Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Matthew Loxton (mloxton@med-mastodon.com)'s status on Wednesday, 05-Feb-2025 06:21:15 JST Matthew Loxton

   Just to be clear, DOGE is not a government department, and has not been formed by Congress according to ArtII.S2.C2.3.6 "Creation of Federal Offices"
   His employees have no government contract
   The people he is sending in to just access government servers have no security clearance, are not operating under a contract, and have no oversight

   The "Department of government efficiency" is not a government department any more than if you or I created a "office of internal nut cracking" (OINC)

   • Doughnut Lollipop 【記録係】:blobfoxgooglymlem: and Fish of Rage like this.
   • Embed this notice
     :blobcathug: (jain@blob.cat)'s status on Wednesday, 05-Feb-2025 06:21:14 JST :blobcathug:

     in reply to
     @mloxton
     > The people he is sending in to just access government servers have no security clearance
     Ist that so?
     https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-government-young-engineers/
   • Embed this notice
     :blobcathug: (jain@blob.cat)'s status on Wednesday, 05-Feb-2025 06:53:06 JST :blobcathug:

     in reply to
     @mloxton
     Let me quote:
     > Sources tell WIRED that Bobba, Coristine, Farritor, and Shaotran all currently have working GSA emails and A-suite level clearance at the GSA.
     
     Want to guess who I believe more? You or investigative journalists from a portal that is classified as trustworthy?
     No, let me resolve it. I consider your statements to be fundamentalist ideological wishful thinking that does not correspond to reality
   • Embed this notice
     Matthew Loxton (mloxton@med-mastodon.com)'s status on Wednesday, 05-Feb-2025 06:53:07 JST Matthew Loxton

     in reply to

     • :blobcathug:

     @Jain
     Nothing I have seen suggests that any of them went through the government security vetting

   • Embed this notice
     mark (atleagle@mastodon.online)'s status on Wednesday, 05-Feb-2025 07:34:27 JST mark

     in reply to

     @mloxton and he orders things around by saying that "Trump told me its ok"

   • Embed this notice
     :blobcathug: (jain@blob.cat)'s status on Wednesday, 05-Feb-2025 17:37:03 JST :blobcathug:

     in reply to
     @mloxton
     Fundamentalism because you argued with the law, specifically "ArtII.S2.C2.3.6: Creation of Federal Offices" as well as that they have no government contract. Its the ideological thinking that they have to be a official government departement to gain certain power.
     
     Your whole Argument Chain is based on those two things:
     They cant have a security clearance, because they have no contract and are not a real departement, altho you never considered that someone higher up in the chain just gave them the clearance.
     
     (The "wishful" is just speculation from my side, who knows, maybe you like them having power.)
     
     My sentence makes sense especially when you consider that I linked a trustworthy article, while you counter me with "Nothing I have seen suggests..." so yes, I strongly assume that you were not present during this process so you have to rely on sources and you don't acknowledge them.
   • Embed this notice
     Matthew Loxton (mloxton@med-mastodon.com)'s status on Wednesday, 05-Feb-2025 17:37:04 JST Matthew Loxton

     in reply to

     • :blobcathug:

     @Jain
     "fundamentalist ideological wishful thinking"

     Sorry what now?
     Explain how doubting that these guys went through the right channels and had normal security vetting is "fundamentalist ideological wishful thinking".
     Fundamentalist with what?
     What ideology?
     Wishful, how?

   • Embed this notice
     :blobcathug: (jain@blob.cat)'s status on Thursday, 06-Feb-2025 01:12:59 JST :blobcathug:

     in reply to
     @mloxton
     
     > Fundamentalism - The law still partially works under total fascism, and we are not yet at a complete fascist takeover. So mechanisms are still in place, still operating, and I am pointing out that the DOGE crowd are circumventing it and people are complying in a way that is outside law. There is still time to point that out, make people realize that this is breaking rules, and to mobilize against it getting worse. People often assume that things are lawful.
     
     Laws are written texts which are applied subjectively. I now claim that within fascism the subjective application turns further away from the original idea of a law. Disclaimer, I did not talk about fascism in any of my statements. Im glad that you point out the DOGE crowd, we are on the same side about this.
     
     > Security: I point it out for two reasons. One, is that the lack of security vetting highlights the risk and the abnormality of the situation, and secondly, that if Trump himself granted security clearance, that in itself is noteworthy and signals where we are headed.
     
     I am glad that you see it that way too, because the original statement you made was that they had no security clearance and that is exactly what I have spoken out against, no more and no less. The counter-argument that followed made you look like you wanted to look the other way and denying what is going on.
     
     > People need to be reminded that this is abnormal, breaks precedent and practice, and that good practice is being skirted.
     > "maybe you like them having power"
     >That makes fuckall sense. I suggest you reconsider
     
     I do, forgive me, altho i don't know you and i think you should deduce how this sentence came about with this answer here at the latest
     
     > "I linked a trustworthy article"
     > My dude, I am following reputable infosec sources, I get security briefings, I have lived in places where authoritarianism was a feature, I know how the gov security vetting works. So again, I have not seen anything that suggested that they "went through the government security vetting". Trump simply granting clearance is not going though "government security vetting", nor is getting an email account from some compliant local IT guy.
     
     And with these statements i have some issues... I see arguments based on your memory/experience as difficult in this situation. But now, lets go back to our original discussion then. I don't really care how the process went, it's not about how the process went, but rather about whether the security clearance is in place or not. And so far, you haven't been able to come up with a counterargument that somebody can relate to or at least something which would be an indicator, that they dont have the security clearance.
     
     This would be possible, for example, by either disproving the credibility of the publishers of the article, or if, for example, you could find a source with comparable credibility that says the opposite and in such cases I do not rely on statements made by individuals. If your level of knowledge, experience or government proximity (or whatever) could be a credible source to discredit the parts or even the full article, then you even might want to talk to the publishers of the article or their competitors.
     
     I for my part, cannot change my mind without at least having credible indicators that speak against the credible indicators in the article and our discussion didn't make it any better so far.
   • Embed this notice
     Matthew Loxton (mloxton@med-mastodon.com)'s status on Thursday, 06-Feb-2025 01:13:00 JST Matthew Loxton

     in reply to

     • :blobcathug:

     @Jain
     "I linked a trustworthy article"

     My dude, I am following reputable infosec sources, I get security briefings, I have lived in places where authoritarianism was a feature, I know how the gov security vetting works. So again, I have not seen anything that suggested that they "went through the government security vetting". Trump simply granting clearance is not going though "government security vetting", nor is getting an email account from some compliant local IT guy.

   • Embed this notice
     Matthew Loxton (mloxton@med-mastodon.com)'s status on Thursday, 06-Feb-2025 01:13:01 JST Matthew Loxton

     in reply to

     • :blobcathug:

     @Jain
     Security: I point it out for two reasons. One, is that the lack of security vetting highlights the risk and the abnormality of the situation, and secondly, that if Trump himself granted security clearance, that in itself is noteworthy and signals where we are headed. People need to be reminded that this is abnormal, breaks precedent and practice, and that good practice is being skirted.

     "maybe you like them having power"
     That makes fuckall sense. I suggest you reconsider

     ...

   • Embed this notice
     Matthew Loxton (mloxton@med-mastodon.com)'s status on Thursday, 06-Feb-2025 01:13:02 JST Matthew Loxton

     in reply to

     • :blobcathug:

     @Jain
     Thanks for the explanation

     Fundamentalism - The law still partially works under total fascism, and we are not yet at a complete fascist takeover. So mechanisms are still in place, still operating, and I am pointing out that the DOGE crowd are circumventing it and people are complying in a way that is outside law. There is still time to point that out, make people realize that this is breaking rules, and to mobilize against it getting worse. People often assume that things are lawful.
     ...

   • Embed this notice
     :blobcathug: (jain@blob.cat)'s status on Thursday, 06-Feb-2025 01:17:23 JST :blobcathug:

     in reply to
     @mloxton I agree with you on that of course.
   • Embed this notice
     Matthew Loxton (mloxton@med-mastodon.com)'s status on Thursday, 06-Feb-2025 01:17:25 JST Matthew Loxton

     in reply to

     • :blobcathug:

     @Jain
     Thanks

     "I don't really care how the process went, it's not about how the process went, but rather about whether the security clearance is in place or not."

     Here we differ. Process is actually more important, because process is the repeatable and documented way things work. If Trump just handed them clearance, that is something worth digging into, but isn't the point. The point is that the process of getting clearance is a risk-reduction mechanism. These LostBoys are risks