It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: underwerks
Shouldn't there be a reasonable expectation of privacy when you communicate with the government?
Where did you get the idea that anyone has privacy when communicating with a public entity?
originally posted by: icanteven
originally posted by: Teikiatsu
The commission drew widespread criticism when it emerged into public view by asking for personal information, including addresses, partial social security numbers and party affiliation, on every voter in the country.
If you saw the original request from Kobach, he asked for publically available data - nothing private.
So now they want to publically show people the publically available data, I assume for transparency of their actions, and you are upset that the publically available data will be publicized?
if publicly available under the laws of your state, the full first and last names of all registrants, middle names or initials if available, addresses, dates of birth, political party (if recorded in your state), last four digits of social security number if available, voter history (elections voted in) from 2006 onward, active/inactive status, cancelled status, information regarding any felony convictions, information regarding military status, and overseas citizen information.
You *DO* understand that all this data can be looked at by anyone already, right? You *DO* understand that this data is used by politicians and PACs to send out fliers and robo-calls, right?
You may be okay with your name, address, birthdate and last four digits of your SSN in a public database, but I'm not.
I don't really give a hoot about the name and address. Indeed, that's probably public in my state. But I know for a fact that SSNs are not. Do you know how easy it would be to break into bank accounts with the SSN digits?
originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: DanteGaland
If it's straight out of the dictators handbook, why not link directly to it?? Sounds like a truly horrible thing...seems you'd want to make it as easy as possible for folks to find...
originally posted by: underwerks
originally posted by: Kettu
I honestly wonder about the moral fiber of some Americans and ATS members.
A lot of peoples moral fiber is proving to be a bungee cord with Trump in office. As this thread so beautifully illustrates.
With only days until Donald Trump takes office, the Obama administration on Thursday announced new rules that will let the NSA share vast amounts of private data gathered without warrant, court orders or congressional authorization with 16 other agencies, including the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the Department of Homeland Security.
The new rules allow employees doing intelligence work for those agencies to sift through raw data collected under a broad, Reagan-era executive order that gives the NSA virtually unlimited authority to intercept communications abroad. Previously, NSA analysts would filter out information they deemed irrelevant and mask the names of innocent Americans before passing it along.
Please note that the Commission may post such written comments publicly on our website, including names and contact information that are submitted.
In a legal context, a chilling effect is the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of natural and legal rights by the threat of legal sanction. The right that is most often described as being suppressed by a chilling effect is the US constitutional right to free speech. A chilling effect may be caused by legal actions such as the passing of a law, the decision of a court, or the threat of a lawsuit; any legal action that would cause people to hesitate to exercise a legitimate right (freedom of speech or otherwise) for fear of legal repercussions.