by publius
Am I really supposed to take seriously this "snitch list"/"Big Brother" business from the same people who cheered on basically every single executive action during the Bush years? I mean, massive secret interception of private communications is ok, but asking people to email misinformation is a "dissident database"?
Help me understand — I'm really trying here. And I really really want to avoid writing posts that say, "But when Bush was president, you said…" But on this, good lord. Maybe I should just give up and agree with John Cole.
On a brighter note, "Dissident" was a solid song:
“A dissident database, in whatever precise form it ultimately takes, could be around for a long time to come.”
The next step will be a no-fly list. And if we see conservatives moving shiftily about the plane in shifty convervative ways, we ground the plane.
But, look, if anyone is worried about being thought a dangerous dissident, we can just waterboard them and settle the question. That’s harmless enough, isn’t it?
Oh, good. The Pearl Jam song. I was afraid you were gonna reference the Thomas Dolby song (Disclaimer: I am a big Dolby fan, but “Dissident” is one of his weakest works.)
I was practically terrified it was going to be that terrible mid-90’s song “informer” (which Google informs me was 39th on VH1’s list of the “50 Most Awesomely Bad Songs… Ever”).
Maybe I should just give up and agree with John Cole.
Occam’s Razor, baby!
Our government should not lift a finger to protect its existence from the alien filth that has infested what used to be a major American political party and much of the media.
That just wouldn’t be right.
It’s too bad vigilantes are always left with the dirty work.
The cool thing about America is it’s always the vigilantes who get the big, lucrative radio and TV talk-show gigs when the gunfire ends.
Gordon Liddy lives to a make a great living destroying the country.
Low-paid security guards at the Watergate get the meager pension and the long waits in the emergency rooms explaining their lack of health insurance.
They’d kill US if they could.
I’m confident reason and light will win out in this great country of ours before too many Jews are thrown down the well.
Hutu scum Glenn Beck is inciting riots.
I think I’ll sit around in my bathrobe and discuss how machetes are harmless tools for clearing brush and opening coconuts.
In a letter to Obama Tuesday, Republican Sen. John Cornyn wrote that, given Phillips’ request, “it is inevitable that the names, email address, IP addresses, and private speech of U.S. citizens will be reported to the White House.”
I appreciate Cornyn’s concern for our privacy.
Two things:
1. Obama’s interest appears to be in knowing what folks are saying about the health care plan, rather than in compiling a database of political dissidents and enemies. But, you never know.
2. As a point of fact, the to and from addresses and the IP addresses of email are not considered to be private. They’re analogous to the addresses on the outside of an envelope, or to the pen register records of phone calls. They’re intrinsically public.
I’m trying to remember the text of Cornyn’s letters of outrage over TIA and other programs developed during the previous ten years. Can anyone provide a cite?
This is just an example of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
I don’t know if setting your own standards by the lower standards of others is the way to go. Sure the folks in the republican tribe are lacking in intellectual consistency, but that’s not really relevant. What is relevant is the following: Considered objectively, is this program bad for the reasons they stated (or any reasons unstated)?
While pointing out the hypocrisy of others is fun, it’s really just low hanging fruit. If you want to point that out while delving into a deeper analysis of why they are wrong, then that’s fine. But if the thrust of your argument is: you supported this kind of stuff under Bush — then you really have no argument.
Considering how much trouble I have getting people to forward complete headers of messages they get when I’m trying to track down spam or mail problems, I seriously doubt that many of these forwarded messages are going to include IP addresses of the original senders (not that I believe the White House will do anything with the addresses if they do). Outlook and other mail programs make it hard to forward properly.
Meanwhile, Republican rep Eric Cantor takes the war and insurrection against the U.S. Government (this time foreign policy) to international soil.
To avoid hypocrisy, I hope he returns unmolested to U.S. soil to live another day and makes lots of money with his exercise videos.
I listened to a few minutes of Walton & Johnson on rock station 93.7. In those few minutes, they stated, as fact (a) Barack Obama’s birth certificate that he put on the internet was a fake, as proven by “forensic folks”, (b) WorldNetDaily has a real birth certificate from Africa, (c) Obama got his “buddy in Hawaii” to lie about his birth certificate, and (d) this was a Constitutional crisis akin to Watergate.
This isn’t AM talk radio. It’s a mainstream rock station. We’re losing our goddamn minds.
John Harrold, it’s only tu quoque if Publius believes the White House’s current behavior is wrong. He seems to be saying that the Bush behavior, which was much more extreme (and not really that similar) was wrong and was ignored or even praised by the people criticizing now. It does not follow that he believes the Obama behavior is similarly wrong.
He’s not using the “not as bad as” defense that’s been a favorite of Republicans for years, but instead the perfectly logical “not bad” defense.
It’s more “straining at the gnat while swallowing the camel” than “tu quoque.”
I think this falls into a completely different category, it is using the White House and government facilities for completely political purposes. I think this is not supposed to happen. It certainly has little to do with effective governance, there is little doubt that some will and have misconstrued the facts.
I don’t think he should get a free pass on this, these aren’t terrorists he’s collecting dataa on.
“1. Obama’s interest appears to be in knowing what folks are saying about the health care plan, rather than in compiling a database of political dissidents and enemies. But, you never know.”
J Edgar would be proud of this logic.
This just in (and a compelling adjunct to the Brilliant Birther Controversy!): Proof Positive Obama IS The Antichrist… The Bible specifically says so!
Check it out… (Then go wash your eyes out. They’ll be all full of stupid).
J Edgar would be proud of this logic.
Or, you know, note leftist dupe Eugene Volokh:
it is using the White House and government facilities for completely political purposes. I think this is not supposed to happen.
The executive branch is not supposed to argue in favor of policies it supports? Really?
I’d like an assurance that personally-identifiable information be stripped out as much as possible (basically everything in the headers except the subject line).
I think this is a very delicate area to be treading in. On the one hand, it is obvious that a lot of anonymous but carefully-crafted disinformation is being put out on mailing lists, and that there is a real need to put out accurate information in response to the stuff that’s being passed around. And unless you know what’s out there, it’s hard to know what misinformation needs to be addressed.
But on the other hand I think it’s a dangerous precedent for the government to ask to be sent private political communications, and prone to paranoid misinterpretation. Better safeguards and assurances about privacy would set a better precedent, which is that while they have a responsibility to counter disinformation, government should very much not be in the business of keeping records of people’s private political speech or of asking people to provide them with such records. I’m not worried about what the Obama administration will do with it. I’m worried about what the next Bush administration will do with that precedent.
“But if the thrust of your argument is: you supported this kind of stuff under Bush — then you really have no argument.”
I think that if people supported this sort of stuff under Bush, then they really have no argument against it, having, you know, supported it already.
Either you’re for it, or against it. You can’t fairly be either for or against something if your view simply changes depending on whether “your guy” is in power or not. Because that’s not an actual argument either for or against anything.
Thus, yes, you literally have no argument. None beyond “it’s okay if I do it, but not if you do it.”
I don’t call that an argument, myself.
“I think this falls into a completely different category, it is using the White House and government facilities for completely political purposes. I think this is not supposed to happen.”
I think you’re highly confused. You seem to have some vague conception of the Hatch Act, while not actually knowing what you’re talking about.
If you’d like to allege violations of the Hatch Act, do please be specific, as to the acts, and the violation involved. Thanks muchly.
“these aren’t terrorists he’s collecting dataa on.”
Are you asserting that the only data anyone in the Bush administration ever tried to collect on anyone was on proven terrorists? What is it you’re trying to say here?
I don’t think he should get a free pass on this, these aren’t terrorists he’s collecting data on.
Are you calling our troops terrorists?
Despite pledges by President George W. Bush and American intelligence officials to the contrary, hundreds of US citizens overseas have been eavesdropped on as they called friends and family back home, according to two former military intercept operators who worked at the giant National Security Agency (NSA) center in Fort Gordon, Georgia.
“These were just really everyday, average, ordinary Americans who happened to be in the Middle East, in our area of intercept and happened to be making these phone calls on satellite phones,” said Adrienne Kinne, a 31-year old US Army Reserves Arab linguist assigned to a special military program at the NSA’s Back Hall at Fort Gordon from November 2001 to 2003.
Kinne described the contents of the calls as “personal, private things with Americans who are not in any way, shape or form associated with anything to do with terrorism.”
She said US military officers, American journalists and American aid workers were routinely intercepted and “collected on” as they called their offices or homes in the United States.
Link to that story:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5987804&page=1
“Are you an asserting that the only data anyone in the Bush administration ever tried to collect on anyone was on proven terrorists”
The purpose, stated and implemented, of the Bush program was to capture foreign calls to domestic numbers from suspected terrorists. Huge quantities of calls were monitored, evaluated by NSA analysts and the results were provided to the President in threat assessment form. A program that was ultimately codified by Congress and exists today.
Is there any similarity between that and even this:
“White House Director of New Media Macon Phillips’s request that if citizens “get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy,” they “send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.” ?
Yeah Marty, one is completely open, innocent and above board.
You *mailed* me the frickin’ thing for cripes sake. You signed your name to it. You ask and *expect* me to forward it to everyone I know. So now instead of just checking it at snopes.com and doing the reply all, I’ll forward it to my friends at whitehouse.gov. And this is some nefarious what?
Also – “Onoes, Teh Left is going to come after *everyone who forwards a chain email*”? Please, how paranoid is that?
“The purpose, stated and implemented, of the Bush program was to capture foreign calls to domestic numbers from suspected terrorists. Huge quantities of calls were monitored, evaluated by NSA analysts and the results were provided to the President in threat assessment form.”
As it happens, I’ve written about this topic before. You’re wrong about Stellar Wind.
Feel free to read all the posts linked here to find out just how.
I realize that will take you a bit of time to come up to speed on the actual facts, so you can discuss this subject in an informed way. You can start with this article, but don’t neglect the others!
Next, let’s go here. And then onwards, shall we?
Onwards to here, and here.
Read about Hepting. Hepting vs. AT&T.
There’s lots lots lots more.
“I realize that will take you a bit of time to come up to speed on the actual facts, so you can discuss this subject in an informed way. You can start with this article, but don’t neglect the others!”
I have read much of this in the past, I understand the legal and political implications. Thanks for the additonal links though.
My point was, and is, that the reason for existence of the program was to protect the US from terrorist threats, as ill-conceived and legally questionable as it might have been.
The request under discussion is the White House using the internet to collect information on private citizens for purely political purposes.
I find the difference obvious on the face of it.
So I would prefer to agree to disagree if others don’t.
If you take the same facts and come to differing conclusions then disagreeing is an acceptable outcome.
J Edgar would be proud of this logic.
I’m not sure what you thought I said, but I doubt it’s anything Hoover would be proud of.
Here’s the memo posted on the White House site the kicked the controversy off. The key excerpt:
*Apparently*, by which I mean *if we take the statement at its face value*, the White House is trying to track claims about the health care proposal that are being circulated via chain emails.
Although not explicitly stated in the memo, a reasonable assumption would be that they want to do this so they can address the points of fact (or non-fact) raised in the emails in their own public statements.
Another possible reason might be that they want to maintain a database of all of their political opponents.
The first motivation would be, I think, completely unobjectionable. The second, less so.
So — apparently there’s not really a problem here, but you never know.
What’s your beef with that? WTF does J Edgar have to do with it?
“I’d like an assurance that personally-identifiable information be stripped out as much as possible (basically everything in the headers except the subject line).
But on the other hand I think it’s a dangerous precedent for the government to ask to be sent private political communications, and prone to paranoid misinterpretation. Better safeguards and assurances about privacy would set a better precedent, which is that while they have a responsibility to counter disinformation, government should very much not be in the business of keeping records of people’s private political speech or of asking people to provide them with such records.
The privacy issue here breaks down as follows:
Addressing information — IP addresses, to and from email addresses — are specifically and explicitly exempt from privacy protection. They are exactly analogous to the to and from phone number information tracked in a pen register. It’s not considered to be private communication, because it has to be publicly readable in order to be useful for its intended purpose.
The content of an email is (IIRC) considered to be protected by privacy law under the 4th Amendment, however that is likely waived if the receiver of the communication voluntarily gives it the third party, whether that’s the White House, the FBI, or whoever.
Legally speaking, it’s unlikely there’s a legitimate privacy claim here.
The request under discussion is the White House using the internet to collect information on private citizens for purely political purposes.
The White House claims to be collecting documentation on claims made about health care policies they are advocating.
There’s nothing whatsoever in the memo in question that asks for information about who sent the email. All they’re asking for is the content.
If folks are concerned about privacy, they can very simply cut and paste the body of the email into an email of their own and forward it. They likely will not do it because it’s an incrementally bigger PITA to do than to just click the “Forward” button, but the White House has notably NOT asked for information about anyone.
As noted above in my first post on this thread, you never know, so what they actually do with the information bears watching.
But taken at face value (i.e., “apparently”), they are not primarily interested, or interested at all, in building a database of their political opponents.
“I find the difference obvious on the face of it.”
Me too. One is freaking illegal, and one is not.
“Another possible reason might be that they want to maintain a database of all of their political opponents.”
You’d think that if that were the case, they’d say “be sure not to delete the email addressess and header information before sending on the text of these rumors.”
Also, last I looked, if you want to be a registered Republican, you have to register with the government. Pretty sinister, if you ask me.
As I recall, Republicans have had a huge major campaign for years to pass laws requiring you to show ID before voting. Obviously this is all something J. Edgar would approve of.
“Addressing information — IP addresses, to and from email addresses — are specifically and explicitly exempt from privacy protection. They are exactly analogous to the to and from phone number information tracked in a pen register. It’s not considered to be private communication, because it has to be publicly readable in order to be useful for its intended purpose.”
I started to dispute much of the legal opinion here, and stopped, IANAL.
I do know that the White House collecting information on those that are spreading “fishy” information creates a pretty sinister perception for those not willing to assume that this White House is inherently more beneficent than those in the past.
The information on what is being disseminated, it seems to me, is generical pretty available to anyone that wants it without this step. In fact, almost the only new information that could be gleaned is the “who” information.
So this:
“But on the other hand I think it’s a dangerous precedent for the government to ask to be sent private political communications, and prone to paranoid misinterpretation”
is not really such a stretch for those of us prone to “paranoid misinterpretation”.
I started to dispute much of the legal opinion here, and stopped, IANAL.
Me either, you do well to not take my word for it.
I posted some stuff earlier on this but it got lost, so here’s some more.
A brief discussion of Forrester.
A more thorough discussion of some relevant cases.