Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DOGE has 'god mode' access to government data

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 1001 posts

Re: DOGE has 'god mode' access to government data

#551

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

DAGdug wrote: post #474
justin66 wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IMHO it's a bit of a shame that the productivity and efficiency gains that computing and cybernetics can bring to complex systems They're just firing people at random, they haven't discovered any innovative new way to make systems more efficient. ("at random" is a bit generous and ignores the retaliation against political adversaries)

I personally support trimming bureaucratic fat, but the way the current administration is doing it is the worst way possible - with no due diligence - and will lose public support soon.

> lose public support soon

Sooner than you think.

My tax refund is quite late.

Re: DOGE has 'god mode' access to government data

#552

Post by snvzz »

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #252
borgster wrote: post #216

The President is the head of the executive branch. If _anyone_ in the executive branch has access to information, it feels like the presidents office should too. Why is this hard to accept?

Because it's Musk following his own agenda and he apparently isn't the president

Musk is acting with full president support.

Re: DOGE has 'god mode' access to government data

#553

Post by watwut »

CyrsBel wrote: post #530
lucasyvas wrote: post #490

Because there are bigger fish to fry, I think people don’t appreciate the sheer cost of the system rebuild that will be required for security reasons later. There’s absolutely no telling what additional software has been installed alongside existing, or which systems have been modified that would require audit. Purging this will be an absolute fucking nightmare to the American taxpayer. This may turn into one of the…

Yes. Even if DOGE is operating without any ill intent, and I don't think they have ill intent, the possibility of errors alone is massive and they need to slow down. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/02/17/trum...

There is no reason to think they don't have ill intent.

Re: DOGE has 'god mode' access to government data

#554

Post by dimal »

axus wrote: post #517

Government should have access to its own data. Justice and Congress should have the same access for oversight. The only problem I see is personal data about non-government people is being exposed to the entire planet. They should have developed good security practices first and maybe spent more than a week reviewing a plan, and not having a double standard about their own activities.

> Government should have access to its own data. Justice and Congress should have the same access for oversight.

On its face, that’s a reasonable comment. But that’s not what’s happening here. This is not oversight. This is the world’s richest man arbitrarily seizing control of the government’s data. He’s able to do this because he bought the presidency for Trump.

Are you ok with that?

Re: DOGE has 'god mode' access to government data

#556

Post by cratermoon »

FigurativeVoid wrote: post #537

At my first gig, I had "god" level access to our production database. All I learned is that nobody should have this level of access unless it is some sort of temporary break glass situation. It is extremely dangerous and even experienced engineers can cause irreparable data loss or some other bad outcome. In our case, some engineer accidentally sent around 10,000 invoices to customers that shouldn't have gotten them.…

I loathe working places where they just give you all the permissions because it's "easier". One risk is if something does happen, and they don't have exceptional tracing and logging, (and let's be honest, at an organization sloppy enough to hand out privileges like candy, what's the chance of that?) it's difficult or impossible to pin down the source to any individual. As a result, both responsibility and suspicion is diffuse.

Re: DOGE has 'god mode' access to government data

#557

Post by ZeroGravitas »

cm2187 wrote: post #116
scarab92 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musk isn't a do-things-by-half kind of guy.

But also when you make cuts, you go hard, fast, and recover from there. Any effort of small trimming over a long period achieves no saving while producing the same negative publicity. I doubt such cutting effort will happen for another 30y. There is a french say I like. If you need to cut a dog’s tail, don’t cut an inch every day, chop the whole thing quick

In the French saying is cutting the tail off a dog seen as a cruel and unnecessary action, that you shouldn't prolong any longer than necessary, or a valid task that needs done?

I see the legal status of tail docking is slightly laxer in France but in North America the US and Canadian Vetinary Associations disavow the practice as bad for the dog.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docking_(dog)

Re: DOGE has 'god mode' access to government data

#559

Post by acdha »

dionian wrote: post #458
ideashower wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bureaucracies are a “common good” because of their human element: the ability to exercise discretion, recognize unique circumstances, and be held accountable to the public they serve. The challenge is harnessing technology while strengthening these essential human capacities. Anything otherwise erodes public trust and sows division.

I don't think unelected bureaucrats should have more power than the elected leaders of the Executive. Try the "shoe on the other foot" principle: Imagine if Trump put lifetime leaders in those agencies and they fought against the next Progressive president.

They don’t have more power. Whoever is telling you that has been lying to you, starting with the idea that these are lifetime jobs or lack accountability.

The American system of government is based on checks and balances between the branches. Congress passes laws which delegate some power and the Executive Branch implements them. In many cases, the high level positions are presidential nominees who are mutually agreed upon with the Congress and serve a set number of years or until recalled by one or both parties. Each agency has specific rules governing what they’re allowed to do and how they do it, as well as oversight and transparency for their actions.

What we’re seeing now is the conflict caused by Republicans deciding that following the law is too hard and creating conflicts with people who are following the law. When Musk was pushing people to grant access to restricted data, for example, it was proclaimed as disobedience but was simply that the people charged with protecting that data do not have person discretion in that matter: the operator of a SCIF knows they face heavy consequences if they allow unauthorized access. In all previous administrations, this hasn’t been a problem because people just waited a few weeks to get clearances.

Similarly, when Trump illegally tries to fire inspector generals it isn’t that there’s no way for him to do that, he just didn’t feel like giving Congress 30 days notice.

In all cases, the law is what matters: if there is a real disagreement about how one of the independent agencies operates, Congress can change it at any time and given the Republican majority it would not be hard for any reasonable change to be quickly enacted, at which point an agency head would be removed or even prosecuted if they fail to comply.

Re: DOGE has 'god mode' access to government data

#560

Post by IggleSniggle »

dionian wrote: post #458
ideashower wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bureaucracies are a “common good” because of their human element: the ability to exercise discretion, recognize unique circumstances, and be held accountable to the public they serve. The challenge is harnessing technology while strengthening these essential human capacities. Anything otherwise erodes public trust and sows division.

I don't think unelected bureaucrats should have more power than the elected leaders of the Executive. Try the "shoe on the other foot" principle: Imagine if Trump put lifetime leaders in those agencies and they fought against the next Progressive president.

The unelected bureaucrats should be responsible for upholding the Law and the mandates of their position, not to any individual or party. And the Law is set by Congress, not the Executive. The Law is enforced by the Judiciary, not the Executive. The whole point is to have an engine that can keep working and keep accumulating domain expertise regardless of which political party is in control, beholden to the Laws set by the Congress over time, representing all constituents over time, held responsible by the courts, and not the whims of any given administration (or, for that matter, any single Congress). The entire problem _is that_ we now have what may effectively be lifetime leaders being put into positions and _being told to ignore the law and their government issued mandates_.

And so much reeks of a Watergate like situation, except done publicly instead of in secret, with Congress and the Judiciary refusing or unable to hold any of these people to account. "We will now gather all information about our adversaries and fire anyone who doesn't give us the keys to the vaults, and if anybody doesn't like it, good luck, because the courts are going to be VERY busy, indefinitely, as we proceed to break every law the Legislature has issued, and is unlikely to have time to hear your case for a few decades."

But let's take at face value the idea that the Executive doesn't need to follow or even acknowledge the decisions of the Legislature, and that they can tell anyone to do anything whenever they feel like it. There's a pragmatic issue, not just a separation of powers issue: How can you possibly accumulate domain expertise, and what motivation would you have to accumulate that expertise anyway, when every agency is going to be dismantled every 2-4 years?

Besides, these bureaucrats are "elected" in a way similar to the Electoral College. We vote in the Legislature, and the Legislature votes on the appointments. If we don't want "lifers" then we should be voting on term-limits for these positions, not allowing the wholesale remodeling of our bureaucracy every election, where "just anybody" can come in and walk away with whatever they can loot each cycle.

Post reply on HN