
President Trump's War on ‘Information Silos' Is Bad News for Your Personal Data
This is an essay from the latest edition of Steven Levy's Plaintext newsletter.
SIGN UP for Plaintext to read the whole thing, and tap Steven's unique insights and unmatched contacts for the long view on tech.
At first glance, the order seems reasonable. Both noun and verb, the very word silo evokes waste. Isolating information in silos squanders the benefits of pooled data. When you silo knowledge, there's a danger that decisions will be made with incomplete information. Sometimes expensive projects are needlessly duplicated, as teams are unaware that the same work is being done elsewhere in the enterprise. Business school lecturers feast on tales where corporate silos have led to disaster. If only the right hand knew what the left was doing!
More to the point, if you are going to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse, there's a clear benefit to smashing silos. For instance, what if a real estate company told lenders and insurers that a property was worth a certain amount, but reported what were 'clearly…fraudulent valuations,' according to a New York Supreme Court judge. If investigative reporters and prosecutors could pry those figures out of the silos, they might expose such skulduggery, even if the perpetrator wound up escaping consequences.
But before we declare war on silos, hold on. When it comes to sensitive personal data, especially data that's held by the government, silos serve a purpose. One obvious reason: privacy. Certain kinds of information, like medical files and tax returns, are justifiably regarded as sacrosanct—too private to merge with other records. The law provides special protections that limit who can access that information. But this order could force agencies to hand it over to any federal official the president chooses.
Then there's the Big Brother argument—privacy experts are justifiably concerned that the government could consolidate all the information about someone in a detailed dossier, which would itself be a privacy violation. 'A foundational premise of privacy protection for any level of government is that data can only be collected for a specific, lawful, identifiable purpose and then used only for that lawful purpose, not treated as essentially a piggy bank of data that the federal government can come back to whenever it wants,' says John Davisson, senior counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
There are practical reasons for silos as well. Fulfilling its mission to extract tax revenue from all sources subject to taxes, the IRS provides a payment option for incomes derived from, well, crookery. The information is siloed from other government sources like the Department of Justice, which might love to go on fishing expeditions to guess who is raking in bucks without revealing where the loot came from. Likewise, those not in the country legally commonly pay their taxes, funneling billions of dollars to the feds, even though many of those immigrants can't access services or collect social security. If the silo were busted open, forget about collecting those taxes. Another example: the census. By law, that information is siloed, because if it were not, people would be reluctant to cooperate and the whole effort might be compromised. (While tax and medical data is considered confidential, the order encourages agency heads to reexamine information access regulations.)
Want another reason? Spilling data out of silos and consolidating it into a centralized database provides an irresistible honeypot for hackers, thieves, and enemy states. The federal government doesn't have a great record of protecting sensitive information of late.
Trump's order does state that consolidation must be 'consistent with applicable law.' On its face, the order seems at odds with the 1974 Privacy Act, which specifically limits what it calls 'computer matching.' But the order also says that it supersedes any 'regulation subject to direct Presidential rulemaking authority.' This president considers that a very broad category. Also, as evidenced by multiple court rulings, Elon Musk's so-called Department of Government Efficiency has been less than meticulous in respecting current law. In more than one example, current agency officials have cited legal barriers to block DOGE's access to information. As a result, they were placed on leave, replaced by those who were willing to fling open the silos. In addition, on March 25, Trump issued another executive order that dictated that the Treasury Department should have access to other government databases. As legal justification, it cited an obscure passage in the 1974 law that allowed federal computer matching in limited circumstances. Perhaps this loophole will be broadened to justify the massive consolidation envisioned in the silo executive order next.
Oh, and the March 20 order also gives the federal government 'unfettered access to comprehensive data from all State programs that receive Federal funding, including, as appropriate, data generated by those programs but maintained in third-party databases.' That seems to mean that not only will the silos between federal and state data be compromised, but the government could get access to some information in private hands too.
While DOGE wasn't mentioned in the March 20 executive order, getting access to personal information has been an obsession of the so-called agency since day one. The order that repurposed USDS and established DOGE mandated that all agency heads 'ensure USDS has full and prompt access to all unclassified agency records, software systems, and IT systems.' The question was whether this need arose from a desire for genuine reform or something darker. Apparently US district judge Ellen Lipton Hollander holds the latter view. On the same day that the president signed the executive order on silos, she signed a temporary restraining order on DOGE's attempt to get access to identifiable social security records. 'The DOGE Team is essentially engaged in a fishing expedition at SSA in search of a fraud epidemic, based on little more than suspicion,' she wrote in her decision, concluding that DOGE was intruding into the personal affairs of millions of Americans without justification. Note that her order involved just a single agency—a mere fishing pole compared to the commercial seafood operation that could happen if social security records were consolidated with IRS data, unemployment information, military, VA, and countless others.
I'm not condemning efficiency when it comes to government operations, and I certainly don't condone fraud and waste. Of course, the US government should do better. But DOGE isn't operating as if efficiency were job one, even though its actual title contains the word. In covering tech companies, I often hear boasts that the process of upgrading an existing product was like 'rebuilding a plane in mid-air.' But when the vehicle in question is carrying live passengers, every move must be done with extreme caution, because a mistake means catastrophe. Both President Trump and DOGE seem happy to fly the plane into a mountain, figuring they can pick up the pieces later.
Compared to some of the administration's actions involving pandemic responses, nuclear safety, and social security support, the March 20 executive order on information silos might seem like small beer. But if this order is followed aggressively, we could lose the accuracy of our databases, a good bit of our revenues, and above all, much of our privacy. We're going to miss those silos.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
ASX slips on latest Trump tariff
Cautious investors sold down the local market as Aussie investors digested the latest tariffs announcement from US President Donald Trump. The ASX200 closed slightly down on Monday, losing 9.70 points or 0.11 per cent to 8,570.40, as the seesawing market swung between gains and losses throughout the day's trading. The broader All Ordinaries also finished in the red, losing 5 points or 0.06 per cent to finish Monday's trading at 8,815.30. The Australian dollar retreated slightly from an eight-month high and is currently buying 65.61 US cents. On a mixed day, only four of the 11 sectors finished higher, led by the energy stocks and major miners. Shares in BHP finished up 0.94 per cent to $39.73, while Rio Tinto gained 0.58 per cent to $111.74. Fortescue Metals bucked the trend and fell 0.47 per cent to $16.90. It was also a mixed day for the big four banks. CBA shares slipped 0.39 per cent to $178.72, Westpac dropped 0.74 per cent to $33.56 and ANZ slumped 0.82 per cent to $30.08. NAB was the outlier, eking out a small gain, up 0.13 per cent to $39.66. Monday's trading came after President Trump over the weekend confirmed a 30 per cent tariff on goods from the European Union and Mexico which will start from August 1. IG market analyst Tony Sycamore said this was an extension of the letters sent on July 9. 'The 'take it or leave it' tariff rates on these 12 countries will be effective from August 1, 2025,' Mr Sycamore said. 'While we can only guess which countries will receive a letter, it has been confirmed that Canada has been explicitly excluded from the list due to its USMCA protections, relatively low tariffs on US goods, and strategic importance as a North American partner.' Safe havens – including gold and Bitcoin – jumped on the news. Northern Star Resources jumped 1.72 per cent to $16.53, Evolution Mining gained 1.88 per cent to $7.58 and Newmont Corporation finished 1.66 per cent higher to $92.01. Bitcoin has surged past $US120,000 ($182,000) for the first time, marking yet another record in what's shaping up to be a monumental rise. eToro market analyst Josh Gilbert said the price jumped on the back of governments continuing with big spending budgets. 'Central banks keep running expansive monetary policies and global money supply keeps rising,' Mr Gilbert said. 'In that environment, an asset with fixed, decentralised supply cements itself as an alternative store of value.' In company news, DroneShield continues its march higher over recent weeks after telling the ASX it will spend $13m in R&D and manufacturing to expand its Sydney based operations. The company says the money will triple the size of the current Sydney based facility as it looks to expand its manufacturing capacity to $2.6bn by the end of 2026. The expansion follows a $61.6m contact announcement back in June, its biggest ever order. Shares jumped 16.97 per cent to $3.24 on the announcement. Specialty fashion group City Chic shares slipped 1.16 per cent to $0.085 after the business issued an unaudited trading update to 29 June 2025 showing earnings before interest depreciation and amortisation will come in at between $6 to $6.5m, following a financial year 2024 loss of $8.4m. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data


Fox News
18 minutes ago
- Fox News
Trump's $9 billion clawback passes first Senate test, while more hurdles await
President Donald Trump's clawback of billions in funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting narrowly passed through its first hurdle in the Senate, but it still faces a rocky road ahead with dissent among the Senate GOP ranks. Senate GOP leaders hoped that an agreement to carve out $400 million in global HIV and AIDS prevention funding will get some of the holdouts on board. However, doing so shrank the expected cuts from $9.4 billion to $9 billion. But a trio of Senate Republicans joined with all Senate Democrats to vote against advancing the bill from the Senate Appropriations Committee, which required Vice President JD Vance to cast the deciding vote. Trump's rescissions package would yank bank congressionally approved funding for foreign aid programs and public broadcasting. But some Senate Republicans have sounded the alarm and want changes made to the bill before it reaches the finish line. The bill that advanced out of committee Tuesday includes just shy of $8 billion in cuts from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and over $1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the government-backed funding arm for NPR and PBS. Republicans' successful test vote comes after huddling with Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought, who worked to shore up support and apply pressure from the White House to get the ball rolling on the bill. "We're fine with adjustments," Vought said. "This is still a great package, $9 billion, [it's] substantially the same package, and the Senate has to work its will." While concerns were still raised about other aspects of the spending cuts package during the closed-door meeting, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., believed that carving out the cuts to Bush-era President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) helped ease concerns among lawmakers. But the changes didn't sway all Senate Republicans. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, bluntly said "no" when asked if the PEPFAR carveout helped gain her support and argued, "I'd like to do some legislating." "What a crazy thing, what a crazy thing," she said. "What have we been doing around here? We did a reconciliation bill. We're doing a rescissions bill. We're doing nominations. Nominations are important, but let's, like, legislate." And Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said she liked the changes but ultimately decided to vote against advancing the bill through its first hurdle. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., also joined in to vote against the bill. It now moves to yet another procedural vote, which, if successful, will open up 10 hours of total debate time on the bill and eventually set the stage for a vote-a-rama, where lawmakers on either side of the aisle can offer an unlimited number of amendments to the package. But, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., made clear that he would prefer the Senate not make any changes to the bill. However, that request already fell on deaf ears — as it did during the budget reconciliation process that unfolded in the upper chamber last month. Those demands already have fiscal hawks in the House grumbling, but like the budget reconciliation process before it, an amended rescissions package will likely glide through the House GOP and onto Trump's desk.


Fox News
22 minutes ago
- Fox News
Trump challenges AOC and Jasmine Crockett to intelligence test after calling them 'very low IQ'
President Donald Trump lobbed a signature zinger on Tuesday as he paused to speak with reporters before boarding Marine One en route to an artificial intelligence summit. "[Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez], look, I think she's very nice, but she's very low IQ, and we really don't need low IQ," Trump said, smiling as cameras rolled. He added, "Between her and Crockett, we're going to give them both an IQ test to see who comes out best."TRUMP DARES AOC TO TRY TO IMPEACH HIM: 'MAKE MY DAY' Trump went on to share his own credentials: "I took my test. I took a real test at Walter Reed Medical Center, and I aced it. I got every one of all those questions right," he told the waiting press. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez has ramped up her criticism of President Trump recently, calling him a "rapist" in a post on X following a DOJ update related to Jeffrey Epstein. She appeared to be referencing the 2023 civil trial leveled against Trump by writer E. Jean Carroll. A jury found Trump liable of sexual assault, but not of rape. Critics said she defamed the president with the remark. Back in May, Crockett said "you're terrified of smart, bold Black women telling the truth and holding you accountable" after President Trump called her a "low IQ person" on Meet the Press. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPWhether Ocasio‑Cortez or Crockett will take the bait and accept the IQ test challenge remains to be White House did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.