It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

White House Doxxes Concerned Citizens

page: 3
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Confused - what exactly did they lie about? The fact that half the emails were dated before July 5th?




posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: DanteGaland

It's terrible that you, and apparently many like you, do not understand public records and government. I know your nominee liked deleting things, but government emails are supposed to be retained and kept as part of the public record.

Maybe all the people bitching about government should learn how it works.


OK, I'll admit - I don't understand public records and government. Can you please source this so I can understand how/why my correspondence to a government agency can be made public?



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: icanteven

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Yup.

...and I'm still not certain what's so bad about all of this, according to some.

Voters having to prove they're eligible to vote? How dare they!!


The problem is, the admin wants to make the database of voter information public. In addition to address, the admin is asking for the last four digits of voter social security numbers. With a name, birthday and last four SSN digits, you could steal almost anyone's ID.

I don't want the last four digits of my SSN on a public database. Do you?


In truth, the information the commission is using is freely available to anyone who wants to go ask for it. It is public domain. They are not tapping into some super secret secure information, only stuff anyone could get, including you if you were so inclined. They are matching that information against voter roles.

How do you think every major candidate in your area knows how to send you election propaganda every cycle even if you aren't registered to a party?

It's because they use that same information.



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: underwerks


The Federal Register notice soliciting comments was published on July 5. The White House page was published on July 13.

Approximately half of the emails published by the White House were dated prior to July 5.


OH!!! OHHH!!!! OMFG!
www.gpo.gov...
From the July 5th Federal Register...

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To
obtain information about the
Commission or to submit written
comments for the Commission’s
consideration, contact the Commission’s
Designated Federal Officer, Andrew
Kossack, via email at
ElectionIntegrityStaff@ovp.eop.gov or
telephone at 202–456–3794. Please note
the Commission may post written
comments publicly, including names
and contact information, in accordance
with the provisions of FACA.
There will
not be oral comments from the public at
this initial meeting.


SCOREBOARD
So we've established that WaPo just flat out lied about that little factoid. Do we really have any reason to continue this?

Haha, this is hilarious.

You do realize you just proved my point completely, right?

You post:

OH!!! OHHH!!!! OMFG!
www.gpo.gov...
From the July 5th Federal Register...

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To
obtain information about the
Commission or to submit written
comments for the Commission’s
consideration, contact the Commission’s
Designated Federal Officer, Andrew
Kossack, via email at
ElectionIntegrityStaff@ovp.eop.gov or
telephone at 202–456–3794. Please note
the Commission may post written
comments publicly, including names
and contact information, in accordance
with the provisions of FACA.
There will
not be oral comments from the public at
this initial meeting.



While the whole time I'm saying..


Approximately half of the emails published by the White House were dated prior to July 5


Before July 5th. So, how does what you posted invalidate that?



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 08:35 PM
link   
I think the SS# data is interesting.

There is no need for that other than tying a person's info deeper into the system then is need for their purpose. That's not going to be in the voter roles. It is useful for identity theft should it get out there while tied to a name and address.



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Whether they were solicited or not has zero to do with what this is.

If there is any chance that some of the emails were sent in before the privacy disclaimer, they should err on the side of privacy, not just publish everything.

That's what this is about. For some reason a lot of people don't seem to care about privacy as long as it's their guy taking it away.


Probably because privacy, when dealing with the federal government in any way or using the internet with anyone, is an illusion. It doesn't exist. Hell, CNN threatened to doxx an amateur video editor because he hurt there widdle feels. It's the world in 2017, either own up to your opinions and only type what you can deal with being attributed to you, or logoff and smash your computer or internet capable mobile device.



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: redtic
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Confused - what exactly did they lie about? The fact that half the emails were dated before July 5th?


Read the post I was replying to. There's a belief that the privacy notice wasn't published until yesterday, when it was included in the initial Federal Register document dated over a week prior. In other words, aside from those who jumped the gun and sent in UNSOLICITED emails to the wrong address (at that time) for public voicing of grievances, anyone who sent their information to that email address had it in black and white in front of them: "Hey, your name, email address, and maybe even address may be published with your comments for public viewing." You can't fix stupid, I guess, and anyone who's salty over their emails being attributed to them over this is pretty stupid.



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Prior to July 5th, they were unsolicited. The activist plan backfired on them.



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: redtic
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Confused - what exactly did they lie about? The fact that half the emails were dated before July 5th?


Read the post I was replying to. There's a belief that the privacy notice wasn't published until yesterday, when it was included in the initial Federal Register document dated over a week prior. In other words, aside from those who jumped the gun and sent in UNSOLICITED emails to the wrong address (at that time) for public voicing of grievances, anyone who sent their information to that email address had it in black and white in front of them: "Hey, your name, email address, and maybe even address may be published with your comments for public viewing." You can't fix stupid, I guess, and anyone who's salty over their emails being attributed to them over this is pretty stupid.


Yeah, yeah, I get that you think they're all stupid. But you posted this quote:


The Federal Register notice soliciting comments was published on July 5. The White House page was published on July 13.

Approximately half of the emails published by the White House were dated prior to July 5.


And said, with much bravado, that the washington post lied. And I'm trying to figure which statement is a lie.
edit on 14-7-2017 by redtic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: underwerks

Prior to July 5th, they were unsolicited. The activist plan backfired on them.

Why does it matter whether they were solicited or not?

Shouldn't there be a reasonable expectation of privacy when you communicate with the government? It seems you're laughing because you see it as "liberals" losing their privacy. This would be just as crappy to me if it happened to conservatives, because the issue isn't politics, it's privacy. Which effects us all.

Whether they were unsolicited or not has zero to do with what happened here. Spin this all you want, it doesn't change the facts.




posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 08:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
Shouldn't there be a reasonable expectation of privacy when you communicate with the government?


There never has before, why should there be now?



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 09:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: icanteven

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Yup.

...and I'm still not certain what's so bad about all of this, according to some.

Voters having to prove they're eligible to vote? How dare they!!


The problem is, the admin wants to make the database of voter information public. In addition to address, the admin is asking for the last four digits of voter social security numbers. With a name, birthday and last four SSN digits, you could steal almost anyone's ID.

I don't want the last four digits of my SSN on a public database. Do you?


In truth, the information the commission is using is freely available to anyone who wants to go ask for it. It is public domain. They are not tapping into some super secret secure information, only stuff anyone could get, including you if you were so inclined. They are matching that information against voter roles.

How do you think every major candidate in your area knows how to send you election propaganda every cycle even if you aren't registered to a party?

It's because they use that same information.


In my state, SSNs aren't publically available in the voter database. The fedgov will be marrying up SSNs with contact info in its public database. I hope my state holds firm with not sending the info since I don't want the headaches.

There are zero good reasons why SSNs need to be public.



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: underwerks
Shouldn't there be a reasonable expectation of privacy when you communicate with the government?


There never has before, why should there be now?

It's just strange to see a person deflect and spin the facts to try and make this look like something it isn't. As you and everyone else who commented before reading the story did.

I assumed most Americans cared about their privacy, but I guess the attitude of "we've never had it before so what does it matter" is more common than I wanted to believe.

With this type of thinking, it's not really a surprise we are where we're at as a country.



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Since, based on the comments here, this seems to be common practice by our government, I'm sure someone can point to other emails from the public that have been made public? Anyone? No?

Let's just call it what it is - another dick move by the dick president.



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

They don't have the full social, but at the same time, how do you think so many illegals are cleared to work? They steal identities, including socials. So that's the kind of discrepancy you look for - repeating numbers across different names in different states with a weirdly high rate of usage.



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: icanteven

They aren't not the full ones, but partials are. And it varies from state to state what is and isn't available, so your state may differ from others in some particulars of what they will and won't consider public.

What the commission asked for was public information as much as they could have that could be used and cross-referenced against voter rolls to try to verify any discrepancies that exist.
edit on 14-7-2017 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: roadgravel

They don't have the full social, but at the same time, how do you think so many illegals are cleared to work? They steal identities, including socials. So that's the kind of discrepancy you look for - repeating numbers across different names in different states with a weirdly high rate of usage.


I didn't say full SS#. What could go wrong with this group and data. hint: government workers. I am not worried as much about it's use for this purpose - more about how stuff gets screwed up so often. Data is valuable and crime know it.

Funny how transparency seem to be people to government and not the other direction.



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: redtic
Since, based on the comments here, this seems to be common practice by our government, I'm sure someone can point to other emails from the public that have been made public? Anyone? No?

Let's just call it what it is - another dick move by the dick president.


Pretty much every Fed rule that goes through a public comment period. Is that enough?

I personally don't see the issue here. This isn't the government publishing private emails, these are public record by law.



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 09:55 PM
link   
You should hope your name tied to a partial or full SS# isn't public. Add birth date and that's much of what is needed for identify theft and card abuse.



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks


Shouldn't there be a reasonable expectation of privacy when you communicate with the government?

Nope.

Do you refuse to provide ID when applying for a drivers license? Do you try to register to vote without giving your name or address? Do you send in your taxes without filling in your SSN or name?

Where did you get the idea that anyone has privacy when communicating with a public entity?

Now if you're dealing with an individual (or even a private company) and want to maintain privacy, that's one thing. It's no one's business who or what you're doing... except, notably, the government! Your income must be reported, certain types of transactions must be reported, etc. You have an expectation of privacy, and in that circumstance, even though you can't remain private from the government, the government has a duty to protect your privacy. When you deal directly with the government, there is no expectation of privacy. When you are standing in public, there is no expectation of privacy. If you want to remain completely private, you might want to find a nice deserted island that hasn't been claimed by any government, and never speak to anyone else. Otherwise, your name and 'private' information will be made available to the public in some form.

Want proof? Type your name into Google... and make sure you're sitting down. Your arrest records, medical records, address, it's all there. Public domain, baby!

Best bet: be who you are, and always act like the world is watching. They probably are.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join