| |
| ▲ | throw0101d 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > So if DOGE have security clearances (unclear if the have) then their audit is legal? They're also responsible liable for keeping the data safe, which has already been broken at least once: * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43052432 Possibly violating: > Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information— […] * https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798 | | |
| ▲ | tored 2 days ago | parent [-] | | As long as they keep the data safe the audit is legal? | | |
| ▲ | dmix 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | CIGIE has done similar stuff in the past, it was created under George W Bush > continually identifies, reviews, and discusses areas of weakness and vulnerability in Federal programs and operations with respect to fraud, waste, and abuse; > develops plans for coordinated, Government wide activities that address these problems and promote economy and efficiency in Federal programs and operations, including interagency and inter-entity audit, investigation, inspection, and evaluation programs and projects to deal efficiently and effectively with those problems concerning fraud and waste that exceed the capability or jurisdiction of an individual agency or entity; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_the_Inspectors_Gene... | |
| ▲ | watwut 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It is possible to do legal audits of secret data. DOGE is not doing an audit. | |
| ▲ | ttpphd 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | No | |
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
| |
| ▲ | panzagl 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Clearance does not allow indiscriminate access, it just means you are theoretically trustable. You still need a reason to access the data, usually negotiated with the data owners, who is legally responsible for protecting the data. DOGE has bypassed all of that to just hoover up whatever they can. | | |
| ▲ | moduspol 2 days ago | parent [-] | | They were hired to, and authorized explicitly by the President to access that data. In writing. That's as valid of a reason as you can get in the executive branch. | | |
| ▲ | panzagl 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Not really, whoever allows access could be prosecuted for failing any of a number of laws and regs for just rolling over so it would come down to a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. The proper way to do it would be to work through both the organization's chain of command and send clearances through the security chain. Maybe that's being followed, but given the stories and timelines, I doubt it- Musk's war boys wouldn't even have time to obtain a clearance from scratch 3 weeks into the administration. | | |
| ▲ | moduspol 2 days ago | parent [-] | | The clearances have already been granted [1]. There is no "damned if you do, damned if you don't." The President and agency directory have authorized and ordered it. Career bureaucrats are not legally required to resist their bosses because they disagree with them. [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/memo... | | |
| ▲ | panzagl a day ago | parent [-] | | Anyone who has a clearance has signed numerous statements acknowledging their personal responsibility to protect the information in their care. If you want access, follow the procedures, then that responsibility is fulfilled. And if DOGE posts whatever to some unsecured S3 bucket its on them, not the bureaucrat (well, let's be real, contractor) who let them in. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | InsideOutSanta 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | IANAL, but there are other laws governing what DOGE is doing that they are violating, such as transparency laws. |
|
