This is reporting in the public interest. Nothing they revealed isn't available already as verifiable public information.
But then again... these are people outright breaking the law and I sure do want to know who's potentially tampering with my data. If the courts won't do it, someone has to put names and faces to this.
U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
U.S. Code § 371 - Obstructing or Impairing Legitimate Government Activity
Executive Order 14117 of February 28, 2024, “Preventing Access to Americans' Bulk Sensitive Personal Data and United States Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern” (“the Order”) (though this may be rescinded by Trump)
If any of those BS Crypto plans[0] have any weight to them That's a straight out constitutional overstep
Article I, Section 8, Clause 5: "The Congress shall have Power . . . to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; . . ."
I'm probably only scratching the surface here. I'm not surprised if there's a dozen other laws with legal ledger around this. You don't want any one man messing with the economy.
[0]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2025/02/02/this-...
>Now, as fears emerge Trump’s administration is “dangerously” undermining the U.S. dollar, Musk has confirmed he wants to put the U.S. Treasury on a blockchain, the technology that underpins bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies—including Musk’s pet project dogecoin.
They're acting in official capacity. I've lived in towns where the mayor is not elected. They're still public figures.
They chose this approach. No one is under any obligation to abet and protect them.
I'm still not sure if the kids were actually hired though.
This might be true, however...
> Nothing they revealed isn't available already as verifiable public information.
... collating publicly available information and publishing it in one place would still meet my definition of doxxing.
(In this case, the doxxing _might_ be entirely justified and be in the public interest. I don't know.)
Yes, I explicitly did not challenge that. (Though I have no clue whether I should agree with it, either.)
I challenged the justification of "Nothing they revealed isn't available already as verifiable public information."
Something being a good thing (or true or whatever), doesn't automatically make all arguments in favour of that thing good arguments.
It looks like you can't believe that there are bad arguments for good causes; and instead want to keep arguing that the cause is good, and thus all arguments must be good?
No, you did express an opinion. Reporting on people carrying out unconstitutional and illegal orders is clearly in the public interest and framing that as "doxxing" reveals that opinion.