Ask HN: Why hasn't x86 caught up with Apple M series?

>Mr. Borges said DOGE members copied the data to an internal agency server that only DOGE could access, forgoing the type of “independent security monitoring” normally required under agency policy for such sensitive data and creating “enormous vulnerabilities.”

The fact that the courts (largely SCOTUS) has allowed this whole mess to go on is bonkers. These are potentially terrible results for citizens by an organization that continuously has shown no care for the rights of citizens ... and yet is given a free hand to do what it wants.

There's no negative impact to saying "no you can't do the thing until you get your security shit together".

Eddy_Viscosity2 · 1h ago

The negative impact would be that they couldn't do the very shadey things with the data that the intended from the onset had they had to subject to basically any security oversight.

kjksf · 3h ago

It could be because the role of courts is to interpret the laws enacted by congress.

To my knowledge there is no law enacted by congress that dictates how SSN data is stored. Congress created the social security apparatus but day to day operations of said apparatus are in executive branch and executive branch ultimately carries the wishes of the president. So if president directs part of executive branch (DOGE) to audit another part of executive branch (social security) it's legal and works exactly as the constitution prescribed.

duxup · 3h ago

The departments of government do have laws on how they handle data and handing it to another organization with no rules clearly would violate those laws.

shadowgovt · 3h ago

Unfortunately, the courts can largely only address harm. If someone's data actually gets stolen, or if a specific law is broken, the courts are the government arm to address it.

Avoiding ending up in court is the purpose of agency policy, and... gestures widely at the current state of the United States Executive regarding policy adherence.

Eddy_Viscosity2 · 1h ago

It is absolutely the case that courts can address potential harm before it occurs. There have been already many cases rising up where people sue to stop government actions because if taken, they would cause harm. But... the current SCOTUS is all onboard the dictator train (unitary executive theory) and have stayed lower court orders on the basis that the president would have irreparable harm if orders, even unconstitutional ones, are not carried out immediately.

shadowgovt · 20m ago

Can you give an example of the kind of prior restraint you're thinking of?

What you're describing is an injunction, and in general, courts are loathe to hand them out (this one notwithstanding). It happens, but the bar is generally extremely high. Even prior to Trump, I wouldn't expect one for this category of executive operation for the same reason that I wouldn't expect one if someone complained that the government was physically transferring PII in an agent's car instead of a Brinks truck.

adamsb6 · 3h ago

You should assume that the identifying details in this database are already leaked. The Equifax breach in 2017 exposed about half of all Americans. The National Public Data breach last year included 272 million Social Security numbers.

You can get an inconvenient approximation of challenge/response by freezing your reports with the bureaus and only unfreezing them briefly when applying for new credit.

sega_sai · 1h ago

Great job, flagging team!

Molitor5901 · 2h ago

Well it's a good thing the risk was identified and mitigated.

jbegley · 4h ago

https://archive.ph/D3vJ0

megaloblasto · 3h ago

Sort of off topic but this reminds me of a Hunter S Thompson quote I read yesterday about the Nixon administration

"Meanwhile, the Vice president of the United States has been lashed out of office and disbarred in his home state of Maryland, the president himself is teetering on the bring of a Burglary/Conspiracy indictment that will mean certain impeachment, and the whole structure of our government has become a stagnant mockery of itself and everybody who ever had faith in it"

SV_BubbleTime · 3h ago

The more you read about Nixon, the more it seems like the popular narrative is likely less right than the CIA ousted a sitting president to install their guy.

So I’m not sure a popular writer at the time had the historically correct take, as it seems that we’re still not sure exactly what the truth was. Woodward for example, had absolutely no business being in his position and just so happened to be at all the right places at the right time.

ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 · 3h ago

> The more you read about Nixon, the more it seems like the popular narrative is likely less right than the CIA ousted a sitting president to install their guy.

Such as?

IMO, the more you allude to spooky things without adding substantive information, the more you sound like a loon.

xrd · 3h ago

This seems to point to collusion between Nixon and CIA for a lot of criminality. Or, is this inaccurate history?

https://www.thehistoryreader.com/military-history/nixons-bay...

If you are saying Nixon was a victim of CIA troublemaking, then you should point out which faction of the CIA you mean.

bronson · 3h ago

And you're saying that their guy was Ford? Or Carter? That's what the CIA wanted?

You're going to have to explain more.

duxup · 3h ago

What makes it seem more likely the CIA did the thing?

The traditional history seems pretty plausible to me.

bananapub · 3h ago

ah, classic HN, flagged already!

some psychopaths stole a lot of personal data from the US federal government, and we don't know who took it, what they took, what they did with it, or why.

but don't worry, that's Politics, and so we should just ignore the crimes being done in public and talk about how we can enrich the technofascists who might give you some equity if you work hard.

amarcheschi · 3h ago

just following orders (from hn guidelines) /s