ACLU judges the government to gain access to Doge Records

The American Union for Civil Liberties brought a federal case On Monday against the US Social Security Administration (SSA) and the Ministry of Veterans (VA). In her court case, ACLU accuses agencies for violating the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by ignoring ACLU’s requests and subsequent appeals for information on so -called The Ministry of Government Efficiency (Doge) “Attempted or Actual Access” to sensitive federal databases.

ACLU started pursuing documents under the Federal Transparency Law in February, such as Wired first reportedResponding to the reports that Elon Musk operators have sought access to personal information belonging to US citizens, including US Departments of the Cashier, which contain “millions of social security numbers, bank accounts, business finances” and more.

In the last few months, extensive reporting from Cable and other retail outlets have set out Doge’s attempts to have access and analysis sensitive data to federal officials, the US public and immigrants to the United States.

In his complaint, ACLU claims that the access of DOG to highly sensitive health information and finances of Americans causes “acute problems” due to the “exceptional harm”, which can be the result of any unauthorized use of these files. According to the complaint, ACLU pressed SSA to accelerate the release of public records related to Dodge’s work; A process authorized when documents are considered urgent to inform the public about government activities at the center of a significant public debate or concern. The organization cites among its other materials, a letter from Senator Mark Warner, in which the unprecedented secrecy that covers the activities of the Dodge is described in detail.

The SSA has rejected ACLU’s request, but then later ignores its attempts to file a complaint, says ACLU – a procedure that the SSA is obliged to follow on FOIA. VA was even less responsive, ACLU claims; He acknowledged ACLU’s request in February, after which he terminated any additional communications.

“If Dog breaks his way to our personal data, he is forced into our privacy,” says Lauren Yu, one of the lawyers representing ACLU in court. “Congress imposes strict privacy precautions for a reason, and Americans deserve to know who has access to their social security numbers, information about their bank account and their health records … Government participants cannot continue to be enveloped in a secret while dealing with our most sensitive records.”

The organization’s lawsuit is also informed, according to him, increasing public concern about the continued impetus of the Dogi for implementation artificial intelligence (AI) systems “that raises alarms for the potential for mass observation and politically motivated abuse of this deeply personal information.”

Earlier this month, Wired reported The fact that the operating Dog is trying to use an AI tool to implement a code in VA, which administers benefits for approximately 10 million US veterans and their families, including healthcare and disabled payments. Sources at the Agency have expressed concerns about the speed of AI, stating that the operation has not complied with normal procedures and threatened to bring us the access of the veterans to us to the benefits they have won at risk.

“The provision of access to the VA data systems would not only violate the federal law, but would undermine the very core of the VA mission to take care of veterans, their families, care and survivors,” said ACLu’s lawyer in a statement.

Cable reported last week This Dog collects data from the Social Security Administration, the Ministry of Interior Security and the Internal Revenue Service that could create an unprecedented monitoring tool. The initial requests for ACLU records were partly encouraged by the concerns, say its submission to FOIA about the use of computer matching programs that are able to redirect information about persons using different government databases.

The government’s ability to redirect personal information using databases from various agencies is strictly regulated under the US Privacy Act. The law was amended in 1988 in order to require agencies to conclude written agreements before engaging in a computer match, and agencies are required under the law to calculate how such initiatives can influence human rights.

“The Federal Government cannot avoid accountability by ignoring our legitimate requests for transparency,” said Nathan Fried Wesler, a deputy director of the project for speech, confidentiality and technology of ACLU.