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

Whistleblower says DOGE officials copied Social Security numbers

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 65 posts

Re: Whistleblower says DOGE officials copied Social Security numbers

#11

Post by roenxi »

freen wrote: post #9
jimkleiber wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard to make a lot of money when the government provides good services for free.

Hard to have effectively indentured servitude if there’s a social safety net. Remember even Hayek advocated for universal, government funded healthcare! Ayn Rand was on social security!

I doubt you could source a quote for the Hayek point, but more interestingly Rand's taking social security doesn't sound like any sort of contradiction with her views or an extreme anti-welfare position. Just because a policy is a terrible idea doesn't mean people shouldn't take advantage of it while it is in force.

As a hypothetical, if the government took everyone's houses away and lotteried them back out out I'd say that was a terrible policy. I'd still be happy enough to move in to somewhere if I won a house though, because although the policy is appalling I'd rather be an owner than a renter and there aren't paths to owning.

Ditto, Ayn would probably have preferred that she wasn't taxed in the first place, but if they're going to give some of the money back she'd be stupid not to take it and there is no moral problem for her while taxes >= welfare receipts.

Re: Whistleblower says DOGE officials copied Social Security numbers

#13

Post by richrichardsson »

roenxi wrote: post #11
freen wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard to have effectively indentured servitude if there’s a social safety net. Remember even Hayek advocated for universal, government funded healthcare! Ayn Rand was on social security!

I doubt you could source a quote for the Hayek point, but more interestingly Rand's taking social security doesn't sound like any sort of contradiction with her views or an extreme anti-welfare position. Just because a policy is a terrible idea doesn't mean people shouldn't take advantage of it while it is in force. As a hypothetical, if the government took everyone's houses away and lotteried them back out out I'd s…

> Rand's taking social security doesn't sound like any sort of contradiction with her views or an extreme anti-welfare position. Just because a policy is a terrible idea doesn't mean people shouldn't take advantage of it while it is in force.

Assuming that integrity and hypocrisy don't play any part in judging a person.

Re: Whistleblower says DOGE officials copied Social Security numbers

#14

Post by roenxi »

richrichardsson wrote: post #13
roenxi wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt you could source a quote for the Hayek point, but more interestingly Rand's taking social security doesn't sound like any sort of contradiction with her views or an extreme anti-welfare position. Just because a policy is a terrible idea doesn't mean people shouldn't take advantage of it while it is in force. As a hypothetical, if the government took everyone's houses away and lotteried them back out out I'd s…

> Rand's taking social security doesn't sound like any sort of contradiction with her views or an extreme anti-welfare position. Just because a policy is a terrible idea doesn't mean people shouldn't take advantage of it while it is in force. Assuming that integrity and hypocrisy don't play any part in judging a person.

I don't recall the details of Ayn's moral arguments because they aren't of great interest to me, but there just isn't a fundamental inconsistency between campaigning against welfare and accepting welfare. There isn't any hypocrisy in pointing out that something creates horrible incentives, then doing what the incentives suggest. If anything it is a great show of consistency in belief.

The alternative position would be kinda crazy. It'd be pretty close to "The government has injured me and therefore I will make myself even worse off for no reason or gain to anyone!"

Re: Whistleblower says DOGE officials copied Social Security numbers

#15

Post by saagarjha »

0xy wrote: post #10

Copied from one secure S3 bucket to another secure S3 bucket, both inaccessible from the internet, both on SSA infrastructure. What exactly is the problem?

There are processes for copying data around. The person who works the front desk at Google doesn't have access to all of Gmail, for example.

Re: Whistleblower says DOGE officials copied Social Security numbers

#16

Post by afavour »

0xy wrote: post #10

Copied from one secure S3 bucket to another secure S3 bucket, both inaccessible from the internet, both on SSA infrastructure. What exactly is the problem?

> However, according to the complaint, the copied data had far fewer security measures in place to protect it than the SSA's standard protocols typically require.

> According to Andrea Meza, an attorney with the Government Accountability Project who represents Borges, the cloud environment appeared to be set up for DOGE-affiliated Social Security staffers, but it "lacks independent security, monitoring and oversight." She said Borges "has serious concerns about the vulnerability it causes for nearly every American's data."

Not all applications of "secure" are equal.

Re: Whistleblower says DOGE officials copied Social Security numbers

#17

Post by n4r9 »

roenxi wrote: post #11
freen wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard to have effectively indentured servitude if there’s a social safety net. Remember even Hayek advocated for universal, government funded healthcare! Ayn Rand was on social security!

I doubt you could source a quote for the Hayek point, but more interestingly Rand's taking social security doesn't sound like any sort of contradiction with her views or an extreme anti-welfare position. Just because a policy is a terrible idea doesn't mean people shouldn't take advantage of it while it is in force. As a hypothetical, if the government took everyone's houses away and lotteried them back out out I'd s…

In "The Road to Serfdom":

> There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom. .... There can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured to everybody. ... Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individual in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong.

Re: Whistleblower says DOGE officials copied Social Security numbers

#18

Post by roenxi »

n4r9 wrote: post #17
roenxi wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt you could source a quote for the Hayek point, but more interestingly Rand's taking social security doesn't sound like any sort of contradiction with her views or an extreme anti-welfare position. Just because a policy is a terrible idea doesn't mean people shouldn't take advantage of it while it is in force. As a hypothetical, if the government took everyone's houses away and lotteried them back out out I'd s…

In "The Road to Serfdom": > There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom. .... There can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured to everybody. ... Nor is there any reason…

That doesn't read like support for universal government funded healthcare. He's talking insurance in the more traditional meaning of the word where it involves unexpected catastrophes as opposed to the weird modernism in healthcare where it means paying for things that are likely to happen (or even volunteered for).

Eg, that quote doesn't involve government covering medical costs for someone in their old age.

He might even have been excluding things like catching the flu, seeing the doctor and needing a week off work since he's talking about things people could not make adequate provisions for on their own.

Re: Whistleblower says DOGE officials copied Social Security numbers

#19

Post by n4r9 »

roenxi wrote: post #18
n4r9 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In "The Road to Serfdom": > There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom. .... There can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured to everybody. ... Nor is there any reason…

That doesn't read like support for universal government funded healthcare. He's talking insurance in the more traditional meaning of the word where it involves unexpected catastrophes as opposed to the weird modernism in healthcare where it means paying for things that are likely to happen (or even volunteered for). Eg, that quote doesn't involve government covering medical costs for someone in their old age. He migh…

Yeah, there are going to be differing interpreations of "common hazards of life" and "adequate provision". But it certainly sounds like he's advocating state-funded healthcare for e.g. cancer, which is very different to what many modern libertarians believe.

Re: Whistleblower says DOGE officials copied Social Security numbers

#20

Post by roenxi »

n4r9 wrote: post #19
roenxi wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't read like support for universal government funded healthcare. He's talking insurance in the more traditional meaning of the word where it involves unexpected catastrophes as opposed to the weird modernism in healthcare where it means paying for things that are likely to happen (or even volunteered for). Eg, that quote doesn't involve government covering medical costs for someone in their old age. He migh…

Yeah, there are going to be differing interpreations of "common hazards of life" and "adequate provision". But it certainly sounds like he's advocating state-funded healthcare for e.g. cancer, which is very different to what many modern libertarians believe.

Maybe; he is advocating for a safety net. But I note he didn't say that either and, being an economist, he would probably have had the standard reservations - what exactly is the upper limit of care being provided to someone for "cancer"? It is very vague. If people still sometimes die of cancer when spending $X there is always room to spend $X+1 until the money runs out. No entity in existence can cover that sort of cost. If we lose the lighthouse of the free market pricing then it isn't at all clear how we'd work out what is reasonable.

The "genuinely insurable risks" and "few individuals can make adequate provision" comments he made in that quote are serious caveats on what he said. He clearly isn't advocating for what would be called universal state-funded healthcare in the modern context. He appears to be talking about a bare-bones public insurance scheme [0] for certain rare events where he didn't go into detail on what he thinks is reasonable to cover. I'd like it if everyone reverted to that sort of scheme, any English speaking country could get a tax break if they went back to that sort of system. The expectation would be that most people don't use it.

[0] Actual insurance, not this modern scheme of branding a welfare system as "insurance" to fake that it is financially responsible.

Post reply on HN