The issue isn't employers accessing their own records but the government improperly sharing sensitive personal data with DOGE affiliates without consent or a legitimate need-to-know justification, likely violating the Privacy Act.
> It may be that, with additional time, the government can explain why granting such broad access to the plaintiffs' personal information is necessary for DOGE affiliates at Education to do their jobs, but for now, the record before the Court indicates they do not have a need for these records in the performance of their duties
You need to have a reason to look at that information. It is not yours to do whatever you want with.
No, this lawsuit is not about employee records. It is about customer records. Just like I can't share customer data with whoever the hell I want, they are arguing that there is a process and it was violated. Its the same lawsuit as if a company had a privacy policy on their website and just said 'nah bro' I'm going to give your social security number to some random drug addict to train a nazi AI.
> No, this lawsuit is not about employee records. It is about customer records.
That's not what the article says...
> The plaintiffs include "unions and membership organizations representing current and former federal employees and federal student aid recipients and six military veterans who have received federal benefits or student loans,"
I wonder how much of this employee data is actually "personal", and not data relevant to their employment, which presumably isn't "private" from the perspective of the employer. So for example, I imagine their home address and birth date would be considered private; but their job title , primary place of work, start date, etc would not be "private data"...?
I can't even fathom why anyone is listening to him. If a bunch of teenagers and discount Tony Stark turns up at your office and starts trying to fire people and demanding access to your data, isn't the correct response to tell them to fk off?
