It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 10:19 PM
a reply to: roadgravel

Except I'll repeat it again -- this is all stuff any one of us could go and have access to. You. Me. And those shady people you are worried about.

Again, part of this survey is to determine just how much, among other thing those shady people might have been abusing the ability to have access to this stuff. If the commission turns up a wide array of discrepancies, then maybe it's time to have that conversation about how much of our information should be so freely available once it has been collected.

(post by Horowtixzs removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 10:30 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 10:51 PM

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?

Wait, what? So if I email my kid's school about personal issues my child is having, they have a right to publish that to the public? Please reference the statute, law, provision, whatever that makes that clear, because I want to fully understand this...

posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 10:56 PM
Public documents.

posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 11:03 PM

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?

Just checking.

Kobach's request:

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 never said I was. I said Kobach asked for that information if the state in question made that information public.

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?

With just the last 4 digits?

posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 11:24 PM

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...

Wouldn't linking to private citizen's personal information they didn't want made public break the T&C? From what I've been reading people's phone numbers, addresses, email addresses and whatnot are contained on the White House's website. And I clicked the link the OP provided, it's one step away from the actual "emails" that contain personal information.

posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 11:35 PM
So after going through more comments...

I'm not sure what's worse, the Trump admin for this petty attempt at intimidation .... or so many members (and Staff of all people) so virulently supporting and defending this.

In my mind, if the comments were unsolicited that makes the case for vengeful intimidation and strong-arming even more apparent.

So CNN can "imply" doxxing someone and the so-called "conservatives" in America have an aneurysm, but the Executive Branch of the United States publishes unsolicited emails (complete with personal contact information) from people expressing privacy concerns...

And somehow "welp, who the *&^^ cares!? Sounds like strong bad-assery to me!"


I honestly wonder about the moral fiber of some Americans and ATS members.

posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 11:36 PM
Going after everyones personal info and revealing personal info of those who dont like it is bs. The election is over. Yeah there was probably a decent chunk of illegal voters. Yes, lets find ways to clean that up. Going straight Orwell is not the way.
edit on 14-7-2017 by pirhanna because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 11:45 PM

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.

posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 11:48 PM
The hyperbole is epic here. This was NOT a case of communication that was assumed to be private. When you communicate over a policy issue with the government, it can reasonably be assumed to be disseminated by that government... it's called transparency and the whining and hyperbolic "OMG they're doxxing citizens" is pure silly paranoid BS.

posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 11:49 PM

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.

Seems like the goal posts are constantly moving.

I can't even imagine the heads that would explode if this had happened under the Obama administration.

And what's I feel about half of the conservatives here would have frowned and disapproved if Bush Jr had done this.

posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 11:51 PM
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Well, if you're communicating to a government entity about your concerns about privacy...I'm pretty sure these people weren't expecting their communications (emails in this case) to be widely shared with the public.

These are privacy advocates, who did what we're always told to do -- contact their government.

Would you be just as OK if Obama did this? Would your comments read exactly the same 2 or 3 years ago?

posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 11:54 PM
a reply to: Kettu

...yea...I can't imagine.

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.

Sour ce

posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 11:57 PM
And you'd think conservatives (more than anyone) would be the biggest privacy advocates out there. Aren't they ones always hyperventilating over "Big Brother" and the surveillance state?

today's modern conservative isn't "conservative".

It's just "anti-liberal". And it's a badge conservatives now wear with pride.

The painful double standard I'm reading as I go through this thread has to be intentional. People calling themselves or identifying as "conservative" who defend this must be trying to piss off moderates and left-leaning people intentionally.

posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 11:58 PM
a reply to: JinMI

So conservatives were up in arms over that, but not this?

posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 12:05 AM
a reply to: Kettu

I'm sure you understand the term consent and reasonable terms of anonymity.

Apples and oranges.

posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 12:07 AM
a reply to: JinMI

For some reason, I don't think the people emailing the White House over concerns for their privacy gave implied consent to have their personal information shared.

"Hey, I'm concerned about my personal information being compiled and shared...but hey, it's totally OK if you publish some private information about me from this email!!!"

I don't think the above was a thought process entertained by these people.
edit on 15-7-2017 by Kettu because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 12:10 AM
a reply to: Kettu

Well, it is clear on the site DIRECTLY after the email address.

Please note that the Commission may post such written comments publicly on our website, including names and contact information that are submitted.

Was covered earlier in the thread.

posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 12:12 AM
It's pretty obvious that this was a deliberate "chilling effect" by the White House because they're not getting their way.

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.


And let's think about this for a moment. If these unsolicited emails didn't contain any kind of personal information, the Trump White House would simply say that they are "fake" just like the millions of alleged "fake votes" that went to Clinton.

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in