Supreme Court: DOGE Gets Social Security Personal Data

Friday, June 06, 2025

The ruling, a win for the Trump administration, means that DOGE will be able to access data on millions of Americans as part of what it has described as an effort to rout out fraud and "modernize outdated systems," but that critics say appears to be a fishing expedition.

Posted by Corky at 05:30 PM | 8 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"Three liberal justices " Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented.

The decision will "hand DOGE staffers the highly sensitive data of millions of Americans," Jackson wrote.

"The government wants to give DOGE unfettered access to this personal, non-anonymized information right now " before the courts have time to assess whether DOGE's access is lawful," she added."

;;
This is a great time to give Musk access to millions of American's personal data! He's got to get that 30-something billion back somehow.

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2025-06-06 05:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The people who made it illegal for the government to create a list of gun owners are okay with this?

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-06-06 05:35 PM | Reply

WOWSERS

#3 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-06-06 05:35 PM | Reply

The unelected Politburo-for-life whose members enjoy excellent salaries, easy work schedules, and 24/7 security has spoken for the masses: img.sputnikimages.com

#4 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2025-06-06 06:11 PM | Reply

A couple three questions:

1) who will be or is possessing this data?

2) is there a specified life-span for the possession of the data?

3) who else, beside the above, might have the data?

#5 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-06-06 06:35 PM | Reply

In a second unsigned order on Friday the court handed DOGE another victory, ruling that, for now, the organization does not have to turn over internal records to a government watchdog group as part of a public records lawsuit.

The court's three liberal members " Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson " dissented from both rulings. [LINKY]

#6 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2025-06-06 09:13 PM | Reply

@#6 ... the organization does not have to turn over internal records to a government watchdog group as part of a public records lawsuit. ...

But Mr Musk had said that DOGE would be transparent.

Now DOGE seems to have a different approach to transparency.

Why?

Has DOGE failed so much in its goals that now they do not even want to talk about it?

That's how it is looking to me.

#7 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-06-06 10:13 PM | Reply

How much has Elon Musk's Doge cut from US government spending?
www.bbc.com

I summarize the excellent chart presented in the article...

...
Initial pledge: $2 trillion
Revised pledge: $1 trillion
Current estimated savings: $160 billion
Itemized savings: $61.5 billion
Savings with receipts attached: $32.5 billion
...

So, DOGE seems to have failed miserably.

(and I'm being kind.)

If a US federal government department had shown such a failure in it's purpose, what might the GOP have said?

Yet, there seems to be an eerie silence from the GOP about DOGE not meeting the goals it had set.

Why?

#8 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-06-06 10:20 PM | Reply