re: The Trump admin admits even more ways DOGE [illegally] accessed sensitive personal data

quote:

---

This board treated Hillary’s private server like Watergate.

---

Hillary destroyed records under subpoena AND those records were classified records. Citizen level data is marked sensitive.. but not classified. A completely different classification level. So two huge violations from which she skated.

And somehow....... that was fine and absolutely dandy.

And forgive us if NPfrikenR isn't immediately taken as gospel. If these "outside" agencies were contractors, what they did was fine. So what was the status of them?

The federal government and state routinely share sensitive level data sent via parcel deliver on an encrypted usb drive. Ever know of anyone under federal tax audit that immediately went under state tax audit at the conclusion of the Fed one? That's not coincidence.

quote:

---

How does it feel to be the most conciliatory poster this board has ever known?

---

Well, I could say the same to you.

quote:

---

Chuck Borges, who alleged that DOGE staffers repeatedly violated internal SSA policies and federal laws

---

vs

quote:

---

potentially outside of SSA policy

---

Those are not the same thing.

quote:

---

This board treated Hillary’s private server like Watergate.

---

She destroyed evidence during an investigation. That's a crime. One they put J6ers away for years for. It's how Arthur Anderson went down.


There used to be a big 5, now there is only 4.

quote:

---

who alleged

---

Is DOGE still a thing? Serious question (and I hope the answer is yes!)

Don't you mean to say "played the Democrats game just like they do"?

quote:

---

For much of the last year, staffers who were initially part of the Department of Government Efficiency effort improperly accessed and shared sensitive personal data on millions of Americans.

---

If it was established and performed within the DOGE framework as established by President Trump, it was not improperly accessed or shared.

quote:

---

The Trump administration hasn't been able to answer how much data is at risk, what it was used for or why its unprecedented efforts to consolidate data are needed.

---

How much data is at risk? Perhaps none if it was properly accessed and collected within the established framework of DOGE. Otherwise, the mission of DOGE is/was to identify waste and fraud in the pursuit of improving government efficiency, which answers the other sensationalized, abstract hypotheticals. I fail to see a problem if the work was done as ordered.

quote:

---

Those questions deepened last week, when the Social Security Administration said it discovered DOGE employees at the agency secretly and improperly shared sensitive personal data last year, but once again can't verify the extent of the violations. The admission came in a court filing last Friday, Jan. 16, that made numerous corrections to testimony given by top agency officials last year in a lawsuit alleging that DOGE was illegally accessing Social Security data.

---

The work was ordered by the Executive branch. Secretly isn't necessarily a problem if it precluded bad actors from hiding data. Further, secretly applies to investigations as well, and if DOGE disclosed to the SSA that they were investigating waste and fraud, I don't see why they should be compelled to divulge all of their processes and other information that the SSA didn't need to know.

Again, improperly isn't accurate if DOGE team members worked within the DOGE framework. If the executive branch ordered it, it is arguable at best to call it illegal. There may have been an authority / jurisdictional dispute as to how much DOGE could do, but this is not some blatantly criminal undertaking.

quote:

---

The unnamed employees secretly conferred with a political advocacy group about a request to match Social Security data with state voter rolls to "find evidence of voter fraud and to overturn election results in certain States," the filing said. It remains unclear whether any data actually went to this group.

---

If whatever consultancy between DOGE members and others was allowed / encouraged by the executive branch for guidance about how to identify waste and fraud, I don't see an issue. If the intent was the to find fraud... and if they find fraud, I don't see an issue. If they don't find fraud, then that isn't a problem either. And if they only consulted with the advocacy group but didn't share it, then there isn't a problem, and that's a baseless allegation.

quote:

---

"Based on its review of records obtained during or after October 2025, SSA identified communications, use of data, and other actions by the then-SSA DOGE Team that were potentially outside of SSA policy and/or noncompliant with the District Court's March 20, 2025, temporary restraining order," DOJ attorneys wrote.

---

They were commissioned to do this work by DOGE under the direction of the Executive branch. If they performed this work correctly under the framework of DOGE, then "potentially outside of SSA policy" sounds irrelevant, and "potentially [noncompliant with the 3/32/2035 TRO]" sounds like a very vague, unsubstantiated accusation.

quote:

---

DOGE team members also circumvented IT rules to improperly share data on outside servers, sent a password-protected file of private records to DOGE affiliates outside the agency

---

If DOGE members followed their framework and mission to collect and investigate SSA data, it unavoidably circumvents IT rules to not share data with outside servers. In that context, every time the FBI or other forensic investigators have to perform a data collection, the act inherently ignores or circumvents internal IT rules that employees are bound by if the company or organization doesn't want to share that data.

quote:

---

This board treated Hillary’s private server like Watergate.
The same people are now completely unbothered by government affiliates improperly exporting private records to outside servers and circumventing IT protections.

---

In one case (Hillary), the data never lived in its proper place, where it would have been subject to proper retention policies and would have been subject to being produced in inquiries and investigations. Personal emails were intentionally and illegally used to avoid oversight and an unsecure server was illegally set up to house classified information.

In the other case, the executive branch launched an investigation into fraud and waste and DOGE employees, so long as they followed their framework, were following orders to access and investigate sensitive personal info (SSN#s) to identify waste and fraud. Even if they did not find voter fraud in this way, they did discover fraudulent or errant payments were being sent to dead people, and helped the SSA and FedGov save money.

One instance was an overtly illegal act to avoid accountability-- arguably to cover for other illegal activity. The other was only potentially illegal-- not in a criminal way-- but in an arguable context of how much authority DOGE workers have to carry out their mission when it conflicts with an organization's internal guidelines. There is no fraudulent element here the way there is in the other.

Comparing these two things seriously would be unintelligent.

Lots of "potentially "...not sure......possible.....unable to determine....can't verify"


Etc etc