4 ms·

GAO reported that there's over $200 B in fraudulent payments made a year, so it seems perfectly reasonable to let DOGE in and review that. It's new, it's messy,

GAO reported that there's over $200 B in fraudulent payments made a year, so it seems perfectly reasonable to let DOGE in and review that. It's new, it's messy, and unusual, but it's absolutely necessary.

sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
The problem is that there are legal definitions for fraud, but Trump and Musk are very prone to calling any spending they don't personally agree with "fraud". The rule of law is important. This is not rule of law.
cantSpellSober 2y ago
It's more nuanced than "let DOGE in and review that" > Gioeli [told the court], however, that Elez may have "occasionally" taken screen shots of payment system data or records to share with a second DOGE employee working with him at Treasury
snowwrestler 2y ago
I think there may be a false dichotomy in some people’s minds between a new emphasis on detecting fraud, and existing emphasis on maintaining the security of sensitive data and mission-critical systems. This article shows at least some evidence that Treasury is actually trying to do both. And that existing security professionals have been involved in the process.
mikecx 2y ago
I don't question the need for an audit. I do question having a ketamine fueled oligarch and a rag-tag group of 20 year old software developers doing an audit, pretending audits take days, and somehow only finding things conservatives hate as waste/fraud.
- alistairSH 2y ago
  But government agencies ARE audited! EDIT - since apparently HN doesn't believe me, auditing the executive branch is one of the primary functions of the GAO. This started in 1997. And while DoD's finances are still extremely problematic, the government overall has made massive strides in making itself auditable and accountable. And there are very low levels of actual fraud being found. While statements like the "DoD failed it's audit" are technically true, it's not because fraud was uncovered - instead it's because of decades of poor accountability, a problem the government has been actively working on correctling for nearly 20 years.
  - mikecx 2y ago
    Totally, the departmental audits happen yearly and are available to the public. It doesn't bother me if they want to do a separate audit but these aren't audits, aren't being performed by auditors, and are clearly just a partisan attack on our institutions.
alistairSH 2y ago
Preventing fraud does not require allowing a 19 year old alleged cybercriminal have broad access to government systems. There are more systematic, less disruptive ways to accomplish these goals. Or, to put it a bit of hyperbole around it... "Burn it to the ground!" is rarely the best approach to changing a system that is largely working as intended.

sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago

The problem is that there are legal definitions for fraud, but Trump and Musk are very prone to calling any spending they don't personally agree with "fraud". The rule of law is important. This is not rule of law.

cantSpellSober 2y ago

It's more nuanced than "let DOGE in and review that" > Gioeli [told the court], however, that Elez may have "occasionally" taken screen shots of payment system data or records to share with a second DOGE employee working with him at Treasury

snowwrestler 2y ago

I think there may be a false dichotomy in some people’s minds between a new emphasis on detecting fraud, and existing emphasis on maintaining the security of sensitive data and mission-critical systems. This article shows at least some evidence that Treasury is actually trying to do both. And that existing security professionals have been involved in the process.

mikecx 2y ago

I don't question the need for an audit. I do question having a ketamine fueled oligarch and a rag-tag group of 20 year old software developers doing an audit, pretending audits take days, and somehow only finding things conservatives hate as waste/fraud.

alistairSH 2y ago
But government agencies ARE audited! EDIT - since apparently HN doesn't believe me, auditing the executive branch is one of the primary functions of the GAO. This started in 1997. And while DoD's finances are still extremely problematic, the government overall has made massive strides in making itself auditable and accountable. And there are very low levels of actual fraud being found. While statements like the "DoD failed it's audit" are technically true, it's not because fraud was uncovered - instead it's because of decades of poor accountability, a problem the government has been actively working on correctling for nearly 20 years.
- mikecx 2y ago
  Totally, the departmental audits happen yearly and are available to the public. It doesn't bother me if they want to do a separate audit but these aren't audits, aren't being performed by auditors, and are clearly just a partisan attack on our institutions.

alistairSH 2y ago

Preventing fraud does not require allowing a 19 year old alleged cybercriminal have broad access to government systems. There are more systematic, less disruptive ways to accomplish these goals. Or, to put it a bit of hyperbole around it... "Burn it to the ground!" is rarely the best approach to changing a system that is largely working as intended.