> As outlined in the report, DOGE staffers moved a live copy of Americans’ personal information to a cloud server despite an internal risk assessment from the Social Security Administration (SSA), which determined the impact could be “catastrophic” without the proper safeguards.

Paraphrasing the article, the issue is that they operate without oversight or accountability so there's no way of knowing (this is arguably the story, not that PII may be leaked). The SSA's own security team is not allowed to review their work.

▲

monkeyelite 8 hours ago | parent [-]

That sounds like a separate concern than the one implied by the headline.

▲

text0404 8 hours ago | parent [-]

The headline of a news article is a way to draw the reader in. The subhead in this case was "A report from Senate Democrats says DOGE moved sensitive information to a cloud server despite the risk of 'catastrophic' impacts," with the lede (the first paragraph of the article) mentioning the lack of oversight. I can change the title if you'd prefer, but I believe that goes against HN guidelines.

▲

monkeyelite 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> The headline of a news article is a way to draw the reader in.

Yes, I think that’s where the “bait” characterization comes from.

	▲	text0404 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Sure. Crappy headline. I was going to post the NYT one ("Democratic Report Says Disorder at DOGE Jeopardized Americans’ Data: Members of a Senate panel described a haphazard working and living environment that involved transferring sensitive information to servers 'without any verified security controls'") but it was paywalled. Less bait I suppose but it's still pretty damning.