The last time this topic came up, I manually and then with AI analyzed 13 articles talking about 'read/write' access - and all of it was 2nd or 3rd party info from anonymous sources.

Reading this article it appears on the surface to be a little more conclusive... but once you peel back ther layers, we are back to square one.
There are many red flags still that make me question the reliability of this:

the senior USAID source said. “What do you do with this information? I had to ask myself, Do I file my taxes this year or not? I had to sit and debate that.”

Ok this is kind of silly - assuming they are being fully honest and forthright, then their account information would already be 'compromised' unless they change banks yearly which seems.. unlikely.

So why wasn't their question "Should I close the account I used for tax refunds in the past? Should I try to create an insulated account instead" -- rather instead, they subtly implant the idea that maybe they should do something illegal in response to this supposed breach. (not file taxes, like them or not - not interested in sovereign citizen arguments btw).

So this right out of the gate feels like FUD by virtue of that alone... and if you are cynical enough you could probably argue this is propaganda meant to cause well-meaning citizens to break the law out of fear, which is deplorable.

"Over the past few days, we’ve talked with civil servants working for numerous agencies, all of whom requested anonymity because they fear what will happen if they lose their job—not just to themselves, but to the functioning of the federal government."

Ok so it's all anonymous sources again - everyone is up in arms and there isn't even clarity in this article if the anonymous sources are first party, second party, third party, or what. Previous FUD campaigns at least made that clear, but I'll try to pick this one apart as well. Additionaly, they are implying that somehow not being anonymous may jeopardize the entire functioning of the federal govt... excuse me, what??

I did the same AI analysis using CoPilot as I did on previous articles, and this is what it came up with breaking down the 'sources':

Anonymous Source:
Type: Anonymous
Details: The article cites an anonymous source described as a “civil servants” who provides insights into the Doge God Mode Access incident.

NOTE (from me not CoPilot): This is entirely irrelevant, they are presenting a 'nightmare' situation a security researcher and asking their opinion of it. This does not mean the scenario is happening, and does not support the thesis.

Hypothetical Scenarios:
Type: Hypothetical
Details: The article includes hypothetical scenarios, such as the one about NASA’s thermal-protection or encryption technologies, to illustrate potential risks and vulnerabilities.

NOTE (from me not CoPilot): I think we can all agree hypotheticals are pointless if you haven't reliably established baseline 'facts' the support the hypothetical - so far there is a running trend, as it's all based on hypothetical fear mongering

That's it - that's the meat of this article.

The articles is also riddles with other clues that this is a slanted report like:
"One experienced government information-security contractor offered a blunt response to the God-mode situation at USAID: “That sounds like our worst fears come true.”" -- ok but he clearly has no knowledge, so describing a worst fear and then going 'omg that soudds bad' is pointless..

People really need to step up their media literacy skills if they want to get through the next four years without having an aneurhysim -- and this to me just says that the work DOGE is doing is probably threatening the pocket books of many 'important people'.

Hey speaking of important people, who funds The Atlantic anyway...