Boq's post of a few days downblog, referring to whitehouse.gov's fishing expedition, got me thinking.
Everybody seems to believe there's something illegal about forwarding e-mails to flag@whitehouse.gov merely because the e-mails wave the B.S. flag at the Dems' pronouncements on the Health Care bill.
So, I did a bit of digging.
The applicable law is 5 USC 552a, which states in part:
Anybody gonna turn me in, be sure you spell my name properly.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
(Tip o' the dented flight helmet to one of ALa's buds, RickvidinSeattle, who found the relevant reg. )
Everybody seems to believe there's something illegal about forwarding e-mails to flag@whitehouse.gov merely because the e-mails wave the B.S. flag at the Dems' pronouncements on the Health Care bill.
So, I did a bit of digging.
The applicable law is 5 USC 552a, which states in part:
and(b) Conditions of Disclosure.— No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless disclosure of the record would be—
(7) to another agency or to an instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States for a civil or criminal law enforcement activity if the activity is authorized by law, and if the head of the agency or instrumentality has made a written request to the agency which maintains the record specifying the particular portion desired and the law enforcement activity for which the record is sought;
Which means, in plain English, that whitehouse.gov is in direct violation of the law *unless* -- and *only* unless -- it intends to turn over the information it collects to the Justice Department for prosecution -- for the crime of disagreeing with the Democrats.(e) Agency Requirements.— Each agency that maintains a system of records shall—
(7) maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity;
Anybody gonna turn me in, be sure you spell my name properly.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
(Tip o' the dented flight helmet to one of ALa's buds, RickvidinSeattle, who found the relevant reg. )
I could be wrong, see above about me being busy. But, it sounds to me like it's simply a move at counter-propoganda. The whole Army of Davids thing.
I looked at what Boq put up and I can honestly say I don't get the fear. I don't see black helicopters and cop cars. IT really does sound to me like the histrionics people, on the other side, had over the idea of frmr PRes Bush using mil to arrest the Jersey terrorists. Grand nefarious plot off of one data point.
But, that's me. Someone explain this to me in something other than hypotheticals and I might agree. Otherwise I'm standing pat on, 'Why so serious?'
However, with union thuggery being rampant, as well as the 'tough' attitude toward smacking down resistance, I would not put it past the Obama Reign of Error to compile such data. It fits with what we know of Hillary doing the same with with FBI files.
What we aren't seeing is the body count.
You didn't *read* it, did you, ry...*again*...
*ahem*
1. The Feds can't gather the information unless it's to be used for the prosecution of a crime.
2. If they're not going to use it for the prosecution of a crime, then they're violating the law.
3. Therefore, if they are gathering information just to see who's exercising their right to Freedom of Speech, then they're committing an illegal act, and if they're *not* committing an illegal act, then that means they intend to prosecute people for exercising their right to Freedom of Speech.
Still standing pat on "Why so serious?"
Now, do I believe that they're planning to disappear all of us? No. What I believe is that this is the best example of how truly f*cked up the hubris-ridden, clueless, supercilious, ignorant 20-somethings running the show at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue really are. They firmly believe they can do *anything* they want -- it's either they're totally oblivious to the fact that there *is* a law prohibiting them from doing what they're doing, or they don't give a rat's rosy-red rectum about the law.
And who, other than the bloggers, is calling them on it?
No-f*cking-body, that's who...
We now return you to your regularly-scheduled comment stream.
Legalize aside to the common man, just the fact that our White House is compiling an enemies' list is enough to put a squelch on public debate, on this and other issues. Some amongst us will not want to be put into that - imaginary or real - list. Thus, shut their trap or make their keyboards idle.
And that's what the patchouli stenching pukes running the bowels of the White House want.
If that was their intent, it backfired...
I just disagree with you on your first axiom: this is an exercise in collecting info on *people*. If it is not a case of collecting info on people, well, your whole thing falls apart, don't it?
Stop. Occam Time.
1) No reports, credible anyway, of anything remotely close to cease and desist orders(i.e. no intimidation) 2) No reports, credible anyway, that any data on any individual passing on or making the emails/fliers/whatever has been collected. Just le Malkin types using 'un-named highly placed sources' that your email addy is being kept(purportedly for nefarious later use---the gulag perhaps).
your three step proem falls apart, Unk, because the bits of evidence that would support the middle step (my one and two) are missing.
(What I see as Unk's proem:
1) Gov't asks for info.
2) Gov't keeps a file and uses said file for intimidation and 'scalp taking' based on requested info
3) Therefor the gov't is up to no good with info request)
Which leads me to a different conclusion. It isn't about intimidation and creation of enemies lists. It's about collation of themes for information warfare purposes. They intend to find out which of our information operations are the most effective and then devise ways to kill them---most likely by finding a way to call them a lie.
They could simply surf the net themselves, or read newspapers, but that's time intensive. WHy not let the 'flying monkeys' do it for them? They reduce the number of steps by two. 1) Finding out what's getting said. 2) Finding out which heart strings to pull on the marginal.
Again, where's your proof of stockpiling names(etc)? Where's your proof of intimidation? It is sounding a lot like the manufactured grievance from the anti-war protestors---who despite stagging all kinds of looney nonsense claimed they were being stiffled and threatened.
I haven't gone down the rabbit hole, but all I've seen are le Malkin and other 'ideologues' who have a stake in making you scared and pissed off passing of rumint, at best rumint, that there's something nefarious going on.
Boq, you're in fine form. I just disagree with your analysis of the situation. I see it as me looking at tabula rasa(rosa? Damn it, you know I can't spell.) instead of assuming from minute one that because it's Obie and The Gang that it's somehow evil. Put simply, le Malking and SWSNBN(SS) types are on a McCarthy binge right now, looking for conspiracies so hard they can imagine one anywhere, and it's dragging good people down with 'em, particularly people who are naturally on guard against gov't intrusion---i.e. they've got fiduciary reasons to play on your fears, and they're going for the Rakmaninov 3 here.
The situation does show how ham handed Obie and The Gang are. The reaction was easily foreseeable, and this is going to hit them in the popularity poll 'whooies'. But illegal, since, based on lack of evidence presented by 'un-named sources' that names(or email addy or personal info) or any real attempts at intimidation, I'm not seeing. Stupid? Si. Illegal? Nai desu.
ANd now, to go sweat a ton working. So, I won't be back 'til tomorrow.
I'm sure Ry wouldn't mind someone sending his name to the Whitehouse...it being all Innocent and everything. Perfectly legal and all...the IRS is our friend...the DEA are just a bunch of good ol boys...the FBI are always right.
Imagine if the last admin thought of this to squelch the crap about the CIA blowing up the World Trade or that No plane crashed into the Pentagon or that hot air from Washington caused Katrina. Umm maybe the last one is correct.
It's illegal for them to collect the data *unless* they're going to use it for the purposes of prosecution.
Period.
The whole of the law.
Not subject to "ry's Take On The Issue."
Black and white.
Stop. Occam Time.
Occam Time, indeed. What is it about
If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.
would lead you to believe that it is *not* a case of collecting info on people?
Attempting to bolster your argument by using the fact that nobody has squawked, other than bloggers, is stepping *outside* of Occam, and into the realm of supposition.
Again, where's your proof of stockpiling names(etc)? Where's your proof of intimidation? It is sounding a lot like the manufactured grievance from the anti-war protestors---who despite stagging all kinds of looney nonsense claimed they were being stiffled and threatened.
Okay, just *where* exactly did I make any claim or statement to that effect? What I *said* was, for the umpteenth time, that what whitehouse-dot-gov is doing is against the law *unless* they're doing it for the purpose of prosecuting someone. Sheesh. No wonder you had such a hard time catching a friggin' rooster...
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/08/asking_obamabots_to_inform_on.html
All around, a really bad idea.
Although I'm hugely amused when I think of the sheer number of "in lareg ur org@n" mail they must be required to hold on to, now....
If Republican Senators and Congresscritters don't have the balls to bring up this squelching of free speech, they need to go, too, as soon as their next election comes up.
I am keeping track of mine. Are you keeping track of yours?
5. What should I do if somebody else invokes Godwin's Law?
The obvious response is to call them on it, say "thread's over",
and declare victory. This is also one of the stupidest possible responses,
because it involves believing far too much in the power of a few rules that
don't say exactly what you wish they said anyway. The proper response to
an invocation is probably to simply followup with a message saying "Oh.
I'm a Nazi? Sure. Bye" and leave, and in most cases even that much of a
post is unnecessary.
"...rat's rosy-red rectum about the law."
I like it.
I shall add this to my ever expanding vocabulary.
"...rat's rosy-red rectum about the law" shall be positioned in a place of honor, next to my all time favorite.
"crapweasel"
Now, I shall just have to await the proper timing for the use of such terms.
Perhaps a local town hall discussion with my congresscritter regarding healthcare would be an appropriate venue?
As an example; "Congressman, you sir, are a crapweasel and you and your SEIU/Acorn thugs dont give a rat's rosy-red rectum about the law!"
"...rat's rosy-red rectum about the law" and "crapweasel". The things I learn on this blog!
Just sayin'.
I'm with Bill. I don't think it's malevolence. Just ignorance, with a frisson of arrogance.
That said - for all the spelling-challenged, there's a spell-check available...
Nevermind. I do NOT want to know! Heh.
But the number of times I've seen the phrase, "invoke Godwin's Law" leads me to believe there are a *huge* number of D&D fans on the innertube...
And as for what can be done with it; how 'bout the next time someone has to requalify for a security clearance their name pops up from this? Trust me, your name gets checked against data bases you don't even know exist.
Simple. They weren't disturbed in the slightest that the people named in the report had actively worked against the US. After all, they were *progressive* and above such mundane concepts as loyalty to a mere *country*...
Problem is, it's the White House, not a private entity or a political campaign. Although, considering the behavior of the WH and the Pres, one could be mistaken for thinking it actually IS a political campaign. It's a terrible idea by a very ignorant political hack who is eventually going to get his butt kicked when the illegality of it becomes clear.
Chicago politics transplanted, FuzzyBee.
Don't forget that Dear Leader began his rise to stardom by digging up dirt on his opponents...
The kid who is going to take the fall for this is probably innocent, yes; the information from it, though... there should be a law of human nature that "anything that can be abused, will, and people are way more creative than you are in thinking of ways to abuse power."
If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.
would lead you to believe that it is *not* a case of collecting info on people?
The fact that we're talking about people sending in *ideas* or *comments*, essentially *memes*, and not naming names like this was in front of HUAC. It's a LOOOOOOOONG step from, I would say what's his names theorem on infinite halving actually, "I saw this on AEI's website'(or whomever) to 'we're collecting intel on dissenters, as individuals'. There's nothing, absolutely nothing, in that statute you listed, Unk, that says one cannot collect info on a set of ideas without intent to presecute. Black and white, O' Immortal One.
Look at the quote you tossed up: If you see something on the web or recieve an email you think makes bogus claims about healthcare reform let us know what the claims are.
Essentially, I'm saying you're using a tautalogical argument. IT's Obie and The Gang so it's Evil being both the begining and end points, and self-refential.
Sigh. People learn the wrong lessons about McCarthy. Either you give him the Colter treatment(he was a Champion of the People! How dare you slight such a grand man!) or the traditional(he was a paranoid @55). The truth is, yes, there were people uncovered by Ol' Joe McCarthy. He met such resistance in trying to reveal and punish those who were that he went over board. He crossed a line. He ruined innocent people's lives. He broke God knows how many laws on civil liberties(which you all are getting so riled about). Joe McCarthy is neither simply a hero or a goat. He's a man who tried something, and then became an unyielding zealot who saw anyone dissimilar to himself as a traitor and a communist plant. Things might've gone a bit better had FDR rolled on Alger Hiss. THe REd Scare of the 40s and 50s wouldn't have been so bad, and the real bad guys would've been punished since there wouldn't have been political advantage in opposing McCarthy and his excesses(honestly, McCarthy and Torquemada have similarities: they both wanted, initially, to do what was right, but their fervor carried them into areas that revoked their white hat status). YOu got to include in your analysis just how wrong McCarthy was wrong. It really was like shotgunning. If I shoot a whole crowd of innocent people to get the bad guys at the center of the mass is it cool? I didn't think so.
Unk, I think I can state what my point is a lot better. You've no evidence whatsoever that it is collection on individuals and not simply memes or ideas---just the assertion of said. If it isn't people, then your regulation no longer applies does it? That's a simple bit. Utterly simple. Regulation applies, as stated, to people and only people. And, I think you're over-shop-lawyering this. If, it is as you say, googling someone's bio from a fed comp terminal is against the frickin' law. It's info gathering. It's about an individual. It's not about criminal prosecution. I've used your 'rule' and come up with an error. Hence, start over. Kinda like the guy with his hockey stick graph about global warming. I just fed your logarithm a null set and got spit out a crime. Either you're cheating or it needs refinement. I vote refinement.
And as for chickens. When I wasn't trying to 'herd' the beast for Kat's nephew to catch I do just fine. When I chased the whole bloody herd in during winter it didn't take to long at all.
SWWBO. It isn't about having/not having big brass ones. It's a question of 'what're the jackalopes doing?' If there's no collection of info on individuals then there's no violation of the statute Unk cites. That's just cold logic. Has nothing to do with partisanship or bravery. Just cold, hard facts.
Olga, I have read them. I will read them again. Now you answer the question of whether it is established fact that it is collection on individuals, which the statute is all about, or soimething else. IT either is or it isn't. Like a pregnant lady. If it isn't verified that it is about individuals then the statute doesn't apply. I have a lot of respect for Unk, but I'm not going to take it on just his say so that this is about collecting info on people.
And whoever it is that said something about innocence. Yup, and wasn't that the argument most of us made to the liberals when they had their panties in a bunch over the Patriot act? "Of course I wouldn't mind having it in a data base or having the FBI check me out. I'm solid and so I wouldn't have to worry, and therefor it'll only catch the evil and the wicked.' Time to put up or shut up. Just because it's now Olbie and The Gang in charge doesn't undo the logic/validity of that argument. I've got stuff on record. I know I do. It may make complications later. So be it. But I've lived my life as cleanly as circumstances have allowed and I'm not scared one whit what Obama's admin collects about me. I don't give a good god damn. Collect all the info they want. There's nothing there. That's what I said in '03, I meant it then, and, by God, I mean it now.
Or do we say those kinds of things only when it's easy, knowing we'll never have to put up or shut up on it?
Notably, the same lefties who opposed it most of this decade, now refuse to do anything to restrain it-because they're in power, and can use it against their enemies.
This shit stacks. DHS memos that start defining 'potential terrorists' as Napolitano (crap, can't spell her name right) has, combined with encouraging people to send e-mail info on opponents of the administration?
It's a PATTERN, ry, individually it looks unimportant, as most gradual destructions of liberty do. I'd have opposed this if it was a Republican initiative under a republican administration-it's really that bad.
Would you be just fine if you found out that the White House was collecting videos of dissenters-- I mean, people spreading health care misinformation?
Re: the Stasi: In HS I was friends with an exchange student from East Berlin. One of the few stories she told me about the reunification was about the day the Stasi files were made public. She read hers and found out that some of her supposed friends had ratted on her (she would have been *maybe* eleven years old at the time). After that, they definitely weren't her friends anymore. Never thought I'd see the day we'd even have cause for concern about such things in the US....
If you still insist, try this application of Occam's Razor: The WH receives personal information (even if it does not actively form a database from it, that information is still collected), and the options are to spend countless man-hours meticulously locating and removing all such details from the deluges of other information received or to simply store it away somewhere. Which is the simpler, and therefore more likely, course of events? Beyond that, even if said information is removed, someone working for the government has to see that information. That someone more than likely has the government and/or Obama's agenda in mind and the will to assist in it. We then have government employees in possession of personal information on those that could best be described as their ideological opponents. Is it reasonable to assume that none of them will make use of that information?
"Each agency that maintains a system of records shall ... maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity..." means that it's illegal for the whitehouse.gov crew to even *request* people send them the information -- *unless* they intend to use it for LEA purposes. The reg specifically says "how any individual exercises rights" -- which means even any *anonymous* individual.
You're stuck on "what-if." They don't even have to *start* a database with information -- they are forbidden to collect the e-mails or statements on a website in the first place unless they're going to use the data to prosecute someone.
While you keep insisting they may have a perfectly mundane reason for wanting the information, the *law* says they're breaking the law just by *requesting* the information if it's for a perfectly mundane reason -- and your only argument is that they may have a perfectly mundane reason for breaking the law?!?
Dudes and dudettes, the Obama administration is just conducting opposition research to make sure they can rebut the piles of BS that the RNC and talk show idiots are developing. I would say that Bill's citation of law isn't applicable if the White House is not collecting personal data, but I'm not a lawyer and don't claim to understand these things. But the hysteria show here is certainly worth a few laughs, considering where we've been over the last eight years.
Does any of this, from your own citation, count as a website, or email address? no. Then shut up about reading it, Unk. Banging the table doesn't make a false argument true. Read the statute? I have. All of it, and not just the parts that are convenient to how I want things to go. There's nothing, NOTHING, about an individual, as what an individual is defined as in 2), or info about an individual as it is defined in 4, not to mention the definitions in 8 ).
Moving on. If it is as Unk says than *ANY* opposition research or research about an individual is inherently illegal by the federal gov't. Balls. They do so for *security clearances*, which have *nothing* to do with LEA. They do so for job applicants. What relevant law has been made to do that? Maybe, by empirical freaking evidence, a concrete example of a job applicant getting researched, the statute doesn't read as Unk claims it does.
So, a) by your own citation you've got no ground as to 'collecting on individuals' and by extension of what gov't does, legitimately, on a daily basis you're boxed there.
Fishy? Absolutely. Disconcerting? Maybe, if you're already squimish about gov't. I don't happen to like it, but by the statute you cited, Unk, you've got NOTHING. Read. The. Damn. Statute. In. Entirety. Not just bits and pieces that fit into pre-selected political positions.
Beyond this I'm done. I'm sick of jack@55's making personal attacks like internet tough guys(You wanna say it like that to my face? John, you're free to give out my pers info to anyone stupid enough to want to.). The statute and the logic stands for itself. It isn't me twisting things to fit my worldview. It's me accepting that what I want to be true isn't necessarily so. I don't drink Cool-Aide. Period.
Gee, funny you should bring up the Law Enforcement aspect, Jason. In Doe v. Ashcroft (2004 WL 2185571 [S.D.N.Y.]), the Federal Court of the Southern District of New York ruled, among other things, that "... there are circumstances in which individuals' rights to anonymous speech and association must give way to the government's interest to protect its citizens against the actions of terrorists and clandestine intelligence activities."
My emphasis.
I would say that Bill's citation of law isn't applicable if the White House is not collecting personal data, but I'm not a lawyer and don't claim to understand these things.
Then I would say that you don't understand plain English, and I am an English teacher -- among other things.
No, ry, "...maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment..." is a very specific statement, and has not one blessed thing to do with your argument about security clearances..
I don't happen to like it, but by the statute you cited, Unk, you've got NOTHING. Read. The. Damn. Statute. In. Entirety. Not just bits and pieces that fit into pre-selected political positions.
I read the statute and cited the relevant sections. If, for example, you're going to talk about Second Amendment rights, you don't quote the entire US Constitution.
I'm sick of jack@55's making personal attacks like internet tough guys(You wanna say it like that to my face?
If that was addressed at me, you're not only down the rabbit hole, you've hit the sub basement, and you're digging.
Just askin'...
Your email address *is* an identifying particular assigned to an individual; a web site, as you really should know, is very easily traceable to the owner.
Be kind of like collecting make-model-and-plates of cars coming out of an opposition ralley, and trying to claim it's not covered.....
And it took *forever* to pound the dirt floor solid again...
I guess I should fill out a foia form and find out how many of my comments, emails or blogposts have been "flagged"
Ry -in this country, the government itself typically does not spend all its time rooting out the "opposition" like Obama's Administration is - now I said typically, I am well aware of trickydick and his antics and Wilson's actions, too.
But, this is not Zimbabwee or Venezuela, and our President is allowing his minions to behave as if he is President for Life.
That email address and the request for fishy info should have been removed from that blog as soon as it was noticed, and it is telling that the Obama WH is pretty much flipping us all off by continuing this stupid, venal snitch encouragement.
It's unseemly for the President of the United States to act this way. I can't wait for 2010 to do my part to remove his synchophants from Congress and for 2012 to vote him out.
This is a matter of law. If you believe there is a case then act on it. Until there is a won case how can you be certain it is against the law?
However I thought FbL said something pertinent;
I think Obama is very much driving the white house as a political campaign. All of them do it but Obama seems to live it to extremes.
Two questions:
1. Is anthropophagy against the law in Australia?
and
2. Has anyone in Australia been convicted of anthropophagy?
If the answer to 2 is "No," then how can you be *sure* that cannibalism is iiiegal in Oz?
More 'right wing' knee-jerking and such.
People are most likely convicted on related crimes not 'anthropophagy' itself.
I hope you are not angling for the Eucharist or Aboriginal turdberries.
You believe you have a case but law is not judged by Bill or Ry. We have courts for this. Take the matter there to find out how well your belief stands up to reality. Without it you are not making a legal standpoint, you are merely passing political wind.
The law as cited is part of the US Code. The Supreme Court doesn't rule on the legality of the law, it rules on its Constitutionality.
Lower Courts then decide if the law was broken. And, yet again, you didn't read what I wrote. I never said there was a case against the Administration -- what I said was, and the law is very specific, that the administration is forbidden to collect the e-mails or website posts and comments unless they're going to use the data to prosecute someone.
Why do the Libs persist in claiming that *really* means that I'm saying the administration is breaking the law?
heh.