4 ms·

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjw4g2q62xqo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjw4g2q62xqo Ordering them to delete everything they got copies of, and the su

by dmbche 2y ago

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjw4g2q62xqo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjw4g2q62xqo Ordering them to delete everything they got copies of, and the subsequent frustration from Musk. Why cares who personally violated federal law? However he managed to, Musk got unlawful access to restricted data.

rayiner 2y ago
> Why cares who personally violated federal law? However he managed to, Musk got unlawful access to restricted data. Can you articulate what federal law you think that order says was violated?
- dmbche 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - genewitch 2y ago
    Security clearances being marked on documents as worthless because the government has told employees to "just pick" a specific cleatance from the dropdown, even for things like "lunch meeting Tomorrow". The clearance people were told to use is "never to be cleared" - meaning it's intractable. It was abused, so I don't buy the legal argument. Put another way, if everything is top secret, nothing is.
    - dmbche 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - rayiner 2y ago
    There’s nothing concrete in that article, just hand waving from people trying to keep their jobs. Who needed what clearance and didn’t have it?
    - dmbche 2y ago
      In the BBC article? I don't know or care as I'm not a party in this situation. It is evident from the BBC article that restricted data was shared unlawfully with Musk and that they are asked to delete the data. What will you do with the name of the person? Prosecute them? You're welcome to look online yourself for answers for your questions - or chat with a competent lawyer, they'll be happy to help you sort it out
      - psychlops 2y ago
        > It is evident from the BBC article It is claimed from the BBC article. Even the shopped judge doesn't know if it is or isn't until the hearing next week.
  - losvedir 2y ago
    rayiner is a lawyer, I believe with experience in and around DC and government agencies. I always appreciate his takes because they're often counter to call it the HN zeitgeist.
    - dmbche 2y ago
      Why's he asking me then?
      - diggan 2y ago
        They're asking you to clarify your argument, obviously. You say some federal law has been broken, they're asking you to specify which federal law you claim has been broken. It isn't rocket science.
        dmbche 2y ago
        Alright, I'll break it down. A lawyer would charge you a lot to explain this to you you know? What he asked is not currently public. It will be made public during the hearing. A US federal judge (Not some random guy) is acting in accordance with being aware of a federal crime. (It's actually many more than one judge and one crime but let's keep it simple) I'm comfortable with trusting a US judges read on the situation a priori. You could argue that it will be overturned and thus nothing illegal happened, which would techbically be correct. All talk about this is hypothetical, especially here in the deep comment section of some website. As I said, what are you going to do with this information? So - this is a "gotcha" question, not asking for genuine clarification. As if random citizens should have an encyclopedic recall to all laws. For more, ask a laywer
  - buzzerbetrayed 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- redcobra762 2y ago
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/02/04/elon-musk-government-legal-doge/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/02/04/elon-musk...
  - rayiner 2y ago
    Those are speculative, and seem to be based on factual misunderstandings as to what’s actually happening. For example, there’s just one non-treasury employee with “over the shoulder” access to the system supervised by treasury employees: https://x.com/kyledcheney/status/1888904650906099774 https://x.com/kyledcheney/status/1888904650906099774 People are going to make fools out of themselves again indulging every wild rumor and speculation (pee tape, etc.) without having the facts.
    - redcobra762 2y ago
      And you suppose the Trump administration can be trusted to supply those facts? Because that's the source you're citing, if I understand Kyle Cheney's tweet correctly (I may not!).
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - tptacek 2y ago
      You asked specifically for a reference to what laws the team might be breaking, implying pretty clearly that you didn't believe any such reference could be produced; when it was, you moved the goalposts.
      - rayiner 2y ago
        [flagged]
        knowaveragejoe 2y ago
        You identified the goalposts: what laws, then moved them when someone gave you said laws in the article you dismissed as speculation and vibes.
- talldayo 2y ago
  Okay "law bro", get real. He's a finance CEO gutting the CFPB as we speak: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2025-02-10/doge-backed-halt-at-cfpb-comes-amid-musk-s-plans-for-x-digital-wallet https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2025-02-10/doge-back... America wrote and upheld several antitrust acts with the express intention of stopping this. It's not enough to say "there isn't a precedent so it's fine", your credentials as an attorney do not obviate the illegal conflict of interests at play. You're being obstinate to defend moral absurdity to the highest degree. Businesses will sue, they will cite damages and they will have a rudimentary path to proving it. Unless America thinks free market capitalism is a sham, the only way Musk can get away with this is fleeing the country in 4 years. I would love to hear your assessment of how a fair court under American law would rule in Musk's favor.
pizzafeelsright 2y ago
Nothing in that link speaks of deletion. Wrong article?
- kemayo 2y ago
  Second paragraph of the article: > US District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer issued a preliminary injunction on Saturday to prohibit access, ordering Musk and his team to immediately destroy any copies of records.

by dmbche 2y ago

rayiner 2y ago

> Why cares who personally violated federal law? However he managed to, Musk got unlawful access to restricted data. Can you articulate what federal law you think that order says was violated?

dmbche 2y ago
[flagged]
- genewitch 2y ago
  Security clearances being marked on documents as worthless because the government has told employees to "just pick" a specific cleatance from the dropdown, even for things like "lunch meeting Tomorrow". The clearance people were told to use is "never to be cleared" - meaning it's intractable. It was abused, so I don't buy the legal argument. Put another way, if everything is top secret, nothing is.
  - dmbche 2y ago
    [flagged]
- rayiner 2y ago
  There’s nothing concrete in that article, just hand waving from people trying to keep their jobs. Who needed what clearance and didn’t have it?
  - dmbche 2y ago
    In the BBC article? I don't know or care as I'm not a party in this situation. It is evident from the BBC article that restricted data was shared unlawfully with Musk and that they are asked to delete the data. What will you do with the name of the person? Prosecute them? You're welcome to look online yourself for answers for your questions - or chat with a competent lawyer, they'll be happy to help you sort it out
    - psychlops 2y ago
      > It is evident from the BBC article It is claimed from the BBC article. Even the shopped judge doesn't know if it is or isn't until the hearing next week.
- losvedir 2y ago
  rayiner is a lawyer, I believe with experience in and around DC and government agencies. I always appreciate his takes because they're often counter to call it the HN zeitgeist.
  - dmbche 2y ago
    Why's he asking me then?
    - diggan 2y ago
      They're asking you to clarify your argument, obviously. You say some federal law has been broken, they're asking you to specify which federal law you claim has been broken. It isn't rocket science.
      - dmbche 2y ago
        Alright, I'll break it down. A lawyer would charge you a lot to explain this to you you know? What he asked is not currently public. It will be made public during the hearing. A US federal judge (Not some random guy) is acting in accordance with being aware of a federal crime. (It's actually many more than one judge and one crime but let's keep it simple) I'm comfortable with trusting a US judges read on the situation a priori. You could argue that it will be overturned and thus nothing illegal happened, which would techbically be correct. All talk about this is hypothetical, especially here in the deep comment section of some website. As I said, what are you going to do with this information? So - this is a "gotcha" question, not asking for genuine clarification. As if random citizens should have an encyclopedic recall to all laws. For more, ask a laywer
- buzzerbetrayed 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
redcobra762 2y ago
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/02/04/elon-musk-government-legal-doge/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/02/04/elon-musk...
- rayiner 2y ago
  Those are speculative, and seem to be based on factual misunderstandings as to what’s actually happening. For example, there’s just one non-treasury employee with “over the shoulder” access to the system supervised by treasury employees: https://x.com/kyledcheney/status/1888904650906099774 https://x.com/kyledcheney/status/1888904650906099774 People are going to make fools out of themselves again indulging every wild rumor and speculation (pee tape, etc.) without having the facts.
  - redcobra762 2y ago
    And you suppose the Trump administration can be trusted to supply those facts? Because that's the source you're citing, if I understand Kyle Cheney's tweet correctly (I may not!).
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - tptacek 2y ago
    You asked specifically for a reference to what laws the team might be breaking, implying pretty clearly that you didn't believe any such reference could be produced; when it was, you moved the goalposts.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - knowaveragejoe 2y ago
        You identified the goalposts: what laws, then moved them when someone gave you said laws in the article you dismissed as speculation and vibes.
talldayo 2y ago
Okay "law bro", get real. He's a finance CEO gutting the CFPB as we speak: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2025-02-10/doge-backed-halt-at-cfpb-comes-amid-musk-s-plans-for-x-digital-wallet https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2025-02-10/doge-back... America wrote and upheld several antitrust acts with the express intention of stopping this. It's not enough to say "there isn't a precedent so it's fine", your credentials as an attorney do not obviate the illegal conflict of interests at play. You're being obstinate to defend moral absurdity to the highest degree. Businesses will sue, they will cite damages and they will have a rudimentary path to proving it. Unless America thinks free market capitalism is a sham, the only way Musk can get away with this is fleeing the country in 4 years. I would love to hear your assessment of how a fair court under American law would rule in Musk's favor.

pizzafeelsright 2y ago

Nothing in that link speaks of deletion. Wrong article?

kemayo 2y ago
Second paragraph of the article: > US District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer issued a preliminary injunction on Saturday to prohibit access, ordering Musk and his team to immediately destroy any copies of records.