4 ms·

EFF Sues OPM, DOGE and Musk for Endangering the Privacy of Millions

37 points by anonymousiam 2y ago

anonymousiam 2y ago
I've been an EFF member for over 15 years, donating at the top levels. I received notice of this action in my email this morning, and it seems to me that EFF has now crossed the line between advocating for digital rights and political activism. I'm afraid that they may lose a lot of financial support by doing this.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- taylodl 2y ago
  Advocating for digital rights is political activism, and privacy is part of your digital rights. This is perfectly in line with the EFF's mission.
- apical_dendrite 2y ago
  The EFF has been suing the government to protect people's privacy for decades. How is suing the NSA over data collection any less political activism then suing DOGE over data collection? The only difference is that you like the people they're suing.
  - anonymousiam 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - apical_dendrite 2y ago
      These are hardly meaningful differences from EFF's perspective. They see their role as protecting American's data privacy from government overreach. Why should they restrict themselves only to abuses in data collection and ignore issues with data retention and dissemination? Just like in the NSA cases, EFF's argument is that DOGE is violating the law and, to use your phrase, abusing their capabilities. There's no reason for EFF to trust that DOGE is abiding by the law and not trust the NSA. If anything, the NSA acted far more professionally. To my knowledge, the NSA never hired a 19-year-old who goes by the moniker "Big Balls" and had previously been fired for unauthorized information disclosure. To my knowledge, they never hired a 25-year-old who proudly displayed racial animus.
      - anonymousiam 2y ago
        I think EFF will have a difficult time trying to identify any illegal disclosure to unauthorized personnel. The lawsuit is speculative at this point, and discovery will likely show that personal information was not disclosed outside of DOGE. If their claim is that DOGE is unauthorized, their arguments will be novel.
        apical_dendrite 2y ago
        Maybe so, but the harms in the NSA cases were also speculative. A lot of what EFF has historically advocated against, going back to the Clipper Chip in the nineties, were about potential injuries, not actual injuries. The point was to intervene before the abuse happened.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  I don't believe your scare tactics.
- keernan 2y ago
  >crossed the line between advocating for digital rights and political activism The lawsuit was filed by individual federal employees claiming their private health records, social security data, and other private information was revealed to people without a legal basis to possess the employees private data, in direct violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. Any fair judgement of EFF would await the findings and ultimate outcome of the lawsuit.
gnabgib 2y ago
Discussion (52 points, 17 hours ago, 34 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43020091 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43020091
- mandmandam 2y ago
  That discussion was flagged for clearly partisan reasons, and it's very disappointing to see it wasn't unflagged. Everything the EFF says in that article is true. Tbh I think they're underselling it, and burying the lede. This is an evil maid situation; with people who have repeatedly proven themselves extremely self interested and untrustworthy.
beebaween 2y ago
Idk what the issue is here? It's a gov org with access to sensitive info. Sure, if they're selling the data or publishing that's an issue but as long as it's kept internal and used to... reduce waste... what's the real issue? EFF was a cool org. Sad to see them shilling to waste gov money.
- apical_dendrite 2y ago
  They're not "reducing waste". First, they got rid of all of the people at USAID whose job was to monitor contracts for waste and abuse. Second, they shut down programs with no notice, leaving millions of dollars of food and medicine to spoil. Then, when the inspector general (whose job is to audit and report waste) reported that they were directly causing waste by removing all the internal controls and letting food spoil, they fired the inspector general. That is not reducing waste. It's using "reducing waste" as a pretext to radically transform the government.
  - beebaween 2y ago
    I think it's pretty clear those people were doing a bad job of "monitoring waste" lol.
    - apical_dendrite 2y ago
      Yeah, better to let food rot while people starve. Or let pregnant mothers transmit HIV to their children. Lol
      - beebaween 2y ago
        You should see how many resources FEMA and the US Military willingly burns quarterly just to ensure the same funding the next go-around. I'm liberal and I agree these are problems - but somehow I don't think saving the world is solely America's responsibility. Maybe Europe and well... the rest of the world can take a swing. That's also assuming all of that money even provably made it to the "intended recipients" which anyone being honest knows likely isn't the case.

37 points by anonymousiam 2y ago

I've been an EFF member for over 15 years, donating at the top levels. I received notice of this action in my email this morning, and it seems to me that EFF has now crossed the line between advocating for digital rights and political activism. I'm afraid that they may lose a lot of financial support by doing this.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
taylodl 2y ago
Advocating for digital rights is political activism, and privacy is part of your digital rights. This is perfectly in line with the EFF's mission.
apical_dendrite 2y ago
The EFF has been suing the government to protect people's privacy for decades. How is suing the NSA over data collection any less political activism then suing DOGE over data collection? The only difference is that you like the people they're suing.
- anonymousiam 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - apical_dendrite 2y ago
    These are hardly meaningful differences from EFF's perspective. They see their role as protecting American's data privacy from government overreach. Why should they restrict themselves only to abuses in data collection and ignore issues with data retention and dissemination? Just like in the NSA cases, EFF's argument is that DOGE is violating the law and, to use your phrase, abusing their capabilities. There's no reason for EFF to trust that DOGE is abiding by the law and not trust the NSA. If anything, the NSA acted far more professionally. To my knowledge, the NSA never hired a 19-year-old who goes by the moniker "Big Balls" and had previously been fired for unauthorized information disclosure. To my knowledge, they never hired a 25-year-old who proudly displayed racial animus.
    - anonymousiam 2y ago
      I think EFF will have a difficult time trying to identify any illegal disclosure to unauthorized personnel. The lawsuit is speculative at this point, and discovery will likely show that personal information was not disclosed outside of DOGE. If their claim is that DOGE is unauthorized, their arguments will be novel.
      - apical_dendrite 2y ago
        Maybe so, but the harms in the NSA cases were also speculative. A lot of what EFF has historically advocated against, going back to the Clipper Chip in the nineties, were about potential injuries, not actual injuries. The point was to intervene before the abuse happened.
2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
I don't believe your scare tactics.
keernan 2y ago
>crossed the line between advocating for digital rights and political activism The lawsuit was filed by individual federal employees claiming their private health records, social security data, and other private information was revealed to people without a legal basis to possess the employees private data, in direct violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. Any fair judgement of EFF would await the findings and ultimate outcome of the lawsuit.

gnabgib 2y ago

Discussion (52 points, 17 hours ago, 34 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43020091 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43020091

mandmandam 2y ago
That discussion was flagged for clearly partisan reasons, and it's very disappointing to see it wasn't unflagged. Everything the EFF says in that article is true. Tbh I think they're underselling it, and burying the lede. This is an evil maid situation; with people who have repeatedly proven themselves extremely self interested and untrustworthy.

beebaween 2y ago

Idk what the issue is here? It's a gov org with access to sensitive info. Sure, if they're selling the data or publishing that's an issue but as long as it's kept internal and used to... reduce waste... what's the real issue? EFF was a cool org. Sad to see them shilling to waste gov money.

apical_dendrite 2y ago
They're not "reducing waste". First, they got rid of all of the people at USAID whose job was to monitor contracts for waste and abuse. Second, they shut down programs with no notice, leaving millions of dollars of food and medicine to spoil. Then, when the inspector general (whose job is to audit and report waste) reported that they were directly causing waste by removing all the internal controls and letting food spoil, they fired the inspector general. That is not reducing waste. It's using "reducing waste" as a pretext to radically transform the government.
- beebaween 2y ago
  I think it's pretty clear those people were doing a bad job of "monitoring waste" lol.
  - apical_dendrite 2y ago
    Yeah, better to let food rot while people starve. Or let pregnant mothers transmit HIV to their children. Lol
    - beebaween 2y ago
      You should see how many resources FEMA and the US Military willingly burns quarterly just to ensure the same funding the next go-around. I'm liberal and I agree these are problems - but somehow I don't think saving the world is solely America's responsibility. Maybe Europe and well... the rest of the world can take a swing. That's also assuming all of that money even provably made it to the "intended recipients" which anyone being honest knows likely isn't the case.