Doge using AI to snoop on U.S. federal workers, sources say

I see a bright future in social media, politics, and livestream gaming ahead of you if you do.

There is no expectation of privacy but there is a need for rules and oversight. Some communications are sensitive - anything involving lawyers, unions, health providers, etc. has legal considerations - and there is both a concern about whether government data is being shared improperly with third-party companies. For example, if they’re using Grok to analyze text, there’s potentially a huge conflict of interest if any of the communications being analyzed involves regulation of Musk’s companies or the various lawsuits he’s part of.

Similarly, since they’re creating a conflict between perceived political disloyalty and professional ethics you have questions like whether an EPA official whose messages are flagged will have a human review the alleged offenses or be given a chance to defend their actions, or simply be “randomly” included in some RIF. We haven’t had to think about that since the McCarthy / lavender scare era, which significantly predated modern surveillance technology.

Since DOGE is widely reported to be using Signal and private email servers, there is reason to question whether those ethical standards will be followed.

You want an unelected, foreign entity to have total visibility into your government?

I have no problem with surveillance of federal workers on their job sites, per se. I say this as a federal worker. (Edited for clarity.)

As others have mentioned, there are two legitimate concerns here:

(1) Civil servants are heavily trained on the laws restricting use and access to certain information. There's reasonable doubt that DOGE and/or Trump will uphold those laws with these systems additional surveillance systems in place.

(2) This administration has proven itself incompetent and criminal regarding HR activities. Civil servants can reasonably wonder if this will further those dysfunctions.

Do you like to be surveilled at work? Would it make you want to do a better job or just hate your job more?

> I don't want politics discussed at work, it's annoying and a distraction

This would be a ridiculous expectation if you were working for the federal government. Politics affect your work to an extreme level there. Not discussing politics at all is not discussing your job.

> I don't want people badmouthing their job or work or company. All of these behaviors are toxic and I would guess 80% of people are like me.

If your company was involved in something really bad, you'd rather just not know? If you worked for Theranos, Nikola, or Enron, you'd rather be able to continue on with your nose down than know what's going on?

I want to know the truth about my company. I don't want to be complicit in crimes or things that I consider unconscionable, and I don't consider willing ignorance a good excuse for partaking in unethical or illegal activity.

> I don't want politics discussed at work, it's annoying and a distraction.

This is a lot trickier when politics won’t stay out of your work. For example, almost every business is affected by the tariffs because such a massive tax increase affects almost everyone. On the article’s topic, someone at the EPA hired for professional skills around pollution, climate change, etc. under the current administration will regularly be faced with the choice between denying reality/law and being seen as political.

Some things really are bad, and "badmouthing" and pointing that out can be a productive thing. Thinking that anything that is against the "mission of the company" is toxic is a stance that I do not share.

It feels like your opinion is "boss is always right, just do what they say" (I apologize if I'm misreading that). The truth is that bosses are often wrong and need to be corrected.

…how is it possible to work for a political entity without discussing politics at work?

Judging by how many people DOGE has gotten fired, it doesn't seem that hard

> It's not easy.

This is pathetic. In the US, nearly everyone is an "At will" employee. It cannot be legally easy to fire someone.

You can fire your employees because you don't like their shirt. Do you understand that? There is NO REQUIRED REASON to fire nearly anyone in the US.

Meanwhile, for non-at-will employees like federal employees, all you need is "cause", in other words, a bullshit couple "bad" reviews or a PIP or similar.

Do you know why governments don't usually fire people? Because they don't exactly have the most productive employees lining up to work for below market rates.

The government doesn't fire workers because whoever you replace them with (if you even can at all) will likely be just as bad or worse. It's not because "It's hard" and I'm so sick of the whining.

The executive branch is really not supposed to have complete unrestrained control over the entire federal government.

The point about AI isn't about efficiency, it's about accountability. This administration already has a huge accountability problem, and the AI is another layer of "Oh, that wasn't really me who did that thing I did." This isn't just cynicism, the current admin is incapable of taking responsibility for anything they've done wrong (and perfectly willing to take full responsibility for things other people have done right).

> but criticizing absolutely everything, even when its entirely reasonable

Got it. But for a lot of us this is not entirely reasonable at all.

I don't know where I stand on this, but not everyone thinks that 100% on-task, uncritical, 0 conflict communication is essential or even normal for work.

It reminds me of an article that claimed Britain has become a more civil and less honest place in the last few decades. (The Economist, maybe?) Perhaps some workplaces are like that too. Whether it's a good thing or not, who knows. People clearly have their preference one way or the other.

This specific case is tied to complicated American politics, but I guess small versions of the same debate are happening in workplaces all over the world. Though maybe, ironically, not in the most intensely policed workplaces.

Given the spectacular, mind-blowing incompetence of almost everything they've done so far, I 100% absolutely believe that they would automatically send out dismissals based upon a sentiment analysis flag.

The number one rule in tech, if you aren't paying you are being manipulated and someone else has the power behind the seen. I'd rather the un-elected people with great control over my government WERE paid by the government. It should scare you that government manipulation/control is the product and we don't know who it is sold to.

That being said, this is clearly _not_ the FBI or the CIA. The power dynamics for anyone saying anything critical of the Trump administration in the media are strongly, strongly not in their favor.

> Edward Snowden

Well, I think you already got the answer to your own question with your own example.

I mean, it didn't go great for Snowden, and that was even before government by vindictive man-baby. No-one is going to go on the record on this sort of thing under current conditions.

I didn't say I would automatically believe something just because the reporter says "anonymous source." The reality is the administration's PR people spout an endless steam of lies, and "leakers" who share real facts are fired. There is no surprise to how this plays out: reporters seek the truth, employees want to share the truth, employees don't want to be fired, and you get anonymous sources out the wazoo.

The reason I said anonymous sources don't cause me to immediately dismiss articles is because I don't want to reward the admin for purposefully creating this shitty situation. I'll use other critical reading skills to determine the articles' value. It sucks that heavy reliance on anonymous sources isn't a huge flag anymore, but it is what it is.