Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is under fire for allegedly invading Americans’ privacy by accessing sensitive personal data. Meanwhile, the department is claiming that revealing the identities of its employees is an invasion of privacy.
Musk and his supporters argue on social media that pointing out who works at DOGE is a form of doxxing. This practice involves sharing personal information without consent. Recently, a Harvard Law School instructor shared the names and email addresses of over 30 DOGE employees in a post on Bluesky.
Edward R. Martin Jr., the interim U.S. Attorney in Washington, D.C., has pledged to investigate threats against DOGE employees. In a letter to Musk, he vowed to hold accountable anyone who breaks the law or acts unethically.
However, privacy advocates say Musk’s claims are weak. They argue that government employees have less expectation of privacy, especially when their roles involve public duties. Ironically, Musk himself has published the names of federal employees working on climate issues, which led some to delete their social media accounts.
Cody Venzke from the ACLU pointed out the apparent double standard: “It seems to be privacy for me, but not for thee.” This sentiment raises questions about privacy rights in the public sector.
DOGE is also facing multiple lawsuits from several agencies, including the Departments of Labor, Treasury, and Education. These suits claim that DOGE accessed private data—like mortgage statements and tax returns—in violation of established privacy laws.
A federal judge recently dismissed a request from labor unions to immediately stop DOGE from accessing the Treasury Department’s payment system. However, she indicated that if evidence emerged showing imminent risks of privacy violations, the court would act to prevent potential harm.
The government contends that the suits against DOGE are an infringement on Trump’s constitutional authority. Zack Smith from the Heritage Foundation argues that the concerns over privacy violations are baseless, as DOGE employees are acting on behalf of the President.
Smith also emphasized the importance of protecting civil servants from harassment. He noted that most government workers’ information is somewhat shielded from public scrutiny, which is not always the case for those in high-profile roles.
According to Aaron Mackey from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, there is a clear distinction between the privacy rights of ordinary citizens whose data is accessed by DOGE and the officials running the department. Courts have long balanced the privacy interests of officials against the public’s right to know about government operations.
Yet, the lack of strong legal footing for Musk and DOGE may not stop them from pushing back against their critics. Venzke warns that even threats of lawsuits from Musk could have a chilling effect on opposition efforts.
Check out this related article: Rising Measles Alert: Nearly 200 Cases in Texas Linked to New Mexico Man’s Positive Test
Source linkconsumer protection,confidentiality of tax information,employee internet use,government employees,invasion of privacy,Social Security numbers,identification documents (immigration)
