7 ms·

> Even if you get the clearance of some level, it doesn't mean you get immediate access to everything you want. There are still limits on what work you're actua

by Alupis 1y ago

> Even if you get the clearance of some level, it doesn't mean you get immediate access to everything you want. There are still limits on what work you're actually given. Right, and that's the case here too. They are receiving access to systems and data relevant to the tasks they have been assigned to do. There are consequences if any individual acts maliciously or abusing the access and data they have been granted - just like any other government department/agency/employee. There's so much fearmongering going on regarding this story it's seriously amusing. Just a few years ago Equifax leaked every adult's financial information, including social security numbers and more - and yet the mere possibility of a potential leak (of the exact same information, by the way) is being treated like armageddon. It's politics ramped up to the maximum level...

viraptor 1y ago
> They are receiving access to systems and data relevant to the tasks they have been assigned to do. No, they're forcefully entering buildings, adding unapproved infrastructure with no oversight and get rubberstamped access to everything, with people in the way being threatened firing. > There are consequences if any individual acts maliciously or abusing the access No, there have been no consequences. The only ones we've seen were: 1. they have to stop, 2. they can continue but with supervision of someone. There's been access abuse already and it will not be prosecuted. > yet the mere possibility of a potential leak There were effectively leaks already. Where Doge was told no they can't access some data they already looked through, those were leaks. I'm not sure why you bring up Equifax - yes, they're both bad ¯ \ _ ( ツ ) _ / ¯
- Supermancho 1y ago
  > No, they're forcefully entering buildings, adding unapproved infrastructure with no oversight and get rubberstamped access to everything, with people in the way being threatened firing. That's not what the court was ruling on. Nor is there any evidence that the subject were specifically responsible for these crimes. >> There are consequences if any individual acts maliciously or abusing the access > No, there have been no consequences. That's how consequences work. First the violation, then the consequence. When is based on a number of factors. IN THIS CASE, we're talking about potential acts and consequences. Ofc they have not yet been assigned. This is not a discussion when the responses are in the form of hypotheticals being assigned to the subjects out of frustration (I'm frustrated by the feckless courts too). None of us are directly involved. Assume good faith. Be kind.

by Alupis 1y ago

viraptor 1y ago

> They are receiving access to systems and data relevant to the tasks they have been assigned to do. No, they're forcefully entering buildings, adding unapproved infrastructure with no oversight and get rubberstamped access to everything, with people in the way being threatened firing. > There are consequences if any individual acts maliciously or abusing the access No, there have been no consequences. The only ones we've seen were: 1. they have to stop, 2. they can continue but with supervision of someone. There's been access abuse already and it will not be prosecuted. > yet the mere possibility of a potential leak There were effectively leaks already. Where Doge was told no they can't access some data they already looked through, those were leaks. I'm not sure why you bring up Equifax - yes, they're both bad ¯ \ _ ( ツ ) _ / ¯

Supermancho 1y ago
> No, they're forcefully entering buildings, adding unapproved infrastructure with no oversight and get rubberstamped access to everything, with people in the way being threatened firing. That's not what the court was ruling on. Nor is there any evidence that the subject were specifically responsible for these crimes. >> There are consequences if any individual acts maliciously or abusing the access > No, there have been no consequences. That's how consequences work. First the violation, then the consequence. When is based on a number of factors. IN THIS CASE, we're talking about potential acts and consequences. Ofc they have not yet been assigned. This is not a discussion when the responses are in the form of hypotheticals being assigned to the subjects out of frustration (I'm frustrated by the feckless courts too). None of us are directly involved. Assume good faith. Be kind.