Photo credit: www.govexec.com
The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is reportedly compiling a comprehensive, cross-agency database containing sensitive information sourced from the IRS, Social Security Administration (SSA), Department of Health and Human Services, and various other federal agencies. This raises significant privacy concerns, as highlighted by whistleblower accounts shared with lawmakers, prompting scrutiny on Capitol Hill.
During a recent oversight session, Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., who serves as the leading Democrat on the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, described the endeavor in a letter to the SSA’s inspector general. He has urged for an investigation into the potential violations of privacy laws associated with this initiative.
Experts in privacy law concur that DOGE’s activities could be in clear conflict with established privacy regulations, especially since many federal employees have expressed their dissent, leading to resignations and terminations among personnel involved.
Furthermore, there are ongoing lawsuits—no fewer than fourteen—alleging breaches of federal privacy protections across various agencies, as documented by the Center for Democracy and Technology, a reputable nonpartisan organization.
According to whistleblower information, DOGE’s initiative entails the merging of classified data from multiple agencies into a single master database. This development has sparked serious concerns among privacy advocates. “It’s quite alarming,” remarked John Davisson, a senior legal advisor and litigation director for the Electronic Privacy Information Center. His organization is currently pursuing legal action against the Office of Personnel Management and the Treasury Department for unauthorized use of personal records.
Davisson emphasized, “The Privacy Act was established to avert situations like this, making the current situation even more unsettling.” He echoed sentiments shared by other experts, indicating a glaring “disregard for legal privacy requirements” in the actions undertaken by DOGE.
The privacy law mandates that agencies obtain written consent from individuals before sharing their personal information across different entities, or they must adhere to strict regulations, which include meticulous documentation. Connolly articulated his concerns in his correspondence, stating, “I fear that DOGE may be disseminating personal data without compliance to necessary notifications required by the Privacy Act, thus leaving the populace in the dark about such manipulations of their data.”
He has requested that the inspector general look into this situation as well as other issues surrounding SSA’s technological infrastructure and staffing changes, as the agency has rapidly pursued new operational modifications.
The letter describes efforts by DOGE personnel to implement specialized computing systems that allegedly allow unrestricted access to databases across various agencies, indicating a blatant attempt to bypass established network security protocols. Reports suggest that DOGE operatives have been utilizing backpacks filled with laptops, each capable of accessing different agency systems, to unify databases that are conventionally maintained separately.
Concerns about technical misconduct have surfaced, with a senior aide on the House Oversight Committee noting that DOGE employees may be taking liberties with their system access, potentially leading to unregulated surveillance of Americans’ data. This could also present risks regarding cybersecurity, prompting fears that such practices might create a focal point for cyber threats.
A former government technology official has pointed out alarming lapses in security protocols, suggesting a potential scenario where these oversights may culminate in breaches on a scale far exceeding past incidents, such as the notorious 2015 breach at the Office of Personnel Management, which compromised sensitive information for millions of federal employees.
Adding to the anxiety surrounding this data collection, Elizabeth Laird, CDT’s director of equity in civic technology, highlighted concerns about how this amassed information could be utilized, especially in the context of immigration enforcement, referencing an agreement between the IRS and the Department of Homeland Security to share taxpayer data. Such developments have led to the resignations of senior officials within the IRS.
Laird further noted that the implications of this data collection extend beyond federal entities, as a recent executive order encourages agencies to enhance data-sharing practices not only among themselves but also with state governments, many of which manage sensitive data related to federally-funded programs.
The order is also pushing agencies to reassess or eliminate statutory system of record notifications mandated by the Privacy Act to facilitate data-sharing, which may suggest a reaction to the increasing number of lawsuits alleging noncompliance with privacy laws.
Another recent executive order might allow agencies to consolidate datasets within the Treasury Department for fraud prevention purposes, which could lead to further data aggregation concerns, as warned by Davisson.
“The aggregation of such data creates a formidable tool that can be wielded in numerous ways,” he warned.
The White House has not yet addressed inquiries regarding Connolly’s letter and the broader implications of these developments.
Source
www.govexec.com