News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
It sounds like they haven't gotten access in this case. I'm actually kind of curious as to the impact where DOGE has gotten access to material. Like, it may constrain federal agencies, but does it have any impact on DOGE once it has that information? Like, what happens if a DOGE employee walks off with a bunch of information?
There are a couple issues at stake here, I think.
First, classified information. My impression from past reading that there are supposed to be two DOGE people who are authorized to work on classified information.
Second, what vetting has occurred in general.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Government_Efficiency#Known_DOGE_employees
It might be perfectly-acceptable to hire Coristine for many positions in the government. But I do not think that it is a good idea to choose him for the DOGE position, given a recent history of leaking data and retaining access to IT systems. It's not just Coristine in particular, but the question of what vetting DOGE has actually done. If Coristine made it through DOGE's vetting, presumably someone else could as well. And those people are touching a lot of data.
Third, what information security procedures are happening with extracted data? I'm sure that various departments have their own information security procedures. Whether they are themselves sufficient is an fair question, but this is pulling data from a lot into one place.
Fourth, what review is happening before publicly-releasing data? It sounds like some material is being publicly-published without conferring with the people who are normally responsible for its security. Sometimes, it's not immediately obvious what impact a release of information might have. For an infamous example, Trump's tweeting of a reconaissance satellite image during his first term, which exposed the resolution that US satellite reconaissance systems are capable of. Trump's response was that he had the authority to release it, which is probably true. But I strongly suspect that he did not understand the information security implications of doing so, and I doubt that he checked before releasing that information. I would guess that Trump simply thought that there was nothing secret in the area being imaged, so no problem, and didn't think about the implications of exposing imaging properties. Information security is hard, and even people who specialize in it get things wrong. DOGE is not specialized in the data of the agencies that it's looking into; its people probably aren't in a good position to make calls as to the impact of public release of data.
You could try a foia, but he fired the staff
If those start backing up, I would guess that Congress is going to get grouchy. I wonder who actually passed that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_(United_States)
Looks like the House was unanimous. Wikipedia doesn't have the Senate, but it'd be very surprising if they differed much.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_in_the_Sunshine_Act
This amendment was unanimous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Drug_Abuse_Act_of_1986
This amendment was 95%-ish in favor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_Act_of_1974
This amendment doesn't show the House vote, but the Senate was ~90% in favor.
[EDIT: This last one actually restricted disclosure of some personal information of citizens without their written authorization, so it's a minor move in the other direction]
So I'm pretty sure that both parties want FOIA.
If you remember, Trump was making an enormous deal out of the fact that he was going to "release JFK files" during this campaign. In general, I think that a lot of supporters are suspicious that the government is Up To Something and want to watch it.
Also, the Heritage Foundation was behind Project 2025. Their website describes the Freedom of Information Act in pretty positive terms.
I don't think that FOIA is likely going to be at much risk. From what I've read, I think that in general, a lot of people supporting Trump are suspicious that the progressive bureaucrats are going to go get up to no good progressive things in shadowy confines unless the sensible conservative public keeps an eye on them.