4 ms·

> all usual controls were bypassed and the DOGE people had very low level access to systems Before DOGE, somebody obviously had to have this access as well, an

> all usual controls were bypassed and the DOGE people had very low level access to systems Before DOGE, somebody obviously had to have this access as well, and similarly could have copied and stored. Why be concerned with DOGE but not their predecessors? Honest question.

adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
Because before the people that had access to this data got that access after passing background checks, had years in the treasury, supervision from higher-ups, and other processes in place. Now it's being accessed by cyber-criminal Nazis in their 20s who describe themselves as wanting to "Normalize Indian hate", " want a eugenic immigration policy", and who "were racist before it was cool" https://www.npr.org/2025/02/06/nx-s1-5289337/elon-musk-doge-treasury https://www.npr.org/2025/02/06/nx-s1-5289337/elon-musk-doge-....
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
  Hmm. I am hesitant to engage this post, but it may be well worth to point out, that some of issues with status quo are precisely the result of "people that had access to this data got that access after passing background checks, had years in the treasury, supervision from higher-ups, and other processes in place". Until now it was old boys club that did not dare to shake things up a little. My point is that there is plenty to dislike here, but if your argument against him is: he is a nazi, you have already lost, because you do not understand the sentiment out there.
  - throw0101d 2y ago
    > Hmm. I am hesitant to engage this post, but it may be well worth to point out, that some of issues with status quo […] Is one of the issues that an audit log of actions was created? Because it seems to me some of the levels of access given to the DOGE folks mean that auditing and traceability has now gone out the window like a Russian oligarch. I'm a sysadmin who 'just' runs a bunch of HPC stuff—nothing 'important' like HIPAA or SOX—and even my systems have some level of auditing and logging.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
      See? This is already a much better argument than what parent posted. If you tone down Russian hysteria angle ( not wrong, just pointing out how it is coming across ) the other side may be able to hear you. This is basically my point and that point is the same point I make for Zuck, Thiel and others. There is already plenty of real things to complain about. How about we focus on those?
      - donmcronald 2y ago
        I think what the posts above you are trying to say, and not doing a great job because of the emphasis on rhetoric, is the actions being taken are hypocritical. The argument from the DOGE side is that entrenched interests are operating opaque systems and gating access to the information needed to identify inefficiencies. It's not a bad argument because it's no secret that you end up with waste in big companies or government programs and everyone should want to improve efficiency. However, it's a bad faith argument because the public's being told they're being disenfranchised by a lack of transparency at the same time they're being told to accept a solution that has no transparency or oversight. When you have tech billionaires with a lifelong goal of controlling payments since starting PayPal in the 90s, is it unreasonable to be skeptical of their motivations when they've managed to gain access to the government's payment system? Aren't these the same people sucking up our private information and telling us if we've got nothing to hide we've got nothing to fear? Why do they need to operate in the shadows?
        A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
        I have zero issue with the arguments you presented, because I know you are being factually accurate ( to the best of my knowledge anyway; I wonder if there is a person out there that has a full unrestricted view of everything ). << is it unreasonable to be skeptical of their motivations when they've managed to gain access to the government's payment system? Aren't these the same people sucking up our private information and telling us if we've got nothing to hide we've got nothing to fear? Why do they need to operate in the shadows? I don't want to argue for DOGE, because their fanbase is doing it on various fora already ( including this one ). But to answer your question, it is not unreasonable at all. Those questions should be asked and, ideally, answered. It is vital that the government officials are watched, their performance evaluated and our political will enforced by means we deem necessary. From where I sit, what is good for goose, is good for gander. If I hesitate, it is around the level of emotion this generates. Some of it is warranted ( I would lie if I said I am not concerned ), but it does not help with making an appropriate response. In fact, that level of emotion actively inhibits making good choices. You have to give it to him. It does look like Trump actually had a plan this time around.
  - Aeolun 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - iugtmkbdfil834 2y ago
      The sentiment is "words like nazi are not helping the conversation". In fact, they may be actively hurting the point you are trying to get across.
juujian 2y ago
Process for security clearance might have caught this kids background, and then decision makers would have at least had a conversation about it. This kid is more a symptom of a wider lack of controls though, who knows whether any of Musk's script kiddies has a criminal background. Important to note that previous Trump administration has already followed out/bypassed security clearance process, so this is really just the next evolution of the disregard for criminal elements or foreign interests.
- bad_username 2y ago
  You say there's security clearance which was a prerequisite for the predecessors but was bypassed by the DOGE team. Understood.
acdha 2y ago
Here’s how that sounds to anyone with security experience: “Before the bank president gave his nephew the vault keys, somebody must have had access as well.” Federal IT has tons of policies designed to prevent unauthorized access and mistakes. People go through background checks, they only work on secured networks using official devices, everything is logged and audited, and circumventing it is a crime with penalties potentially leading to jail time. Some of those policies have strong legal requirements for oversight: even if you’re not doing anything other than your job, the agency needs to be able to show how work is done to auditors, Congress, FOIA requests, etc. Anything with national security implications should be designed to avoid a single compromised person from being able to avoid detection, too, especially for people trusted with administrative access to IT systems. These guys are widely reported to be using personal emails and devices (violating the record and transparency laws) and even if they’re acting entirely in good faith they are bypassing policies designed to contain the damage due to mistakes. For example, what happens if one of them gets an email with an attachment claiming to have evidence of politically incorrect activities and runs the payload on a device/network which has had safeguards removed by executive fiat?

adgjlsfhk1 2y ago

Because before the people that had access to this data got that access after passing background checks, had years in the treasury, supervision from higher-ups, and other processes in place. Now it's being accessed by cyber-criminal Nazis in their 20s who describe themselves as wanting to "Normalize Indian hate", " want a eugenic immigration policy", and who "were racist before it was cool" https://www.npr.org/2025/02/06/nx-s1-5289337/elon-musk-doge-treasury https://www.npr.org/2025/02/06/nx-s1-5289337/elon-musk-doge-....

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
Hmm. I am hesitant to engage this post, but it may be well worth to point out, that some of issues with status quo are precisely the result of "people that had access to this data got that access after passing background checks, had years in the treasury, supervision from higher-ups, and other processes in place". Until now it was old boys club that did not dare to shake things up a little. My point is that there is plenty to dislike here, but if your argument against him is: he is a nazi, you have already lost, because you do not understand the sentiment out there.
- throw0101d 2y ago
  > Hmm. I am hesitant to engage this post, but it may be well worth to point out, that some of issues with status quo […] Is one of the issues that an audit log of actions was created? Because it seems to me some of the levels of access given to the DOGE folks mean that auditing and traceability has now gone out the window like a Russian oligarch. I'm a sysadmin who 'just' runs a bunch of HPC stuff—nothing 'important' like HIPAA or SOX—and even my systems have some level of auditing and logging.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
    See? This is already a much better argument than what parent posted. If you tone down Russian hysteria angle ( not wrong, just pointing out how it is coming across ) the other side may be able to hear you. This is basically my point and that point is the same point I make for Zuck, Thiel and others. There is already plenty of real things to complain about. How about we focus on those?
    - donmcronald 2y ago
      I think what the posts above you are trying to say, and not doing a great job because of the emphasis on rhetoric, is the actions being taken are hypocritical. The argument from the DOGE side is that entrenched interests are operating opaque systems and gating access to the information needed to identify inefficiencies. It's not a bad argument because it's no secret that you end up with waste in big companies or government programs and everyone should want to improve efficiency. However, it's a bad faith argument because the public's being told they're being disenfranchised by a lack of transparency at the same time they're being told to accept a solution that has no transparency or oversight. When you have tech billionaires with a lifelong goal of controlling payments since starting PayPal in the 90s, is it unreasonable to be skeptical of their motivations when they've managed to gain access to the government's payment system? Aren't these the same people sucking up our private information and telling us if we've got nothing to hide we've got nothing to fear? Why do they need to operate in the shadows?
      - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
        I have zero issue with the arguments you presented, because I know you are being factually accurate ( to the best of my knowledge anyway; I wonder if there is a person out there that has a full unrestricted view of everything ). << is it unreasonable to be skeptical of their motivations when they've managed to gain access to the government's payment system? Aren't these the same people sucking up our private information and telling us if we've got nothing to hide we've got nothing to fear? Why do they need to operate in the shadows? I don't want to argue for DOGE, because their fanbase is doing it on various fora already ( including this one ). But to answer your question, it is not unreasonable at all. Those questions should be asked and, ideally, answered. It is vital that the government officials are watched, their performance evaluated and our political will enforced by means we deem necessary. From where I sit, what is good for goose, is good for gander. If I hesitate, it is around the level of emotion this generates. Some of it is warranted ( I would lie if I said I am not concerned ), but it does not help with making an appropriate response. In fact, that level of emotion actively inhibits making good choices. You have to give it to him. It does look like Trump actually had a plan this time around.
- Aeolun 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - iugtmkbdfil834 2y ago
    The sentiment is "words like nazi are not helping the conversation". In fact, they may be actively hurting the point you are trying to get across.

juujian 2y ago

Process for security clearance might have caught this kids background, and then decision makers would have at least had a conversation about it. This kid is more a symptom of a wider lack of controls though, who knows whether any of Musk's script kiddies has a criminal background. Important to note that previous Trump administration has already followed out/bypassed security clearance process, so this is really just the next evolution of the disregard for criminal elements or foreign interests.

bad_username 2y ago
You say there's security clearance which was a prerequisite for the predecessors but was bypassed by the DOGE team. Understood.

acdha 2y ago

Here’s how that sounds to anyone with security experience: “Before the bank president gave his nephew the vault keys, somebody must have had access as well.” Federal IT has tons of policies designed to prevent unauthorized access and mistakes. People go through background checks, they only work on secured networks using official devices, everything is logged and audited, and circumventing it is a crime with penalties potentially leading to jail time. Some of those policies have strong legal requirements for oversight: even if you’re not doing anything other than your job, the agency needs to be able to show how work is done to auditors, Congress, FOIA requests, etc. Anything with national security implications should be designed to avoid a single compromised person from being able to avoid detection, too, especially for people trusted with administrative access to IT systems. These guys are widely reported to be using personal emails and devices (violating the record and transparency laws) and even if they’re acting entirely in good faith they are bypassing policies designed to contain the damage due to mistakes. For example, what happens if one of them gets an email with an attachment claiming to have evidence of politically incorrect activities and runs the payload on a device/network which has had safeguards removed by executive fiat?