked says exactly what I said. They aren't required but they are customary.
throw0101d 2y ago
> technically, a clearance and background check have never been done on political appointees. the fbi openly says so. "Trump team agrees to DoJ background checks for nominees" * https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/03/trump-team-background-checks https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/03/trump-team-b... "FBI background checks of presidential nominees, explained": * https://www.npr.org/2025/01/15/nx-s1-5260953/fbi-background-checks-confirmation-presidential-nominee https://www.npr.org/2025/01/15/nx-s1-5260953/fbi-background-... This has been the case since Eisenhower in 1953: * https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/10450.html https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/execu...

throwaway2037 2y ago

> much less the system root This comments section is getting wild. Do you have any proof that DOGE team members have been granted "system root" (whatever that means)? When I Google, it is unclear how many DOGE team members have security clearance and at what level.

johnnyanmac 2y ago
> When I Google, it is unclear how many DOGE team members have security clearance and at what level. They are flooding the zone. That's by design. At one point they had "read-only access" to records. Then later people say they had full access and have backups. The only definitive proof we have publicly Is that a federal judge made two orders; One to restrict access to the treasury for all of DOGE except for the 2 people allegedly already working in treasury. And One to order deletion of any records they have backed up. All other reports come from first or second hand sources. AFAIK, no one truly knows DOGE did in the Treasury, and we won't know until a court proceeding later this month.