US Release of Unredacted JFK Files 'Doxxed' Officials, Including Social Security Numbers (usatoday.com) 75
"I intend to sue the National Archives," said Joseph diGenova, an 80-year-old former Trump campaign lawyer (and a U.S. Attorney from 1983 to 1988). While releasing 63,000 unredacted pages about the 1963 assassination of President Kennedy, the U.S. government erroneously "made public the Social Security numbers and other sensitive personal information of potentially hundreds of former congressional staffers and other people," reports USA Today. ("It is virtually impossible to tell the scope of the breach because the National Archives put them online without a way to search them by keyword, some JFK files experts and victims of the information release told USA TODAY...")
Mark Zaid, a national security lawyer who represented current and former spies and other officials in cases against the government, told USA Today that he "saw a few names I know and I informed them of the breach... Hundreds were doxxed but of that number I don't know how many are still living." Zaid, who has fought for decades for the JFK records to be made public, said many of the thousands of investigative documents had been made public long ago with everything declassified and unredacted except for the personal information. Releasing that information now, he told USA TODAY, poses significant threats to those whose information is now public, including dates and places of birth, but especially their Social Security numbers. "The purpose of the release was to inform the public about the JFK assassination, not to help permit identity theft of those who actually investigated the events of that day," Zaid said. The Associated Press reported Thursday afternoon that government officials "said they are still screening the records to identify all the Social Security numbers that were released." One of the newly unredacted documents... discloses the Social Security numbers of more than two dozen people seeking security clearances in the 1990s to review JFK-related documents for the Assassination Records Review Board.
Mark Zaid, a national security lawyer who represented current and former spies and other officials in cases against the government, told USA Today that he "saw a few names I know and I informed them of the breach... Hundreds were doxxed but of that number I don't know how many are still living." Zaid, who has fought for decades for the JFK records to be made public, said many of the thousands of investigative documents had been made public long ago with everything declassified and unredacted except for the personal information. Releasing that information now, he told USA TODAY, poses significant threats to those whose information is now public, including dates and places of birth, but especially their Social Security numbers. "The purpose of the release was to inform the public about the JFK assassination, not to help permit identity theft of those who actually investigated the events of that day," Zaid said. The Associated Press reported Thursday afternoon that government officials "said they are still screening the records to identify all the Social Security numbers that were released." One of the newly unredacted documents... discloses the Social Security numbers of more than two dozen people seeking security clearances in the 1990s to review JFK-related documents for the Assassination Records Review Board.
I'm shocked, shocked, to find that... (Score:2)
... gross incompetence is going on around here.
Just had to pick the low-hanging joke (and change the vacuous Subject).
But I actually am a bit surprised. I haven't yet heard anything really distracting from this manufactured news, and I was expecting that it had been released as another deliberate distraction. Even relatively carefully considered when you compare it with some of the other BS that is flooding the zone lately.
On that theory it should have included some interesting stuff. I even imagined that t
Re: I'm shocked, shocked, to find that... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
from the fantastic to the mundane
Any redaction is held up by conspiracy nuts to be some fantastic thing that must be hidden from from the public for... reasons, But in reality these redactions are just the mundane needs to protect people's privacy as codified in law
Hopefully this will just put another arrow through the heart of these wingnuts, and help sway this country back to discussion of factual situations and not ridiculous expectations spewed by this president to his cult
Re: (Score:2)
This comment is spot on and, even though a bit unclear should not have been downvoted. What's being said is that an SSN is public information because you have to share it with multiple groups, not even just the government. You cannot guarantee that it will be secure. There is just no way.
There are two legal changes needed. Firstly there needs to be strict liability so that it's the duty of anyone who uses an SSN for identification to prove that it was not them that caused any damages. Secondly there needs t
Yet another example... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet another example of how incredibly reckless this administration has been so far. We'll be lucky if the damage he's doing / going to do is repaired in a decade.
Re:Responsibility (Score:5, Informative)
The Trump administration isn't responsible for releasing and redacting information, the National Archives are. The people who did this are National Archives staffers. The administration ordered them to release the documents. They did, not following their own regulations.
Trump ordered the unredacted files released -- to maximize transparency -- including the SSNs. From Trump on who killed JFK: ‘You’ll make a determination’ [thehill.com]
Trump, speaking from the Oval Office on Friday, confirmed the release of Social Security numbers.
“We even released social security numbers,” he said. “I didn’t want anything deleted.”
Re:Responsibility (Score:5, Informative)
Except that the Administration has targeted the National Archives' independence, purging senior management and replacing with political loyalists, as well as cutting the work force.
NARA is an agency with a purely bureaucratic mission: maintaining records. Which goes to show that "slashing bureaucracy" doesn't mean making government better. Without an institutional memory, there is no accountability.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
NARA is an agency with a purely bureaucratic mission: maintaining records. Which goes to show that "slashing bureaucracy" doesn't mean making government better. Without an institutional memory, there is no accountability.
I imagine that's the point in this Administration...
Re:Responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
Without an institutional memory, there is no accountability.
Why do you think the convicted felon got rid of so many inspectors general?
Re:Responsibility (Score:4, Informative)
It wasn't the payments per se that were illegal; it was stuff that went around that like falsifying business records. He got one count for each invoice, one count each general ledger falsification, and one count for each falsified check.
This sounds like piling stuff on gratuitously, but this is how business record falsification is handled in *all* cases in the state of New York. Every false entry is considered a separate crime. It's in part conviction insurance -- suppose the jury thought 10 of the 11 checks in question were legitimate; they might give him a pass on #11 if all the checks were lumped into a single crime. By making each a separate count, the jury is required to come to a determination of fact for each check.
In theory, increasing the counts this way *could* increase the maximum sentence, but judges have leeway in these matters and take the relationship of each individual count to the whole into account. In this case, the judge chose to forgo all punishment for the crimes Trump was convicted of committing, so he can hardly complain of unfair treatement.
Re: (Score:2)
However, there are reporting requirements when you move around chunks of money that big, and trying to hide that you did it can very much be illegal, and in his case, was.
Re: (Score:2)
However, there are reporting requirements when you move around chunks of money that big, and trying to hide that you did it can very much be illegal, and in his case, was.
Just in the interest of accuracy, the amounts of money didn't have anything to do with it. Granted that as a practical matter if it had been pennies no one would have bothered, but the dollar amounts had nothing to do with the degree of criminality.
The illegal action was claiming that the payments were for legal fees, when they were actually for a payoff. By itself that would have been a bunch of misdemeanors, but the falsified records were created in the service of another crime, namely the attempt to h
Re: (Score:2)
Just in the interest of accuracy, the amounts of money didn't have anything to do with it.
You are absolutely correct. In this instance, it did not, since it was fraudulently claimed as a business, and campaign expense.
Had it been a smaller number, he would have had no reason to bother claiming it, as there is no realistic tracking for small expenses.
But even for Joe JimBob moving his own money around without trying to call it a campaign or business expense, there are reporting requirements, which means there's no good way to hide it.
The rest of your post is also correct- the FEC only didn't
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do you think the convicted felon got rid of so many inspectors general?
So he could give their job to his biggest campaign contributor, a man who built the largest fortune in the world using government subsidies, loan guarantees and contracts.
Re: (Score:2)
The parallel that I see to the trump administration eliminating the inspector generals, is how the HIV virus attacks the host's immune system
The result is the death of the host by dozens of maladies that the immune system (IGs) would have held at bay
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
“Well, you know, I was given the task of releasing that. Many presidents have gone through it, and they haven’t released. And I said, ‘Release.’ We even released Social Security numbers, I didn’t want anything deleted,” Trump replied. “They said, ‘So what about Social Security?’ People long gone. We gave Social Security, we gave everything. And the rest is for you to look at.”
"I'm, like, a really smart person"
Re:Responsibility (Score:4, Informative)
It's the timeline that Trump is demanding everything to happen on. Trump wanted records released NOW and this is the type of error that happens with that type of attitude. It's the same with all the rehires this administration has had to do. If they had taken a proper amount of time to go about things they obviously would never have fired these people to begin with.
They are cutting first, measuring second. No one should be surprised by the shitty results we're already getting from this.
Re: (Score:1)
This wasn't an error. Trump demanded everything be released unredacted and his loyalists made it happen. Trump didn't just confirm the personal information was included, he was actively proud of it in his official statement on the matter.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious , is there a point at which you would actually blame Trump for something ?
This is Trump's actual statement yesterday on the topic.
"I said, release, we even released Social Security numbers. I didn't want anything deleted,"
He's the president, he's in charge and he's made it very clear that everybody will do what he or his deputies say. So do you still feel that his administration is not responsible for this fuck up ?
Re: (Score:3)
The Trump administration isn't responsible for releasing and redacting information, the National Archives are.
In this case, the Trump administration was responisible for releasing the information,
The people who did this are National Archives staffers. The administration ordered them to release the documents.
Correct. National archives staffers do not have the authority to countermand an explicit presidential order. The order was to release the complete unredacted files.
They did, not following their own regulations.
A presidential order overrides regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah for real. Government transparency is bad for democracy.
Re:Yet another example... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course government transparency is good but that's not what I was talking about at all. It's that I firmly believe transparency can be achieved without incompetence.
Re: (Score:3)
Yet another example of how incredibly reckless this administration has been so far. We'll be lucky if the damage he's doing / going to do is repaired in a decade.
Unfortunately, what'll probably happen is that Republicans will get voted out of office en-mass in 2026 and 2028, but Democrats won't be able to fix things fast enough -- especially for the short-attention-span populous -- and/or won't be able to agree on how to fix things (the Democrat party is like herding cats) then *they'll* get voted out by impatient voters and Republicans will get voted back in and restart Project 2025, rebranded as Project 2033, ...
Re:Yet another example... (Score:4, Interesting)
The institutions being dismantled at record speed took decades to establish. Things like the FDA have been around over a century. And many people got hurt until agencies like the EPA, OSHA, and others were created.
What's happened in not even the first 100 days will take many decades to rebuild. And some may not be possible to rebuild for generations due to the courts.
Re: (Score:3)
Not only that, but the American electorate has a memory span of roughly 2 weeks, which means that even if we pretend there will be continue to be free and fair elections in the US, Democrats would be voted out after failing to fix these issues in 4 years.
I truly believe this administration is the end of the US as we know it.
Orange man bad! (Score:2, Interesting)
This is just more leftist stupidity. Doxxing people is simply 16D chess from our president genius.
Did you see that new airplane? F-47? Yes! F-47! F-47 in the ass!
The actual problem... (Score:3, Insightful)
The actual problem is different. SSNs are not in any way private. How many people and organizations know, or could know yours? Dozens? Hundreds?
The actual problem is, if someone can use your SSN to do you harm. Any organization that considers an SSN to be some form if identification is idiotic, and ought to be liable for any resulting damages.
Re: (Score:1)
Every single SSN that has ever existed has been leaked. There's just so many of them that most people don't notice because they haven't been targeted.
The SSN's in these documents have already been leaked so it makes no difference whatsoever.
Also, here's the big one: SSN's can be reverse engineered. You can calculate anyone's SSN.
I'm surprised SSN is even still used as a key for anything. Bunch of morons.
Re: (Score:2)
SSN assignments were randomized starting June 2011. While the 999-99-9999 format is the same, nothing else is. My kids were born 16 months apart in the same hospital after that date, and there is zero similarity between their SSNs.
SSNs are used because there's a massive backlash to anything else that could replace it and fulfill the same functions. SSNs are as close as we get to a national ID system, and any proposals to implement a national ID are met with paranoia, with many asking when "Papers, please?"
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you haven't flown in the US in the last couple of decades, as showing your "papers" to a government agent is now standard practice (and has been for a while). ISTR that the TSA wanted to expand into train stations, too, but I don't know if that ever happened.
I'd at least like a more secure way to validate my identity, something that is not so simple for criminals to fake.
Re: (Score:2)
llikewise, even for people born before SSA fully randomized SSNs, the last four digits were randomized
Re: (Score:3)
The actual problem is different. SSNs are not in any way private. How many people and organizations know, or could know yours? Dozens? Hundreds?
From the first of TFAs:
“I intend to sue the National Archives,” said Joseph diGenova, a former top Justice Department official and Trump campaign lawyer. “They violated the Privacy Act.”
Yes, many people and organizations know your SSN. And they are restrained by law what they can do with the information. They certainly can't share it with anyone else -- let alone make it public -- without your permission.
Re: (Score:2)
This is particularly the case when such information is governed by data privacy laws.
While what you mention is certainly a problem- the way SSNs are used- the fact that they are private is not diminished by the fact that you give them to organizations as identification. So, no, that's not the "actual problem". It's an additional problem.
The actual problem is that the imperfect (arguably bad system) syst
Unforced error (Score:2)
Don't blame the National Archives (Score:5, Informative)
"I intend to sue the National Archives," said Joseph diGenova, an 80-year-old former Trump campaign lawyer (and a U.S. Attorney from 1983 to 1988).
Sure, but it was his former client who ordered the unredacted files released -- to maximize transparency -- including the SSNs.
From Trump on who killed JFK: ‘You’ll make a determination’ [thehill.com]
Trump, speaking from the Oval Office on Friday, confirmed the release of Social Security numbers.
“We even released social security numbers,” he said. “I didn’t want anything deleted.”
Jordan Klepper commenting on this and diGenova on The Daily Show:
Whoah, man. It looks like 304-55-6622 is really upset about that leak. Social Security numbers, addresses, full names—the only thing that wasn’t in the JFK papers was who killed JFK.
Trump’s poor, poor lawyer. He’s probably like, ‘I never would have represented you in your 2020 election fraud case if I knew you’d be untrustworthy.'
Didn't he yet? (Score:2)
I'm sure Trump has already cured cancer. He is the almighty, the best president of the United States ever. He can do everything and even those things he can't do, he delegates to his great co-governors. Remember the great cures for COVID19 he came up with in his first term!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"70 years of people complaining about secrecy
Trump releases the records in incompetence fashion.
Complaints over incompetency"
There, fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
70 years of people complaining about secrecy
Trump releases the records
Complaints theyâ(TM)re not secret enough.
close.
70 years of some people complaining about secrecy
Trump releases the records
Complaints by other people they.re not secret enough.
FTFY,
The EU needs to fine NARA bigtime (Score:1)
This breech of privacy cannot stand! The EU must launch an immediate investigation, promising huge fines for all involved.
More proof (Score:5, Interesting)
oh, not of some assassination conspiracy, no, proof of government incompetence.
For over 50 years politicians (in BOTH parties) have been promising to release these records. That's 50+ years of time these agencies have had to prep a copy of the records with the critical stuff (people's SSNs etc) redacted and all else revealed. This prepared-for-release copy could have been sitting there on a shelf ready for immediate release. FINALLY a president comes along and, shockingly, keeps his word to the voters and issues the executive order to release the docs and the involved bureaucrats are caught off guard and surprised???
I suppose one COULD assert that the bureaucrats deliberately botched this to try to make the administration look bad... I'm sure some of Trump's people will think that. Personally, however, I suspect the real problem is that the bureaucrats were so sure they'd succeed in talking presidents out of ordering the release (and had succeeded in the past with claims of doom resulting from a release) that they simply never thought they'd NEED to prep these docs for release... until they were kicked in the butts and forced into it by a president bent on mass-firings of bureaucrats.
Incidentally, people need to go through these docs looking for whatever it was that the bureaucracy was so determined to hide. If no such smoking gun is found, then we still have a big logical problem: It's unlikely the agencies lied to president after president about some severe need to suppress this stuff while no such need existed, so if there's nothing in the stuff newly released then it leads to an obvious conclusion - that there are still more documents being hidden and this release is incomplete (and the agencies are disobeying a direct presidential order)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This prepared-for-release copy could have been sitting there on a shelf ready for immediate release.
What makes you think anyone would have bothered to prepare a copy for release before they were told to release it? You think they habitually do extra work that they don't need to do, just in case someone asks for it? You apparently have a very different perception of government employees than I do.
I would expect that the only government organization that habitually prepares for contingencies like that is the DoD, who keeps up-to-date war plans for all sorts of unlikely scenarios. Including, famously, ev
Re: (Score:2)
"I suppose one COULD assert that the bureaucrats deliberately botched this to try to make the administration look bad"
Not required.
This was dumb. Not evil... just dumb. What is worse is the simultaneous belief that this is fine, but exposing the doge crew isn't.
Willful sabotage .. (Score:1)
SSNs (Score:3)
2.9 billion people may have had Social Security numbers, other financial data compromised [cnbc.com] It was actually around 900 million SSN numbers leaked.
Huge data breach involving social security numbers could impact millions of Americans [news5cleveland.com] This separate leak had 270 million SSNs.
A leak with hacked Social Security numbers is stoking concern. [nbcnews.com] "Security analysts who spoke with NBC News also said that while it is still concerning, the leak of Social Security numbers isn’t a reason for panic — many people’s numbers have already been leaked in previous hacks."
Re: (Score:2)
In each of the cases you cited, a crime was committed.
What do you call what the current administration just did?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing you were never a victim of identity theft. I was. It sucks, big time.
There's a reason it's a crime to mishandle someone's private information. And it should remain so. Shrugging our shoulders and saying the genie is out of the bottle is not an acceptable excuse to just give up.
Re: (Score:2)
My may have a completely valid point, that little harm was actually done, but it doesn't change the fact that what was done was criminal, and will not be policed because of a captive Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
In each of the cases you cited, a crime was committed.
What do you call what the current administration just did?
Tuesday.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a good trick leaking 900 million SSNs, they had to make some up since only 450 million or so have been assigned ever.
Surprise? (Score:1)
Every American & Canadians Full Name, DOB & (Score:2)
Oh noes . . . . (Score:2)
SSN's have been compromised so many times it's pointless to even keep track of them anymore.
Hell, I think Experian was the most recent example.
Anyone stupid enough to waste money on a lawsuit will end up with a payout of about ten dollars
and a coupon for free credit screening for the next twelve months as compensation.
Same as everyone else whose SSN has been compromised via various means over the years.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, they released the files. Doxxed a bunch of people. Was it worth it? Do you now know the name of the person in the grassy knoll? What useful thing did you find out?
Epstein list (Score:4, Interesting)
Where's the Epstein list? Why is THAT taking so long? I mean, how long does it take them to do a Find & Replace of Musk and Trump in that?
Re: (Score:2)
Musk first wants to scour through all the girls' names - make sure there isn't anyone he didn't get to impregnate the first time around.
Re: Epstein list (Score:2)
Trump packed list away safely in Mar-a-lago.
The funniest part (Score:2)
After these SSNs came out and the people started complaining, the press secretary got up and talked about how the administration had "pro-actively" addressed the problem by offering them credit monitoring!
She keeps defining and using words differently than pretty much everyone else, and isn't even embarrassed by it. I can see why Trump likes her.