by dragonwriter on 2/25/25, 3:40 AM
This is a temporary restraining order (TRO), so the judge did not need to, and did not actually, rule that they did violate the Privacy Act, but that they likely did so, and that this probability of success on the merits coupled with the fact that the disclosure of their banking information would constitute irreparable harm justifies a TRO while the case proceeds.
by goatlover on 2/25/25, 3:15 AM
How come there isn’t much discussion of DOGE on this site? Seems rather important and relevant to the question of whether the Silicon Valley approach to breaking things and moving quickly works for government. Also whether such an agency should have access to our data.
by excalibur on 2/25/25, 3:32 AM
Please prosecute while there's still someone with integrity to do it.
by but_whole on 2/25/25, 1:32 PM
Pray tell why the govt has our personal information... particularly in light of all of the massive leaks that have occured from govt databases
by zombiwoof on 2/25/25, 4:48 AM
How are all the Silicon Valley tech bros feeling about their divine king Musk now
by timewizard on 2/25/25, 3:39 AM
We should possibly recognize that building federal troves of data that rely on the "good deputy" model are outmoded and need massive overhaul.
by nimish on 2/25/25, 5:13 AM
TROs are preliminary injunctions in all but name. I expect SCOTUS to issue writs of mandamus reining them in otherwise Congress will simply remove the nationwide ability to issue them from the lower courts.