Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
European here, giving my two cents on how this looks from the other side of the Atlantic. Heh

In my country there are laws stopping agencies doing a simple SQL join between two databases, even within the same government agency. There is a separate agency that handles the requests when agencies want to join information.

I am not an expert in the matter. But my gut is telling me that our experiences with east Germany and Stasi left a scar.

It can quickly turn into a real nightmare, and there for there are check and balances to make it slow. It’s deliberate inefficiency.

Do you know why in Portugal they have 4 different ID numbers?

It is like that to prevent the state from persecuting people on the base that it is hard for a branch of the government to figure out who is someone based on a number from a different branch.

Do you know why they want to prevent the government from persecuting people?

Because it has already happened, and the portuguese don't want it to happen again.

Dictatorship from 1926 to 1976, and yet a strangely obscure one, probably due to neutrality during world war two.
Same here in Germany, only recently we got the tax ID number as a global primary key to the objections of many privacy activists.

Ex-Yugoslavian countries have had a global ID forever - the JMBG or, in Croatia, OIB [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_Master_Citizen_Number

[flagged]
> they are parallelising the work

That's an interesting rephrasing for "sidestepping all security to get access".

> The access is read only, and they are not linking personal data between agencies

Yup, that's exacly what someone who wants to change the beneficiaries of a few contracts and payments, as well as fire some of the people overseeing my companies would say.

No, the animosity is coming from the belligerent way DOGE is going about its work, and the lack of security clearance or any oversight of these people, some of whom are very inexperienced and some of whom have clear conflicts of interest, and the enormous power they are accumulating.
And where can one find technical and transparent details about what data DOGE is looking at, why, and what safeguards they're taking?
loading story #43113766
Since you seem to know what you are talking about:

I am a bit confused by your stressing the access is read-only. Isn't that obviously given (apologies for the redundant words, but I really don't know how to convey my confusion). For what purpose they could ever be given a write access to the hundreds of federal databases they are supposed to analyze?

Also, if they don't have the manpower to go over the data one by one then they don't have the power to go over them in parallel. When you say "parallelising the work" what exactly does that mean? What is it specifically that they are "parallelising"? Is there an engineer/analyst looking at multiple screens simultaneously and arriving conclusions for multiple agencies at the same time?

All of these assertions are provably false.
The ends do not justify the means.

These means can easily lead to a nightmare. We've been through that a century ago. Look up Dehomag. Never Again.

> they are not linking personal data between agencies

> Trump has prohibited Musk from being involved in with the review in agencies where he was a material conflict

I'm not saying these are or aren't happening, but it seems like a lot of "good faith" assumptions here. If you assume Musk is an unethical actor, these seem mostly meaningless.

loading story #43113834
DOGE is literally making up that people had bad work reviews to justify firing them. They are liars 100% down.

They are literally firing people first and then calling them back? How is that efficiency?

I cannot believe we are talking about these people seriously with all the BS "We saved $* Billion dollars to stop Mind Control News" on the DOGE "website".

Musk is not in a position to identify waste and fraud.

What does he know of the genesis and status of these payments? Congress directs spending and oversees the administration, not the other way around.

Why does he have to finish in an arbitrary time frame?

This is all justification after the fact for those who support Musk/Trump unconditionally.

It's all fun and games until your Medicare/Social Security/Tax Refund or other legitimate payment gets cancelled arbitrarily, illegally and unconstitutionally.

Trump has prohibited Musk from being involved in any reviews where he was a material conflict (FAA for example).

You keep saying things that are blatantly untrue, people give you massive evidence they aren't true, then you keep saying them. Why is that?

Elon Musk’s Companies Were Under Investigation by Five Inspectors General When the Trump Administration Fired Them and Made Musk the Investigator

https://wallstreetonparade.com/2025/02/elon-musks-companies-...

https://www.levernews.com/trump-purges-inspectors-general-in...

Agency sent a memo to all agency staff notifying them that “all election security activities” would be paused pending the results of an internal investigation. The memo also stated that the administration was cutting off all funds to the Election Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center—a Department of Homeland Security–funded organization that helps state and local officials monitor, analyze, and respond to cyberattacks targeting the nation’s election hardware and software.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/02/trump-doge-layof...

FDA staff were reviewing Elon Musk’s brain implant company. DOGE just fired them.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/02/17/fda-...

https://gizmodo.com/doge-reportedly-cuts-fda-employees-inves...

loading story #43113988
This sort of thing already exists in America for cases where Americans actually care about privacy: the gun tracing system is forced to be on paper.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/s-just-insanity-atf-now-needs-2...

Guns are constitutionally protected in a way that humans aren't.

While I agree in principle, that's not an entirely intellectually honest evaluation. The government is prohibited from creating an electronic registry of guns, not because of the guns themselves, but ultimately because of the judicial understanding of the Second Amendment confirming (not granting) an inherent right of citizens to possess them. The restriction is in service to the gun owners by protecting them from government overreach. The guns are merely a layer of abstraction on that.
That's putting it mildly. What it really looks like is a fast descent into madness.
It is to avoid totalitarianism.
Having a slow and archaic birocratic system doesn't stop governments going totalitarian on their citizens.

Case in point In Germany the Polizei will SWAT and arrest you if you post a meme on social media that angers someone's dignity. That's not a joke that actually happens.

This typical German "our government is not slow and inefficient, it's just protection against totalitarianism" is pure cope.

Edit: @helloplanets Source: https://youtu.be/-bMzFDpfDwc?si=eIUkEuDBx3iX_TEx

> Case in point In Germany the Polizei will swat and arrest you if you post a meme on social media that angers someone's dignity. That's not a joke that actually happens.

Source?

That's because slander isn't protected speech and is directly illegal. It's not totalitarianism, just encoded politeness.

You can still say anything, with a modicum of decency.

Sounds like a system which could easily be abused. "politeness" and "decency" are ripe for all manner of interpretations.

In the US we see that the only things keeping authoritarianism at bay is larger the people following norms (like the peaceful transfer of power after losing an election), and the executive obeying orders from the judiciary. All it takes is for a group to not to that any more and boom.

Short road to where 'slander' means any criticism (however objectively true and justified) of people in power and you get a swat team at your door and steel boot on your neck.

The US is in no position to tell anyone about how to avoid authoritarianism.
On the other hand, we are providing on object lesson in how not to avoid authoritarianism, so there’s that...
>The US is in no position to tell anyone about how to avoid authoritarianism.

You're deflecting valid criticism about Germany's speech censorship with "Americans should shut up". Unbelievable.

>Sounds like a system which could easily be abused.

It is constantly abused, the issue is Germans have gaslit themselves into thinking that it's the right thing to do "because nazism was bad", so they have Nazi levels of speech censorship to fight imaginary Nazism, because once you label someone who disagrees with you as a Nazi you are free to censor them, which then in turn is causing the uprising of actual Nazism because people are tired of being censored for having opinions that oppose the mainstream narrative. Germans are really a difficult bunch to reason with logically.

What do you know about the deliberations and discussions went into these laws.

> because once you label someone who disagrees with you as a Nazi you are free to censor them,

Show examples of it.

>That's because slander isn't protected speech and is directly illegal.

In one case it wasn't slander. A person pointed out a politician's Nazi/Stati past on social media and he still sued abusing the "muh dignity" bullshit law.

Maybe, but if there's proof he'll lose.
loading story #43125586
{"deleted":true,"id":43113569,"parent":43113046,"time":1740051850,"type":"comment"}
loading story #43112969
loading story #43113499
loading story #43112844
When it comes to government spending though, shouldn’t the public have a right to know precisely, with dollar-level accuracy what they are being asked to pay?

As far as the experiences of the Stasi and previous German governments, it must not have too much of a scar: Germany still asks people to register their religion — ostensibly for tax purposes, but if I recall correctly, Germany had a problem in the past with having a list of all people in a specific religion.

loading story #43113590
> When it comes to government spending though, shouldn’t the public have a right to know precisely, with dollar-level accuracy what they are being asked to pay?

Doing that does not require anywhere remotely near the level of data access DOGE has been given.

a lot of countries already have this, and without handing e.g. Elon Musk the keys to the kingdom. America for example has this: https://www.foia.gov/
European here. Governments in Europe, even ones that have GDPR on their books, literally act as oppressively as they want to act: U.K. orders Apple to let it spy on users' encrypted accounts [1]

[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/02/07/apple-e...

European here.

There are vast differences between how the different governments operate.

It's a classic Motte and Bailey. "Europe acts in this way, so much better than America. [...] No no, not THAT Europe, I of course was only talking about this other part of Europe!"

How is the most populous state in the EU doing?

> The German parliament amended two laws on June 10th granting enhanced surveillance powers to segments of the federal police and intelligence services. They allow the use of spyware to hack into phones and computers circumventing encryption used by messaging applications such as WhatsApp and Signal, raising concerns about the right to privacy.

> The new federal police law allows interception of communications of “persons against whom no suspicion of a crime has yet been established and therefore no criminal procedure measure can yet be ordered”. This fails to ensure the necessary protection against unjustified and arbitrary interference in people’s privacy, required under international law. Human Rights Watch and the United Nations have pointed out the importance of encryption and anonymity for data protection and the right to privacy.

> The government argues that new legislation is needed to keep up with technological developments and claims the new powers are to help federal police stifle human trafficking and undocumented migration.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/06/24/germanys-new-surveillanc...

...oh

loading story #43113642
loading story #43113511
That's orthogonal to what op is saying.

You're saying agencies can be directed to opress people and organisations.

Op is saying agencies don't get to willy nilly look into the db of other agencies.

> check and balances to make it slow. It’s deliberate inefficiency.

It’s an important thing about free countries that is seldom appreciated: aspects of their governments are designed to be tar pits, on purpose. It’s a way of restraining government.

I have a personal saying that touches on something adjacent. “I like my politicians boring. Interesting government was a major cause of death in the twentieth century.”

When I think of governments that are both interesting and streamlined I think of the Nazis, the Khmer Rouge, Stalin era USSR, Maoist purges, etc.

It's worth noting all those regimes were really only streamlined at getting people killed one way or the other. Their internal history is always a story of wild incompetence and corner-cutting. The Nazis in particular got a lot of undue credit for effectiveness.
> It’s deliberate inefficiency.

Inefficiency is a useful property of many systems [0,1]. Current cultural obsessions around the word are a burden and mistake, and the word "efficiency" now feels rather overload with right-wing connotations.

[0] https://cybershow.uk/blog/posts/efficiency/

[1] https://cybershow.uk/blog/posts/cash2/

I have strong feeling that in the past 50 or so years, we often have traded resiliency for efficiency. I think we might have gone too far.

That doesn't mean that being deliberately inefficient will improve resiliency. Also, some of the deliberate inefficiency (i.e. looking at weird thing us healthcae/health-insurance system has going on) is more ... extractive? That sounds like the word I am looking for.

[flagged]
[flagged]
> $50,000 to Sri Lanka for “climate change” isn’t a “popular program.”

Is that $50,000 annual? Because if so that's less than a rounding error for the budget of almost any country, much less the US. The costs associated with ending this program (organizational, employee time) may even be higher than just continuing to pay it.

> Paying dead people social security isn’t popular.

Is there any public statistical data on this? As far as I know US social security does periodically verify if recipients are still alive. Of course some cases will slip through the cracks, but unless DOGE plans to individually track down every recipient and see them in person I don't see how they can solve this problem. This inevitably happens with pretty much any social security system, anywhere.

> Sending money to the Taliban isn’t popular.

Is there a source for this?

> When you say Trump doesn’t care about waste, that isn’t supported by the facts. The deficit isn’t about waste, fraud or abuse, it’s about overspending. They aren’t the same thing.

He could start by reducing overspending on the US' titanic corporate subsidies, but something tells me he won't.

{"deleted":true,"id":43113758,"parent":43113373,"time":1740053449,"type":"comment"}
loading story #43113147
[flagged]
Except that they, an unelected private group, have already attempted to get all private and confidential citizen data from the US treasury, and have been blocked by the courts as it is illegal.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/feb/08/judge-tem...

They have tried to get data of all payments to US citizens including pensions, 401k, benefits and allowances etc. All foreign aid and diplomacy payments are included, and they have been charged with trying to find ways to illegaly stop these payments.

Be very careful in supporting what Musk and DOGE do. They are unelected, and have been given unprecedented access to government data. Scary times are ahead.

Doge isn’t private. They are government employees. Also USAID was unelected. Nobody working at the IRS was elected either.
loading story #43113456
Just on the un-elected private group bit. This would apply to every one of the staff members of these departments. How many elected software developers worked on the original software? How many private contractors were elected? Are there a pile of elected software developers working as cobol and java devs?

It's not the stupidest argument, but it applies to every last staff member of the us treasury.

loading story #43113102
loading story #43113013
The motion to block DOGE has also been dismissed by courts

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/doge/judge-denies-states-bi...

Nobody complained about "unelected" Obama or Biden appointees accessing the treasury or SSN, but now that Trump is exposing corruption en-masse and stopping the gravy train, many folks are suddenly very concerned. The FUD is unfortunately not working.

All this will probably go to the Supreme Court. And just like Biden ignored the Supreme Court ruling on student loans and even boasted about it proudly on twitter - saying they cannot block the executive, the precedent was also setup for Trump to do the same.

loading story #43113586
loading story #43115582
[flagged]
> They are unelected, So are 2.5 million other employees and advisors in government.

The 2.5 million you speak of operate within agencies whose mandates have been given by Congress and their actions are subject to judicial reciew. There is no Comgressional mandate for DOGE. They are the rogue agency people like you spent years worrying about.

DOGE is an agency, it took over the digital services agency that existed before.[1]. Obama had created the original agency, not Congress, so Trump had the ability to change it.

"The United States Digital Service is hereby publicly renamed as the United States DOGE Service (USDS) and shall be established in the Executive Office of the President."

And I’m not sure why you think a “congressional mandate” is required for the executive to do things, it’s not. Especially for an agency that a former President created on his own.

As for data access, my understanding is the digital services agency already had data access to other agencies through pre-existing agreements (it goes back to the original mandate to fix the Obamacare website which required pulling data from numerous databases).

[1]https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/esta...

The mandate and personnel of the Digital Service are completely different from DOGE, so they are effectively different things. Renaming an existing one was just an administrative shortcut taken by an executive that clearly does not care for the spirit or the letter of any law (as stated by the president himself in his infamous tweet).
As you are well aware Washington DC isn’t big on following “the spirit of the law” and is a big fan on quick workarounds for the bureaucracy that slows things to a crawl.

I give credit to Trump and Musk for playing the DC game like professional politicians.

It’s pretty clear you can’t get anything done in DC without it.

> There is no Comgressional mandate for DOGE.

There is. It was given during Obama. You might not like it, but it looks like DOGE is likely to be completely legal and working within the frameworks of the government.

Doge doesn’t need a congressional mandate. There’s Article II.
> or are just inherently anti-Musk

The dude made a Nazi salute in public in broad daylight. So yes, I'm inherently anti-Musk because I'm inherently anti-Nazi because Nazis are inherently anti human rights and anti basic freedoms.

Are Nazis for big government or for small government?
Big on authoritarianism and small on everything else.

Can you tell me a cost reduction plan involving police or military or do i have to label it law-and-order with a sharp salute for you to understand what i am talking about?

Communication is so messy man, two sides, same iterpretation ... just tell me when i can lower my arm of friendship, that absolutely noone could misunderstand.

> Big on authoritarianism and small on everything else.

Historically, that has not been the case, hence the question.

> Can you tell me a cost reduction plan involving police or military or do i have to label it law-and-order with a sharp salute for you to understand what i am talking about?

Just yesterday this[0] was a headline: "Hegseth wants Pentagon to cut 8% from defense budget for each of the next 5 years"

[0] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hegseth-pentagon-8-percent-cuts...

> False. It was a temporary injuction until the judge has time to review it.

It was in fact multiple injunctions because people at DOGE kept trying to work around it in increasingly stupid ways.

> So are 2.5 million other employees and advisors in government.

Those employees are employed by a government agency established, funded and given their mission by Congress. The heads of these agencies are approved by the US Senate.

None of these statements above apply to Elon Musk or "DOGE."

loading story #43113137
[flagged]
loading story #43113136
loading story #43112993
These are also staff of the government.. Or contracted by the government. The government contracts out all the time.
> Except that they, an unelected private group, have already attempted to get all private and confidential citizen data from the US treasury, and have been blocked by the courts as it is illegal.

It is not illegal. You can bookmark this comment for when it finally winds its way through the courts. Whether you love or hate the idea, this is a clearly legitimate exercise of executive authority and this judge is going to get smacked down hard, and the foolish abuse of TROs is going to wind up getting their use by lower-court judges severely curtailed. Read the legal justification in the orders yourself.

Unfortunately a lot of people have lost their minds over this, and are burning through their credibility - some judges and journalists included. I don't know why, other than Musk is a moron and a polarizing figure. The Alantic breathlessly quoting government employees terrified to file their taxes because they're afraid Elon Musk will have their bank account number and routing info had my eyes rolling into the back of my head. This is fearmongering, not journalism.

I don't understand why we can't oppose this without reporting on it honestly. The problem on matters like this seems to be getting much worse over time.

> They are unelected, and have been given unprecedented access to government data.

So is everyone else in the Treasury Department.

What are their guardrails? Do they have accountability? Does "parallelise" mean compiling data on people from different systems? Dossiers? Are they even following the law?

> They have simply...

Oh yes, because this is all very simple. What is "waste"? How is it defined? Who decides what is waste and what isn't?

Serious question to those who are cheering for the 'elimination of waste'. What do you expect to happen to the money thus saved? In what ways do you expect those savings to benefit you or the broader citizenry?
loading story #43113516
if it's not funding tax cuts and corporate handouts for Elon's companies, it's waste.
That's actually not what they've been tasked with:

> This Executive Order establishes the Department of Government Efficiency to implement the President’s DOGE Agenda, by modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity.

There's nothing about government spending programs or staffing in there. Also the EO includes this funny sentence: "USDS shall adhere to rigorous data protection standards."

that that moron has been tasked with finding inefficiency is so concerning, he is a man so convinced of his own intellectual superiority that he has zero respect for complexity.

We see every day how technically inept and incompetent he is, I just wonder when the other shoe is going to drop for the average observer.

It is the emperor's new clothes writ large, and why I find Bezos's comment about taking him at face value so funny, is he slyly telling us he thinks the guy a fool, a troll, and nothing more?

Do you have an alert setup to tell you when people are bashing the DoGE?
Wouldn't be a DOGE thread without scarab92 carrying water for this nonsense.
This is the type of indoctrination we need to fight against (not your comment but what it references), and it's an open question as to how.
Including the copy pasta that the department created by an elected official is "unelected".
loading story #43112988
loading story #43112910
Maybe it's temporary, not 'once you build it they will use it'. Time will tell, if in the end a dictatorship proves itself to run things more efficiently and make everyone richer, then other countries will follow the US and adopt the same model.
Ahem, tell me this again once you get punished for what you are as an individual, for your striking, for not joining the political party (...)

I can't believe I'm reading such comments

He doesn't need to follow that recipe for dictatorship. He just needs to do whatever he wants, being a bully without consequences both internally and externally, transforming the image of the US into an aggressive nation. At this moment Americans are as guilty as Russians for allowing this to happen.
still, Germany arrests citizens for calling a politician an idiot.
loading story #43113203
loading story #43113229
What you're describing is very similar to what most large enterprise companies do: layers upon layers of red tape and convoluted regulations for the sake of "security."

This is a big reason they can’t get anything done or retain talent.

Government is no different.

European democracies have been dying from the same sclerosis their legacy multinationals have.

The US is going through actual change. The outrage over things not being done as they always have is nonsensical.

It's not euro democracies that look like they are dying, comparing government to companies, yeah, iro ic that is USA that forgot the meaning of the word democracy
Have you heard about Chesterton's fence?
Apart from government being very different from private business indeed; I wouldn't want to eat food, drive a vehicle, or use software made by a company made with that mindset. "Safety first" is also a hard rule in all sorts of sports where people move faster than non-expert spectators can fully comprehend. If you need to cut corners to "gain efficiency" it just means you're bad.
[flagged]
> Trump tasked "DOGE" with reviewing government spending across it's 400+ agencies, and coming up with recommendations on how to reduce wasteful spending.

"Make recommendations" ?

Firing the folks that maintain nuclear weapons sounds like an action, not a recommendation:

* https://apnews.com/article/nuclear-doge-firings-trump-federa...

Firing the folks dealing with bird flu sounds like an action, not a recommendation:

* https://apnews.com/article/usda-firings-doge-bird-flu-trump-...

Then there's the folks making a list of all the agents who were pulled off other tasks and told to investigate Jan 6:

* https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-administration-compili...

Also firing a whole bunch of folks at the FAA even though it's already short staffed:

* https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly9y1e1kpjo

Seems to be it's less about finding savings and more about blindly purging people with no regard to how useful or inefficient things actually are.

This is either woefully naive or active disinformation.

Edit: OP dramatically edited their post. It originally made all kinds of claims of process and propriety that just aren't happening. This was the original that I was replying to:

”Most of the animosity comes from misunderstanding. Trump tasked "DOGE" with reviewing government spending across it's 400+ agencies, and coming up with recommendations on how to reduce wasteful spending. They have 1 year to complete this task. To make sensible recommendations, DOGE needs data about the major programs within each agency. They can't tackle each agency consecutively, since there are more agencies than days until the deadline, so they are parallelising the work.

The access is read only, and they are not linking personal data between agencies, but rather doing a bunch of separate audits in parallel.

Trump has prohibited Musk from being involved in with the review in agencies where he was a material conflict (FAA for example).”

Thank you for preserving the record.