[flagged]
Not sure what you meant by that. Even if you get the clearance of some level, it doesn't mean you get immediate access to everything you want. There are still limits on what work you're actually given.
> Neither do the people we're talking about.
In theory they don't. But then you get the recent story about the terrible AI document review that resulted in real actions. There's so little control that by stupid actions they ended up effectively making decisions. They literally got banned from working on some information without a supervisor because they were so reckless.
Right, and that's the case here too. They are receiving access to systems and data relevant to the tasks they have been assigned to do. There are consequences if any individual acts maliciously or abusing the access and data they have been granted - just like any other government department/agency/employee.
There's so much fearmongering going on regarding this story it's seriously amusing. Just a few years ago Equifax leaked every adult's financial information, including social security numbers and more - and yet the mere possibility of a potential leak (of the exact same information, by the way) is being treated like armageddon.
It's politics ramped up to the maximum level...
No, they're forcefully entering buildings, adding unapproved infrastructure with no oversight and get rubberstamped access to everything, with people in the way being threatened firing.
> There are consequences if any individual acts maliciously or abusing the access
No, there have been no consequences. The only ones we've seen were: 1. they have to stop, 2. they can continue but with supervision of someone. There's been access abuse already and it will not be prosecuted.
> yet the mere possibility of a potential leak
There were effectively leaks already. Where Doge was told no they can't access some data they already looked through, those were leaks.
I'm not sure why you bring up Equifax - yes, they're both bad ¯ \ _ ( ツ ) _ / ¯
That's not what the court was ruling on. Nor is there any evidence that the subject were specifically responsible for these crimes.
>> There are consequences if any individual acts maliciously or abusing the access
> No, there have been no consequences.
That's how consequences work. First the violation, then the consequence. When is based on a number of factors. IN THIS CASE, we're talking about potential acts and consequences. Ofc they have not yet been assigned.
This is not a discussion when the responses are in the form of hypotheticals being assigned to the subjects out of frustration (I'm frustrated by the feckless courts too). None of us are directly involved. Assume good faith. Be kind.
Looks like the propaganda worked. DOGE is not a "government department" and there is very little visibility into how it's run.
These folks have seemingly unmitigated access to systems, in completely unhinged wild ways.
They also are executioners for the civil service. The recent reports on how NSF grants were all ran by a disinterested non communicative DOGE child seem to be all to common, just one of what this legion of state-ociding invaders are up to. https://www.techdirt.com/2025/06/02/a-23-year-old-crypto-bro...
Any attempt to dismiss the extreme panic & freak out that should be happening here is wild.
It is under a kakistocracy.