Judge Limits Access to Social Security Records in Privacy Case

BALTIMORE (AP) — Well, folks, it looks like billionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (cleverly nicknamed DOGE — get it?) just got its leash yanked by a federal judge. Talk about a cosmic comeuppance in this Judge Puts the Brakes on DOGE’s Social Security Data Sniffing!

Judge Ellen Hollander dropped the judicial hammer on Thursday, essentially telling DOGE, “No touchy!” when it comes to those treasure troves of personal Social Security data. Apparently, having billionaires pawing through your sensitive Social Security data privacy isn’t everyone’s idea of “efficiency.”

The judge’s preliminary injunction came after labor unions and retirees banded together faster than seniors at an early bird special to file a Social Security privacy lawsuit. Their argument? That DOGE’s data diving violates privacy laws and creates data security risks bigger than using “password123” for your bank account.

Don’t worry though — DOGE staffers can still access redacted Social Security information, provided they complete training and pass background checks. You know, those basic requirements most of us mere mortals have to meet before handling sensitive information.

Privacy as a Foundational Principle

“Addressing fraud and government waste is laudable,” wrote Judge Hollander, basically saying, “Hey, we all hate wasteful spending, but maybe don’t violate everyone’s Social Security data privacy while you’re at it?” She added that for about 90 years, the SSA has operated with privacy as a “foundational principle.” Imagine that!

During Tuesday’s hearing, Hollander repeatedly questioned why DOGE needed “seemingly unfettered access” to sensitive personal information. “What is it we’re doing that needs all of that information?” she asked, suggesting Social Security data could be anonymized. It’s like asking why someone needs your diary when they’re just checking if you paid your library fines.

Trump administration attorneys argued that anonymizing Social Security data would be “extremely burdensome.” Translation: “It’s hard and we don’t wanna.” They insisted DOGE’s access wasn’t much different from normal agency practices — you know, except for the whole “outside billionaire’s team” part.

Social Security Administration in Turmoil

Meanwhile, outside the courthouse, union members and retirees gathered to protest, presumably without the benefit of those fancy DOGE-branded space suits.

The Social Security Administration has been in turmoil since Trump’s return to office. Acting commissioner Michelle King stepped down in February after refusing to hand over the keys to the data kingdom. Her replacement, Leland Dudek, mysteriously failed to show up at Tuesday’s hearing despite the judge’s request — perhaps he was stuck in traffic or, more likely, avoiding uncomfortable questions about Social Security records access limits.

In a particularly eyebrow-raising episode, Dudek recently had to backpedal faster than a circus unicyclist after ordering Maine parents to register newborns for Social Security numbers at federal offices instead of hospitals. Turns out it was political payback against Maine’s Democratic governor. Oops!

Judge’s Orders to Protect Social Security Data

Despite the politically charged atmosphere, Judge Hollander wasn’t having any nonsense. When a Justice Department attorney suggested her questioning felt like a “policy disagreement,” she took offense faster than someone being told their Social Security number is just a suggestion.

The judge ordered DOGE to:

• Purge any non-anonymized Social Security data they’ve already collected
• Stop modifying SSA computer code or software
• Only access properly anonymized Social Security data
• Complete proper training before handling sensitive information

In other words: look but don’t touch, and even the looking part is limited when it comes to our Social Security information.

For now, at least, your Social Security data remains slightly more private than your browsing history. Democracy: 1, DOGE: 0.