February 14, 2025 • 19 mins
The episode delves into the ongoing lawsuits challenging the sharing of personal data by federal agencies with Doge, the Department of Government Efficiency. The hosts discuss the implications of these lawsuits, particularly regarding the lack of clarity surrounding Doge's operations and the dismantling of the CFPB, raising concerns about privacy and data protection.
• Overview of Doge data lawsuits and their significance
• Concerns about data sharing by federal agencies
• The troubling lack of transparency surrounding Doge
• The impact of CFPB restructuring on privacy oversight
• Risks of diminished regulatory powers over personal data
• Importance of citizen engagement in privacy advocacy
• Calls for transparency and accountability in data handling
• The evolving narrative of privacy in the digital age
• Encouragement for listeners to stay informed and proactive
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
All righty then.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcomeback to another episode of
Privacy.
Please, cameron Ivey, here withGabe Gumbs, we are hanging out
chatting.
You know this big thing that'sgoing on.
Well, first, first, gabe, howyou living man.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
How you living, I'm living, I am living.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
I am living.
Yeah, you got the hair downtoday.
It's not tied up.
I love that the hair's downtoday.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Yeah, you got the hair down today.
It's not tied up.
I love that the hair's downtoday.
Yeah, the hair is all kinds ofdown today.
I love that it's hair day.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
I'm going to get her done today.
Oh it's hair day it's, hair dayit's hair day.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
I'm living well, my friend, how are you?
Speaker 1 (00:36):
I'm good.
I'm good, always good when weget to yeah.
Especially when there's lotsgoing on.
It's never a dull day?
Speaker 2 (00:46):
No, no, there's plenty going on, plenty going on
.
We get a lot of questions aboutall kinds of topics.
What's on people's minds thisweek?
Speaker 1 (00:55):
Well, specifically, I mean we were looking at this
thing on the Doge data lawsuitswith the.
Watergate era and privacy law.
Specifically, it's an articlefrom Bloomberg Law.
It kind of touches on lawsuitschallenging the sharing of
personal data by federalagencies with Elon Musk's
Department of GovernmentEfficiency, and the lawsuits
(01:19):
cite a Privacy Act of 1974,which was designed to protect
Americans' personal informationfrom unauthorized access and
sharing.
These lawsuits allege thatagencies like the labor,
treasury and educationdepartments unlawfully disclose
sensitive data, including taxreturns and social security
numbers, to Doge.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
Not like the coin either.
Doge Department of GovernmentEfficiency.
I only have one question tokind of kick off this
conversation, though, is arethey going to look at the TSA?
Because if they're not lookingat TSA, I don't know how to take
them seriously.
That's the first Whoa, whoa,whoa whoa.
I'm talking about all of it.
That's the first place to checkfor inefficiencies.
If you're looking forinefficiencies, that's a good
(02:02):
point.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
That's because think about the information that they
have on everyone that has TSApre-check.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
That might be the reason why we don't want them
looking there, because if datais being shared in ways that
were explicitly told by thepeople that it was collected
from, that it couldn't orwouldn't be shared by, that is
problematic.
That is problematic.
And we don't know the completebreadth of who data has been
shared with Doge.
But we know, for example, thatthe Consumer Financial
(02:28):
Protection Bureau they'vealready shared sensitive
consumer information, includingconfidential data from financial
institutions.
So we know at a bare minimumthat kind of data is in the
hands of Doge.
We don't really know who Dogeis either.
I mean, I've seen all of therandom spewings in the interwebs
(02:49):
, complaining about the age ofsome of the members and so on
and so forth, but that doesn'ttell me who Doge is right Like,
who exactly is getting access tothat data?
Speaker 1 (02:59):
Maybe it's Le Fleur from Dodgeball and it's just a
half name of Dodge, but theytake the D out and they're
called Doge.
What do you mean?
White Goodman, white Goodman,w-h-i-t-e.
Okay, so let me ask you this sowe don't know who Doge is.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
That's interesting.
Around.
There's some information aboutsome of the individuals, but
it's all very personalizedinformation and I'm not really
concerned with who that personnecessarily is specifically,
although that is very importantif they're going to get their
hands on sense information.
I'm more concerned about who isDoge as a complete entity.
Yes, elon Musk is theadministrator, but that still
(04:00):
doesn't really tell me.
I don't know if I feelcomfortable with the lack of
information generally around anentity that is going to get that
kind of access to citizen data.
And then, on top of that, someof the actions that they've
already taken aren't reallyclear as to how this is to
benefit us.
For example, steps have beenalready taken to dismantle the
(04:21):
Consumer Financial ProtectionBureau.
And so that I'm not just kindof spewing random sentences
there, what do I mean bydismantling?
Well, they completelyoverhauled the leadership, right
?
So Russell Vought, who was theformer Office of Management and
Budget Director, he alreadysignaled that shift in
leadership.
That same gentleman Vought, heinstructed all of the CFPB staff
(04:42):
to halt all supervisoryexamination activities.
So no longer looking intothings which, by the way, what
had they been looking into?
Well, one of the things thatCFPB has been looking into is
investigating and cracking downon data brokers, a topic that we
talk about a lot here.
So this dismantling, oh otherthings that have happened,
(05:03):
terminating any funding.
To be fair, they have a lot ofmoney in the bank, still air
quotes a lot, but I don't reallyknow how much money they need
to do things like properlyenforce and regulate data
brokers, which, let's be honest,we've spoken about it ad
nauseum.
That is a very importantfunction of our government.
Quite frankly, they've closeddown some of their offices,
(05:24):
they've reduced staff, so all ofthese things will certainly
hamper their ability to enforceand I'm just going to be very
myopic about this privacy laws.
Why am I being that myopic?
Because that's what we talkabout here on the show.
I'm certain there's lots ofother things that those are
doing, but look, this is privacy, please.
And so there's a number ofprivacy laws that the CFPB had
(05:45):
oversight over GLBA right,financial privacy rules there,
the Fair Credit Reporting Act,dodd-frank, copa, the Children's
Online Privacy Act All of thoseare regulations.
Fair Credit Reporting.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
Act.
Yeah yeah, equal CreditOpportunity Act, electronic Fund
Transfer Act.
I didn't even know theseexisted, you probably knew of at
least some of them.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
I know you're intimately familiar with COPA,
for example.
Well, I mean.
I didn't realize that they wereall under.
I didn't realize which oneentity had oversight over those
myself, correct, you know I knewsome of them to some degree,
but yeah, that wasn't somethingI dug into until now because it
(06:35):
became necessary to understand,like well, if that's getting
impacted, like how is that beingimpacted?
Hey, but at least.
Speaker 1 (06:41):
At least Trump signed an order to get rid of paper
straws.
Am I with that?
Who's with me?
Speaker 2 (06:47):
With your paper.
Speaker 1 (06:48):
straws are useless and they suck, so I I know, I
know, I'm just saying at leastwe're getting some good stuff
done.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
I don't know.
I don't know if I neededregulation for that.
Like, my response to paperstraws has simply been to
complain about it to managementmanagement or not go back to
those establishments that insiston paper straws.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
Off topic here, a squirrel moment, but I'll tell
you what.
If we care more about gettingrid of paper straws, can we
please do something about?
I know that there's talks aboutit, but like, let's cut out all
these like terrible ingredientsand foods that Americans still
use, that europe and othercountries do not use.
It's just insane what they'redoing to the american people
(07:29):
with all the dyes and the youknow you're saying focus on
health and not on cutting backpaper straws yeah, I, I don't
mean to go off topic here, butthis is also important that's
okay.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
Go off topic.
Yeah, but this is alsoimportant, that's okay.
Go off topic, yeah, you knowwhat?
Because this is our show, wecan talk about whatever we want.
Hey what's up?
Don't at me.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
It's on my mind.
Yeah, don't at us One thingthat I mean come on now, let's
think about this.
You go to school to be a doctor.
What do you think they teachyou as a doctor?
They don't mention anythingabout nutrition.
All they do is talk about howyou have to memorize all these
different medicines and drugs.
That's the only thing they careabout.
Is you understanding what allthe drugs are on the market, so
you know what to prescribe yourpatients to take care of a
(08:12):
certain issue that you have, orhealth issue?
They don't teach you anythingabout the nutritional things
because they don't want us to behealthy.
You wouldn't get me to arguewith that.
(08:38):
You wouldn't get me to arguewith that.
I think it's more powerful thanpeople actually realize.
It's powerful.
Yeah, I mean spinning back towhat we're talking about here
with the control over our ownpersonal information and all
these issues.
I mean we got to start.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
Where do we even begin to even help in this area,
to be an outside voice, to besomething that can help in the
right direction, make a changeFor the average individuals like
you and I.
Maybe it begins with theseconversations, it begins with
sharing these conversations withothers.
Yeah, we get asked about a lotof these topics outside of the
show and I'm reminded thatsomeone left us at least one
review that complained we gettoo quote preachy.
That's okay.
You don't have to certainlyagree or align with our
(09:28):
viewpoints.
In fact, we welcome opposingviewpoints.
So feel free to share those andnot just complain that we're
preaching.
But I'm going to co-sign thisone for you, brother.
I'm going to completely agreewith you that if we're looking
to get rid of waste, then we canstart certainly with not just
within the government itself butwithin the non-government areas
(09:50):
of our lives.
Speaker 1 (09:52):
Well, it sounds like there were what nine complaints
filed, with plaintiffs seekingtemporary restraining orders to
prevent Doge from accessingpersonal data.
Courts have been divided onthese requests, so these are.
I mean.
That's really important to seewhat this decision is going to
be, don't you think?
I mean?
Speaker 2 (10:10):
I think so.
I am beside myself that we aresplit on things like you know,
enforcing GLBA, those kinds ofrestrictions are what were put
in place to prevent furthercatastrophe in our financial
markets.
That's the whole reason thingslike that occur, and you know,
it worries me that without thatkind of oversight we can return
(10:30):
to those kinds of risks beingever present.
Speaker 1 (10:35):
I mean the ones that are split on not wanting to
protect personal information.
What's their agenda?
Speaker 2 (10:41):
I don't understand we already don't have any federal
laws around that.
We talk about that on this showa lot.
In fact, was it the last show,maybe the show before we someone
on and and we talked about alot of the state laws yeah we
dug.
We dug very heavily into thestate laws, and that's that may
be the place again for us to tobegin with.
(11:02):
Action collectively as citizensis to is to get back on that
local level and really voicewhat we want to see come out of
our administrations.
It doesn't matter which one itis this one, the next one, the
last one we've got to be a hellof a lot more vocal, a lot more
vocal.
I'm okay with taking it to thestreets too.
(11:23):
If that's the vocality that'snecessary, you can do that.
You ain't made for the streets.
Speaker 1 (11:28):
Nah, it's comfy inside, but if I have to go
outside, I'll go outside.
No, I'm not saying you, I justwanted to say that oh yeah, no,
no.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
No, I'm not either.
Let's be clear about this.
I'm not really interested inthat activity, but you know,
that's where we're headed.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
I mean, yeah, that unprecedented access, having
data being unprecedented isthat's a huge concern, not
knowing the implications or thewhole circumference of what
happens with that data, justlike every other data that we
talk about and that we'reworried about in the wrong hands
of, for example, data brokers?
Speaker 2 (12:04):
how is this data now being used?
How is it being protected?
How is it being shared?
Those are all questions that weshould ask.
Those aren't politicalquestions, those aren't even
preachy questions.
Those are basic privacy andsecurity questions that should
have been laid out for us beforethe first bit of access was
granted.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
Yeah, and you know what, if someone's using my
personal information, I shouldbe getting paid for it.
Then there's that Every singlething that's been used with my
name or it's attached to my name, now Doge is going to argue.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
We're using that information to reduce waste in
the government.
And I'm all about reducingwaste, which I was being a
little tongue in cheek but again, if we're genuine about
reducing waste, I'm certainevery American could, off the
top of their head, think ofthree places where there's waste
.
We could start with ourhealthcare system.
Mm, yeah, godly amount of wastein that system.
(12:58):
Yeah, I don't know that therecan be a more universally agreed
upon fact among citizens.
It's like no, there's a lot ofwaste in that.
There's a lot of waste in a lotof systems.
I'm poking fun at the T, tsa,but like real talk, that shit is
all waste.
It's, it's a hundred percentwaste.
And I don't want to hear aboutprotecting from terror, like.
Go look up the information inthe data yourself.
Look at their own, their ownself-auditing, and and you ask
(13:22):
yourself the question of if themoney's being spent is having a
positive impact, whether or notyou think a lot of that is
theater or not.
I ask you only to look at thenumbers and you tell me whether
or not you think there's wastethere.
But if that's not even a placeto start looking, it's hard for
me to take what they're doingseriously beyond.
I take it seriously thatprivacy seems to be a casualty
(13:44):
of this exercise.
That's a good point, that'sinteresting.
Speaker 1 (13:46):
It's just crazy.
I don't even know what to thinkright now.
Speaker 2 (13:50):
I mean Well, the thing that was posed to us was
what does the internet startlooking like with fewer, less
oversight and regulations ofprivacy brokers?
Our friend, heidi postedearlier Shout out, shout out to
Heidi.
We love you.
Heidi.
I posted early on LinkedIntoday that it was a position
(14:14):
that she had gotten.
I'm trying to remember the nameof the agency.
It was with DHS.
It was DHS and she received anoffer to form some work for her.
And for those of you that don'tkeep up, heidi Sass, that's
H-E-I-D-I-S-A-SS ID SAS.
She's a privacy and technologyattorney.
So they rescinded her offer andquote privacy activities no
(14:38):
longer align with the scienceand technology's mission.
What's their new mission?
I don't know, but in not hiringthis extremely well-experienced
privacy lawyer and telling themexplicitly in that rescinding
of their offer that privacyactivities no longer align with
science and technology, it begsthe question how does one
(14:59):
perform science and technologyactivities that include the
collection and analysis ofpersonal information and then
also remove privacy activitiesfrom your mission?
Those two things don't add up.
Speaker 1 (15:12):
It's concerning, to say the least.
I don't know if I should beviolated, scared, concerned,
worried.
Those are all kind of similar.
Yeah, going back to the, let mesee if I can find it here.
Going back to the article, justgive another shout out to Ron
(15:32):
DeSouza, who, by the way, we'regoing to have on the show at
some point Not sure when, but hewas actually in this very
article which I'll share in theshow notes, but it's a quote by
Ron was saying we can seepotentially all government
agencies being subject tounauthorized access to their
other systems.
He's a field chief privacyofficer at Transcend and he's
saying so.
It's incredibly important thatthese lawsuits are coming,
(15:54):
because it's going to forcejudges to make decisions about
Americans and their privacy.
It's I wonder.
I wonder how long this is goingto drag out.
That's the question too.
Is it going to?
What else is this going tobring to surface as well?
Yeah, what else is this?
Speaker 2 (16:09):
going to bring to surface as well.
There's definitely a lot of tobe seen to be known.
That's left for us to ponder onthis topic.
For sure, yeah.
Speaker 1 (16:20):
Well, if anyone listening has any further
information or thoughts on this,or questions or anything, we'd
love to hear from you, as always.
And is there anything else thatyou want to wrap up on this
thought that comes to your mind,gabe, anything else you wanted
to touch on?
Speaker 2 (16:34):
Yeah, I think the number one thing is to again
continue to challenge ourlisteners, to provoke us with
some of those questions and askus to dig into more of those
kinds of topics.
We'll definitely be keeping oureyes on these things.
A lot of times we see theseheadlines in the news and we
don't always think about howthey necessarily affect things
like privacy and security.
So you know, it's Cam and I'sjob to bring those to the show
here.
(16:54):
But the challenge to thelisteners is you know, after
this show ends and you flickover to the next show or you get
on the interwebs, dig in for alittle bit yourselves, right,
like, don't take our words forall of it.
That should never be where itends.
But find out where you thinkthat some of these behaviors
require more attention and let'stalk about it.
Speaker 1 (17:16):
It's the way to go.
Well, thank you, Gabe.
Speaker 2 (17:18):
Always a pleasure.
Speaker 1 (17:19):
Thanks, listeners.
We'll see you guys next week.
Appreciate you.
All righty then.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcomeback to another episode of
Privacy.
Please, cameron Ivey, here withGabe Gumbs, we are hanging out
chatting.
You know this big thing that'sgoing on.
Well, first, first, gabe, howyou living man.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
How you living, I'm living, I am living.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
I am living.
Yeah, you got the hair downtoday.
It's not tied up.
I love that the hair's downtoday.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Yeah, you got the hair down today.
It's not tied up.
I love that the hair's downtoday.
Yeah, the hair is all kinds ofdown today.
I love that it's hair day.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
I'm going to get her done today.
Oh it's hair day it's, hair dayit's hair day.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
I'm living well, my friend, how are you?
Speaker 1 (00:36):
I'm good.
I'm good, always good when weget to yeah.
Especially when there's lotsgoing on.
It's never a dull day?
Speaker 2 (00:46):
No, no, there's plenty going on, plenty going on
.
We get a lot of questions aboutall kinds of topics.
What's on people's minds thisweek?
Speaker 1 (00:55):
Well, specifically, I mean we were looking at this
thing on the Doge data lawsuitswith the.
Watergate era and privacy law.
Specifically, it's an articlefrom Bloomberg Law.
It kind of touches on lawsuitschallenging the sharing of
personal data by federalagencies with Elon Musk's
Department of GovernmentEfficiency, and the lawsuits
(01:19):
cite a Privacy Act of 1974,which was designed to protect
Americans' personal informationfrom unauthorized access and
sharing.
These lawsuits allege thatagencies like the labor,
treasury and educationdepartments unlawfully disclose
sensitive data, including taxreturns and social security
numbers, to Doge.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
Not like the coin either.
Doge Department of GovernmentEfficiency.
I only have one question tokind of kick off this
conversation, though, is arethey going to look at the TSA?
Because if they're not lookingat TSA, I don't know how to take
them seriously.
That's the first Whoa, whoa,whoa whoa.
I'm talking about all of it.
That's the first place to checkfor inefficiencies.
If you're looking forinefficiencies, that's a good
(02:02):
point.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
That's because think about the information that they
have on everyone that has TSApre-check.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
That might be the reason why we don't want them
looking there, because if datais being shared in ways that
were explicitly told by thepeople that it was collected
from, that it couldn't orwouldn't be shared by, that is
problematic.
That is problematic.
And we don't know the completebreadth of who data has been
shared with Doge.
But we know, for example, thatthe Consumer Financial
(02:28):
Protection Bureau they'vealready shared sensitive
consumer information, includingconfidential data from financial
institutions.
So we know at a bare minimumthat kind of data is in the
hands of Doge.
We don't really know who Dogeis either.
I mean, I've seen all of therandom spewings in the interwebs
(02:49):
, complaining about the age ofsome of the members and so on
and so forth, but that doesn'ttell me who Doge is right Like,
who exactly is getting access tothat data?
Speaker 1 (02:59):
Maybe it's Le Fleur from Dodgeball and it's just a
half name of Dodge, but theytake the D out and they're
called Doge.
What do you mean?
White Goodman, white Goodman,w-h-i-t-e.
Okay, so let me ask you this sowe don't know who Doge is.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
That's interesting.
Around.
There's some information aboutsome of the individuals, but
it's all very personalizedinformation and I'm not really
concerned with who that personnecessarily is specifically,
although that is very importantif they're going to get their
hands on sense information.
I'm more concerned about who isDoge as a complete entity.
Yes, elon Musk is theadministrator, but that still
(04:00):
doesn't really tell me.
I don't know if I feelcomfortable with the lack of
information generally around anentity that is going to get that
kind of access to citizen data.
And then, on top of that, someof the actions that they've
already taken aren't reallyclear as to how this is to
benefit us.
For example, steps have beenalready taken to dismantle the
(04:21):
Consumer Financial ProtectionBureau.
And so that I'm not just kindof spewing random sentences
there, what do I mean bydismantling?
Well, they completelyoverhauled the leadership, right
?
So Russell Vought, who was theformer Office of Management and
Budget Director, he alreadysignaled that shift in
leadership.
That same gentleman Vought, heinstructed all of the CFPB staff
(04:42):
to halt all supervisoryexamination activities.
So no longer looking intothings which, by the way, what
had they been looking into?
Well, one of the things thatCFPB has been looking into is
investigating and cracking downon data brokers, a topic that we
talk about a lot here.
So this dismantling, oh otherthings that have happened,
(05:03):
terminating any funding.
To be fair, they have a lot ofmoney in the bank, still air
quotes a lot, but I don't reallyknow how much money they need
to do things like properlyenforce and regulate data
brokers, which, let's be honest,we've spoken about it ad
nauseum.
That is a very importantfunction of our government.
Quite frankly, they've closeddown some of their offices,
(05:24):
they've reduced staff, so all ofthese things will certainly
hamper their ability to enforceand I'm just going to be very
myopic about this privacy laws.
Why am I being that myopic?
Because that's what we talkabout here on the show.
I'm certain there's lots ofother things that those are
doing, but look, this is privacy, please.
And so there's a number ofprivacy laws that the CFPB had
(05:45):
oversight over GLBA right,financial privacy rules there,
the Fair Credit Reporting Act,dodd-frank, copa, the Children's
Online Privacy Act All of thoseare regulations.
Fair Credit Reporting.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
Act.
Yeah yeah, equal CreditOpportunity Act, electronic Fund
Transfer Act.
I didn't even know theseexisted, you probably knew of at
least some of them.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
I know you're intimately familiar with COPA,
for example.
Well, I mean.
I didn't realize that they wereall under.
I didn't realize which oneentity had oversight over those
myself, correct, you know I knewsome of them to some degree,
but yeah, that wasn't somethingI dug into until now because it
(06:35):
became necessary to understand,like well, if that's getting
impacted, like how is that beingimpacted?
Hey, but at least.
Speaker 1 (06:41):
At least Trump signed an order to get rid of paper
straws.
Am I with that?
Who's with me?
Speaker 2 (06:47):
With your paper.
Speaker 1 (06:48):
straws are useless and they suck, so I I know, I
know, I'm just saying at leastwe're getting some good stuff
done.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
I don't know.
I don't know if I neededregulation for that.
Like, my response to paperstraws has simply been to
complain about it to managementmanagement or not go back to
those establishments that insiston paper straws.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
Off topic here, a squirrel moment, but I'll tell
you what.
If we care more about gettingrid of paper straws, can we
please do something about?
I know that there's talks aboutit, but like, let's cut out all
these like terrible ingredientsand foods that Americans still
use, that europe and othercountries do not use.
It's just insane what they'redoing to the american people
(07:29):
with all the dyes and the youknow you're saying focus on
health and not on cutting backpaper straws yeah, I, I don't
mean to go off topic here, butthis is also important that's
okay.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
Go off topic.
Yeah, but this is alsoimportant, that's okay.
Go off topic, yeah, you knowwhat?
Because this is our show, wecan talk about whatever we want.
Hey what's up?
Don't at me.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
It's on my mind.
Yeah, don't at us One thingthat I mean come on now, let's
think about this.
You go to school to be a doctor.
What do you think they teachyou as a doctor?
They don't mention anythingabout nutrition.
All they do is talk about howyou have to memorize all these
different medicines and drugs.
That's the only thing they careabout.
Is you understanding what allthe drugs are on the market, so
you know what to prescribe yourpatients to take care of a
(08:12):
certain issue that you have, orhealth issue?
They don't teach you anythingabout the nutritional things
because they don't want us to behealthy.
You wouldn't get me to arguewith that.
(08:38):
You wouldn't get me to arguewith that.
I think it's more powerful thanpeople actually realize.
It's powerful.
Yeah, I mean spinning back towhat we're talking about here
with the control over our ownpersonal information and all
these issues.
I mean we got to start.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
Where do we even begin to even help in this area,
to be an outside voice, to besomething that can help in the
right direction, make a changeFor the average individuals like
you and I.
Maybe it begins with theseconversations, it begins with
sharing these conversations withothers.
Yeah, we get asked about a lotof these topics outside of the
show and I'm reminded thatsomeone left us at least one
review that complained we gettoo quote preachy.
That's okay.
You don't have to certainlyagree or align with our
(09:28):
viewpoints.
In fact, we welcome opposingviewpoints.
So feel free to share those andnot just complain that we're
preaching.
But I'm going to co-sign thisone for you, brother.
I'm going to completely agreewith you that if we're looking
to get rid of waste, then we canstart certainly with not just
within the government itself butwithin the non-government areas
(09:50):
of our lives.
Speaker 1 (09:52):
Well, it sounds like there were what nine complaints
filed, with plaintiffs seekingtemporary restraining orders to
prevent Doge from accessingpersonal data.
Courts have been divided onthese requests, so these are.
I mean.
That's really important to seewhat this decision is going to
be, don't you think?
I mean?
Speaker 2 (10:10):
I think so.
I am beside myself that we aresplit on things like you know,
enforcing GLBA, those kinds ofrestrictions are what were put
in place to prevent furthercatastrophe in our financial
markets.
That's the whole reason thingslike that occur, and you know,
it worries me that without thatkind of oversight we can return
(10:30):
to those kinds of risks beingever present.
Speaker 1 (10:35):
I mean the ones that are split on not wanting to
protect personal information.
What's their agenda?
Speaker 2 (10:41):
I don't understand we already don't have any federal
laws around that.
We talk about that on this showa lot.
In fact, was it the last show,maybe the show before we someone
on and and we talked about alot of the state laws yeah we
dug.
We dug very heavily into thestate laws, and that's that may
be the place again for us to tobegin with.
(11:02):
Action collectively as citizensis to is to get back on that
local level and really voicewhat we want to see come out of
our administrations.
It doesn't matter which one itis this one, the next one, the
last one we've got to be a hellof a lot more vocal, a lot more
vocal.
I'm okay with taking it to thestreets too.
(11:23):
If that's the vocality that'snecessary, you can do that.
You ain't made for the streets.
Speaker 1 (11:28):
Nah, it's comfy inside, but if I have to go
outside, I'll go outside.
No, I'm not saying you, I justwanted to say that oh yeah, no,
no.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
No, I'm not either.
Let's be clear about this.
I'm not really interested inthat activity, but you know,
that's where we're headed.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
I mean, yeah, that unprecedented access, having
data being unprecedented isthat's a huge concern, not
knowing the implications or thewhole circumference of what
happens with that data, justlike every other data that we
talk about and that we'reworried about in the wrong hands
of, for example, data brokers?
Speaker 2 (12:04):
how is this data now being used?
How is it being protected?
How is it being shared?
Those are all questions that weshould ask.
Those aren't politicalquestions, those aren't even
preachy questions.
Those are basic privacy andsecurity questions that should
have been laid out for us beforethe first bit of access was
granted.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
Yeah, and you know what, if someone's using my
personal information, I shouldbe getting paid for it.
Then there's that Every singlething that's been used with my
name or it's attached to my name, now Doge is going to argue.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
We're using that information to reduce waste in
the government.
And I'm all about reducingwaste, which I was being a
little tongue in cheek but again, if we're genuine about
reducing waste, I'm certainevery American could, off the
top of their head, think ofthree places where there's waste
.
We could start with ourhealthcare system.
Mm, yeah, godly amount of wastein that system.
(12:58):
Yeah, I don't know that therecan be a more universally agreed
upon fact among citizens.
It's like no, there's a lot ofwaste in that.
There's a lot of waste in a lotof systems.
I'm poking fun at the T, tsa,but like real talk, that shit is
all waste.
It's, it's a hundred percentwaste.
And I don't want to hear aboutprotecting from terror, like.
Go look up the information inthe data yourself.
Look at their own, their ownself-auditing, and and you ask
(13:22):
yourself the question of if themoney's being spent is having a
positive impact, whether or notyou think a lot of that is
theater or not.
I ask you only to look at thenumbers and you tell me whether
or not you think there's wastethere.
But if that's not even a placeto start looking, it's hard for
me to take what they're doingseriously beyond.
I take it seriously thatprivacy seems to be a casualty
(13:44):
of this exercise.
That's a good point, that'sinteresting.
Speaker 1 (13:46):
It's just crazy.
I don't even know what to thinkright now.
Speaker 2 (13:50):
I mean Well, the thing that was posed to us was
what does the internet startlooking like with fewer, less
oversight and regulations ofprivacy brokers?
Our friend, heidi postedearlier Shout out, shout out to
Heidi.
We love you.
Heidi.
I posted early on LinkedIntoday that it was a position
(14:14):
that she had gotten.
I'm trying to remember the nameof the agency.
It was with DHS.
It was DHS and she received anoffer to form some work for her.
And for those of you that don'tkeep up, heidi Sass, that's
H-E-I-D-I-S-A-SS ID SAS.
She's a privacy and technologyattorney.
So they rescinded her offer andquote privacy activities no
(14:38):
longer align with the scienceand technology's mission.
What's their new mission?
I don't know, but in not hiringthis extremely well-experienced
privacy lawyer and telling themexplicitly in that rescinding
of their offer that privacyactivities no longer align with
science and technology, it begsthe question how does one
(14:59):
perform science and technologyactivities that include the
collection and analysis ofpersonal information and then
also remove privacy activitiesfrom your mission?
Those two things don't add up.
Speaker 1 (15:12):
It's concerning, to say the least.
I don't know if I should beviolated, scared, concerned,
worried.
Those are all kind of similar.
Yeah, going back to the, let mesee if I can find it here.
Going back to the article, justgive another shout out to Ron
(15:32):
DeSouza, who, by the way, we'regoing to have on the show at
some point Not sure when, but hewas actually in this very
article which I'll share in theshow notes, but it's a quote by
Ron was saying we can seepotentially all government
agencies being subject tounauthorized access to their
other systems.
He's a field chief privacyofficer at Transcend and he's
saying so.
It's incredibly important thatthese lawsuits are coming,
(15:54):
because it's going to forcejudges to make decisions about
Americans and their privacy.
It's I wonder.
I wonder how long this is goingto drag out.
That's the question too.
Is it going to?
What else is this going tobring to surface as well?
Yeah, what else is this?
Speaker 2 (16:09):
going to bring to surface as well.
There's definitely a lot of tobe seen to be known.
That's left for us to ponder onthis topic.
For sure, yeah.
Speaker 1 (16:20):
Well, if anyone listening has any further
information or thoughts on this,or questions or anything, we'd
love to hear from you, as always.
And is there anything else thatyou want to wrap up on this
thought that comes to your mind,gabe, anything else you wanted
to touch on?
Speaker 2 (16:34):
Yeah, I think the number one thing is to again
continue to challenge ourlisteners, to provoke us with
some of those questions and askus to dig into more of those
kinds of topics.
We'll definitely be keeping oureyes on these things.
A lot of times we see theseheadlines in the news and we
don't always think about howthey necessarily affect things
like privacy and security.
So you know, it's Cam and I'sjob to bring those to the show
here.
(16:54):
But the challenge to thelisteners is you know, after
this show ends and you flickover to the next show or you get
on the interwebs, dig in for alittle bit yourselves, right,
like, don't take our words forall of it.
That should never be where itends.
But find out where you thinkthat some of these behaviors
require more attention and let'stalk about it.
Speaker 1 (17:16):
It's the way to go.
Well, thank you, Gabe.
Speaker 2 (17:18):
Always a pleasure.
Speaker 1 (17:19):
Thanks, listeners.
We'll see you guys next week.
Appreciate you.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com