3 ms·

The arguments are getting so silly I can’t even follow them now. What does this have to do with protecting individual rights? The government already has your

by refurb 1y ago

The arguments are getting so silly I can’t even follow them now. What does this have to do with protecting individual rights? The government already has your data. Whether another part of the government has access versus another seems like splitting hairs? DOGE is the US government. Whether Jane in the SSA can look up your medical records or whether Big Balls in DOGE can see it is two shades of the same color.

anigbrowl 1y ago
This is not how things normally work. Personal information within government is generally siloed to protect citizens' privacy, someone in the agricultural department who is annoyed about your your complaint letters on one topic cannot take a stroll through your tax return to look for something to threaten you with, by law.
- refurb 1y ago
  I get that, but if an agencies remit is to root out fraud and abuse, it would seem their function demands access to certain data?
  - anigbrowl 1y ago
    DOGE isn't an agency, a fact which has been extensively publicly discussed. They don't have a Congressional mandate or any of the institutional infrastructure (inspectors general, well-defined rules and procedures etc.) that qould qualify them as an agency. 'Waste fraud and abuse' is a collection of emotionally activating buzzwords with which to score rhetorical points, not an objective standard of the sort employed in auditing. I am sure you can think of situations where arbitrary and capricious decisions are made and sold to the public or staff at a business in the name of 'security' or 'economic necessity' or whatever, and that these terms are designed to limit discussion and establishment of consensus by creating a false sense of urgency. We should be cautious about letting unknown persons inspect our wallets just because they insist its urgent without clearly specifying how or why. Here's an example (from the last century) of such rhetorical techniques being proposed specifically for their effectiveness in swaying opinion rather than developing policy: https://users.wfu.edu/zulick/454/gopac.html https://users.wfu.edu/zulick/454/gopac.html
    - refurb 1y ago
      DOGE absolutely falls under the Dept of Digital Services agency. No different than an office within the CDC like HIV Care Iniative. “Waste, fraud and abuse” is defined by the OIG well before Trump. Just because you don’t like him means it doesn’t exist or they are “emotional buzzwords”. https://oig.usaid.gov/node/221 https://oig.usaid.gov/node/221 Hence why the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 DOGE can have access - clearly across ideological lines.
      - anigbrowl 1y ago
        We both know you're over-simplifying or outright eliding the reality here, while ignoring points you don't have an answer for. Don't waste my time with such BS.
        refurb 1y ago
        I directly answered your questions with actual facts that contradict each of your points. I even provided sources.

by refurb 1y ago

anigbrowl 1y ago

This is not how things normally work. Personal information within government is generally siloed to protect citizens' privacy, someone in the agricultural department who is annoyed about your your complaint letters on one topic cannot take a stroll through your tax return to look for something to threaten you with, by law.

refurb 1y ago
I get that, but if an agencies remit is to root out fraud and abuse, it would seem their function demands access to certain data?
- anigbrowl 1y ago
  DOGE isn't an agency, a fact which has been extensively publicly discussed. They don't have a Congressional mandate or any of the institutional infrastructure (inspectors general, well-defined rules and procedures etc.) that qould qualify them as an agency. 'Waste fraud and abuse' is a collection of emotionally activating buzzwords with which to score rhetorical points, not an objective standard of the sort employed in auditing. I am sure you can think of situations where arbitrary and capricious decisions are made and sold to the public or staff at a business in the name of 'security' or 'economic necessity' or whatever, and that these terms are designed to limit discussion and establishment of consensus by creating a false sense of urgency. We should be cautious about letting unknown persons inspect our wallets just because they insist its urgent without clearly specifying how or why. Here's an example (from the last century) of such rhetorical techniques being proposed specifically for their effectiveness in swaying opinion rather than developing policy: https://users.wfu.edu/zulick/454/gopac.html https://users.wfu.edu/zulick/454/gopac.html
  - refurb 1y ago
    DOGE absolutely falls under the Dept of Digital Services agency. No different than an office within the CDC like HIV Care Iniative. “Waste, fraud and abuse” is defined by the OIG well before Trump. Just because you don’t like him means it doesn’t exist or they are “emotional buzzwords”. https://oig.usaid.gov/node/221 https://oig.usaid.gov/node/221 Hence why the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 DOGE can have access - clearly across ideological lines.
    - anigbrowl 1y ago
      We both know you're over-simplifying or outright eliding the reality here, while ignoring points you don't have an answer for. Don't waste my time with such BS.
      - refurb 1y ago
        I directly answered your questions with actual facts that contradict each of your points. I even provided sources.