The Dock of Elon Musk is tried according to the Privacy Act: What to Know

After months of congress disputes that eliminated the Erwin Independent Council for Supervision of Privacy, President Gerald Ford signed the Law on the Law on 31 December 1974, Ford, who chaired the Committee on Law Law, which Nixon created during his last months of service, pronouncedly “The vital need to provide adequate and equal precautions for confidentiality for the huge quantities of personal information collected, recorded and used in our complex society.”

How is it appropriate today?

Dodge critics – including democratic legislators, federal unions of employees and state observation groups – have retired that the provision of the office Young, contradictory and at first glance largely inseparable employees Access to sensitive government data is a major confidence disorder. The incidents are “the greatest and subsequent violation of personal information in US history”. According to John DavisonA lawyer at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, one of the groups judging to block the access of the DOG.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration says Doge employees need this access to data to fulfill their mission to eliminate waste programs for costs and prisons that are contrary to President Donald Trump’s agenda. After a federal judge temporarily blocks the Dog’s access to state payment systems, a White House speaker called the decision “Absurd and judicial excessively.” Musk turned to the judge At X, saying, “He must be an impeach now!”

Can the Privacy Act Stop Top?

This will depend on whether many judges agree with the arguments of the Trump administration, claiming that the law does not prevent the DOG employees from accessing the sensitive data of the agencies.

The government claims that people can judge agencies only in accordance with the Privacy Act in one of the four scenarios: when an agency refuses to grant someone access to them; When the agency refuses to change one’s records as they have requested; When an agency fails to maintain someone’s record up -to -date and they experience specific harm, such as refusing benefits; Or when an agency otherwise violates the requirements of the law in ways that adversely affect someone. It remains to be seen if the judges will determine that DOG’s access to data adversely affects people.

Agencies also claim that they do not violate the Privacy Act, since Dog’s activities fall into the Routine Use Act and need to know “exceptions”. In court file In response to a legal challenge, the Ministry of Finance stated that Dogi employees have access to data to identify potentially incorrect payments “in support of (their) debts” as indicated by Trump (triggering the exception “I need to know” ) And that sharing this information with other agencies fell under one of the “routine uses”, which the agency has previously discovered according to the requirements of the Privacy Act.

The power of this argument is based on how judges weigh two questions: Whether the staff of the Dogs who have access to each agency’s data are employees of these agencies and whether the two exceptions apply to the situations in which they have accessed and share the data.

Who uses the Privacy Act to judge Dodge?

There are at least eight lawsuits against the Trump administration regarding the access of DOG to federal data, and they all rely at least in part on the Privacy Act.

1. The US Federation of Civil Servants, the Association of Administrative Law Judges and more than 100 present and former federal workers Judgment Doge, Musk and the staff management service because of what they claim to be the illegal OPM decision to provide Doge employees with access to a database of federal employees, claiming that Dogi employees are “lacking legal and legal need for Such access. “
2. The Electronic Privacy Information CenterOn behalf of an unnamed federal worker, he is suing OPM, Doge and the Ministry of Finance for the fact that it is claimed to have provided access to the Dodge to the personal database of OPM and the payment system of the treasury “for the purposes inadmissible under the Law of Privacy” S
3. The University of California Student Association Judging the Ministry of Education for the alleged transfer of the data of the students to the employees of the Dogas who are not in the language of the Privacy Act, “Employees who need records in the fulfillment of their duties.”
4. Six state unions, two non -profit groups and the Institute for Economic Policy of Brain Trust are tried by the work and health departments and the human services, the Bureau of Financial Protection of Consumer and the Law of Privacy. “
5. Two State Trade Unions and Alliance for Advocacy for Retired Americans have been tried with the Ministry of Finance that it is alleged, The special rules of the internal revenue serviceS
6. The National Union of Finance Employees Judging CFPB, Russell Water, the CFPB employees’ information to Doge employees, claiming that their status of “special civil servants” puts them outside the CFPB and thus excluding the Privacy Act.
7. Nineteen state lawyers have been tried by Trump and the Ministry of Finance for access to the DOG to the Federal Payment Systems, arguing that since “many of the Doge members have gained access to (system) are not employees of the Ministry of Finance”, this is a “violation of the Law on Privacy. “
8. Six Americans They resist the Ministry of Finance and the DOG because of what they describe as violations of the sensitive personal data they have given the government while filing tax returns, apply for student loans, require disability payments and receive pension benefits.

Where are these cases?

In The case of the state AGS. Judge quickly issued Temporary restraining order limiting access to all casual systems that store sensitive personal and financial data. The case has since been appointed constantly to another judge who had slightly adjusted the order after Trump’s administration objected to his restrictions on politically appointed. A hearing of the condition was held on February 14th.

In Epic caseThe organization has the judge asked For a temporary restraining order, blocking additional accessible access to certain treasures and OPM systems. A hearing of the condition will be held on February 21st.