It is only ok when we do it!
~
Facebook Decision Enables IRS To Seek Commensurate With Income Enforcement Against Meta
Public Money, Private Benefit Working Class Storytelling
Russiagate Releases Lifting a Veil on Surveillance State Abuses Matt Taibbi
Cyber attack exposes details of thousands of internet provider iiNet's customers
First robodebt, now robodole. Both failed Australia’s most vulnerable
Ride-sharing apps are bad, actually Edward Ongweso Jr. “Or why Matthew Yglesias has no clue what he’s talking about.”
Fragile Movements Crumble Hamilton Nolan
NY Times: SpaceX Gets Billions From The Government, Pays Little In Taxes
Labor’s Strategy Must Lean Into SynergiesConvergence Mag
Veteran fact-checker says Trump made it ‘acceptable for politicians to lie with impunity’
Poynter: “The Washington Post Fact Checker is leaving the field. After close to 15 years of fact-checking, Glenn Kessler took a buyout as part of the Post’s recent newsroom overhaul. Kessler’s work helped rejuvenate fact-checking journalism in the United States, along with organizations like PolitiFact (owned by Poynter) and FactCheck.org.
The most valuable data in the world
Claire Berlinski – If data is the new oil, Elon Musk is the new Persian Gulf – “The list below is part of the second installment of The MechaHitler Reich. In a better world, it would be a sidebar to that newsletter—something you could glance at while you were reading it. But alas, this is not the best of all possible worlds, and Substack doesn’t give me that option.
I got worried that if I put the list at the top of the article, no one would read the article. But I also worried that if I put it at the end of the article, no one would read the list. I spent too much time compiling this list for that prospect to be tolerable. So I’ve decided just to send it separately.
Hang on to it, and when you receive Part II, keep it in an open tab just slightly to the left of your open newsletter, okay? As if it were a sidebar to an article. This is the most complete account I can come up with of the agencies in which Grok has been deployed, and the databases it has probably mined. It isn’t final, and it isn’t exhaustive. It’s only what I was able to put together from reports in the news and court filings.
Unless I’ve seen a credible report indicating that DOGE has access to a database, I haven’t listed it, even if it would be reasonable to surmise that it has. I use the word “probably” because in many cases, the reporting isn’t clear. An article might say, for example, that DOGE was given access to a database, but it might not say explicitly that the data wound up in Grok.
Or it says that the data was “analyzed using AI,” but doesn’t say that this AI was Grok. I’m assuming that probably, every time DOGE gains access to a database, its contents are swiftly fed to Grok, as a matter of routine. We have a consistent portrait of DOGE’s modus operandi. In report after report, court filing after court filing, employees recount witnessing the following sequence of events:
- The DOGE boys arrived.
- They figured out where the data was.
- They demanded the highest level of access to it.
- They weren’t interested in hearing that this was illegal and a violation of every known security protocol.
- They made it clear that they viewed the people who offered these objections as caviling Deep-State dinosaurs who should be replaced with AI as quickly as possible.
- If anyone tried to stop them, they were fired.
- Either these positions were left vacant or they were filled by someone pliant and DOGE-friendly.
- DOGE hooked up the department’s most sensitive databases to God-knows-what kind of server and vacuumed up the data without regard to long-established data-protection protocols.
- The chief security officer began vomiting or had an aneurysm.
- He quit or sued.
- DOGE used Grok, or “some kind of AI,” to analyze the data.
- If the courts temporarily blocked their access to the data, DOGE looked for ways to skirt the court order.
- DOGE’s attorneys told judges who had blocked their access that they would be very, very responsible with the data, or they promised to send only DOGE boys who’d received training in data handling.
- In some cases, the judge (or the White House and the Treasury Department) said they could have the data, but only in read-only mode, or an anonymized version. Otherwise, the judges mostly decided that DOGE should have unimpeded access to the data.
- If they hadn’t done so already, DOGE swiftly vacuumed up the data without any regard to long-established data protection protocols, then used Grok, or “some kind of AI,” to analyze it.
- The data soon showed up on the open Internet (sometimes on Elon Musk’s X feed). Foreign adversaries (Russia especially), profiting from the security vulnerabilities created by DOGE’s behavior, launched attack after attack on these now-vulnerable databases. Security analysts were left shaking, gibbering wrecks.
So whenever we read of DOGE gaining access to a database, it’s reasonable to think the data has already been shoveled into Grok’s maw. But I’m not 100 percent sure, hence “probably.”
I assume, when I read that DOGE used AI to analyze the data, that the AI in question is Grok. I can’t imagine Musk’s employees would feed all this precious data to a rival AI, can you? But again, I’m not 100 percent sure. Unless I’ve found reporting to the contrary, I’ve assumed that DOGE still has access to these databases.
Despite the Trump-Musk feud, Musk-aligned cadre remain inside the executive branch, so I don’t know why they wouldn’t. This list is probably very incomplete, because it doesn’t necessarily make the news when DOGE helps itself to another data set.
But it will give you a sense of the scale of this undertaking. Normally, sharing data from a federal agency requires the agency’s authorization and the oversight of a specialist who ensures adherence to relevant privacy and confidentiality laws and regulations.
DOGE hasn’t bothered with any of that. What they’re doing is a thousand kinds of illegal. But the law doesn’t enforce itself, and if the executive doesn’t feel like enforcing the law, then for practical purposes, no law exists…”
Appeals Court Allows DOGE Access to Sensitive Data at Several Agencies
The New York Times no paywall: “A federal appeals court on Tuesday allowed teamsaffiliated with the Department of Government Efficiency to gain access to potentially sensitive data on millions of Americans, overruling a lower court that had blocked that access in February.
By a 2-1 vote, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted the access to data stored at the Treasury Department, the Education Department and the Office of Personnel Management, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in a similar case in June involving Social Security data.
The decision cleared the way for teams put in place this year by Elon Musk to reclaim “high-level I.T. access” to government databases, Judge Julius N. Richardson wrote, over the objections of a number of labor unions who had sued, arguing the move violated federal privacy laws. Writing for the majority, Judge Richardson said the circumstances of the case mirrored those in a lawsuit involving data that the Supreme Court had weighed as an emergency application this year.
In an unsigned order in that case, the Supreme Court intervened to allow the DOGE analysts to continue sifting through the records “in order for those members to do their work.” Besides sensitive financial data linked to Social Security benefits, the government regularly collects other information on residents such as addresses, employer details and related statistics that could be used to identify individual people. The decision on Tuesday also concerned that kind of data, as well as information on student debt stored at the Education Department, which collects personal financial data on more than 40 million borrowers.
Judge Richardson, a Trump appointee, and Judge G. Steven Agee, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, formed the majority. Over the course of multiple lawsuits, the Justice Department has argued that the DOGE teams were directed by President Trump to scrutinize federal data to screen for evidence of wasted taxpayers dollars, redundant contracts or fraud.
After several federal judges moved this year to restrict their access, the government offered a number of concessions, including agreeing to have DOGE staff undergo routine security trainings and background checks, or to limit their access to only anonymized data that could not be linked to individual people. But as those cases have been appealed, the Supreme Court and appellate judges have more consistently sided with the government in allowing members of DOGE largely unfettered access to government systems…”