Double Standards: Government Secrecy vs. Public Surveillance

In a society that claims to uphold transparency and democracy, a glaring contradiction persists: while individuals are forced to disclose extensive personal and financial information, the government operates behind closed doors, shielding its actions from public scrutiny. This double standard erodes trust and consolidates power in ways that should alarm every citizen.

The Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) Reporting Problem

One striking example is the Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI). Under the guise of preventing financial crimes, the government now mandates that small business owners disclose personal details about their ownership structures—often without clear safeguards against misuse. Meanwhile, government agencies increasingly classify information under designations like “national security” or under designations like “Controlled Unclassified Information” (CUI) to avoid accountability. This creeping surveillance state is not just about security—it’s about control.

The Expansion of Government Surveillance

As the United States accelerates toward an authoritarian state, the scope of data collection is expanding rapidly. A particularly troubling development is the government's partnership with Elon Musk and his team, dubbed "DOGE," which appears to be conducting a sweeping data grab across federal agencies. While this initiative is framed as an effort to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse, a deeper concern emerges:

Is this about government efficiency, or is it a prelude to something far more consequential?

Musk’s involvement raises critical questions. His ambitions in artificial intelligence (AI) and data aggregation are well-documented, and it’s worth investigating whether his access to government datasets serves a broader, undisclosed purpose—potentially training AGI models or advancing AI-driven analytics beyond what is publicly acknowledged. If taxpayer data is being siphoned into corporate AI ventures, the public has a right to know.

Investigating the Data Grab: A FOIA Strategy

Given the secrecy surrounding this initiative, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) campaign is necessary to uncover:

• Which federal agencies have provided data?
• What types of data were transferred?
• When did these data extractions occur?
• What justification was given for these transfers?

This will require a multi-agency approach, as different departments may respond with varying levels of transparency—or resistance. The government’s response, or lack thereof, will reveal whether it upholds the principles of openness or continues its pattern of selective secrecy.

Conclusion: Transparency for Whom?

The measure of a free society is not just in the rhetoric of democracy but in its willingness to subject itself to the same transparency it demands from its citizens. If individuals are required to comply with ever-expanding reporting obligations, then the government must be held to an equal, if not greater, standard.

The people deserve to know what data has been taken, why, and how it will be used. Anything less is a fundamental betrayal of public trust.

This investigation is just the beginning. Updates will be documented as new findings emerge—because if the government won’t hold itself accountable, the People must.