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: 7
23
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: DanteGaland


Any member of the public wishing to submit written comments for the Commission’s consideration may do so via email at ElectionIntegrityStaff@ovp.eop.gov. Please note that the Commission may post such written comments publicly on our website, including names and contact information that are submitted.


Well, nobody can say they weren't given forewarning that their email and contact information could become public. On the other hand, why should it be redacted? Americans have the RIGHT TO REDRESS the government, but nowhere in the law or Constitution is there a right to do so behind the wall of anonymity. Speech has consequences.

Ooh was the fine print warning actually there at the time the emails were sent?
White House releases personal info of commenters concerned about their personal info

The page that warning is contained on was published on July 13. The emails published by the White House were written between June 29 and July 11.


It's pretty easy to alter a webpage...




posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 09:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: Kettu

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 strange...is I feel about half of the conservatives here would have frowned and disapproved if Bush Jr had done this.


Public comment on Fed rules was available to whoever asked for it under Obama. No heads exploded.

Why are heads exploding over it now? Almost seems biased.

Certainly, public comments are done with rulemaking.

Do they post email addresses, names, and other contact information along with the comments?

I seem to recall that information being mostly stripped, such as with these public comment. You can give them permission to use information, but just using it without that... not so good; sometimes the forms REQUIRE information... email is, however, not a standard 'form' and - as someone mentioned - a bunch of these were unsolicited rather than public comments.
edit on 21Sat, 15 Jul 2017 21:25:03 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago7 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven
It is no different than any other agency's call for comments from the public on policy issues. It was issued on the 13th because that was the day the period for written comments opened. Just because some wise guy thought it would be cute to overwhelm the commission with senseless rants before the comment period opened to the public doesn't mean that laws have violated or that they've done anything that is not pointed out in the documents to which we have numerous links.

Stupid people win stupid prizes and some of these ranters are having a bit of anxiety that they're in the public record. If you're going to play the game, you'd better learn the rules before crying "FOUL!"

Deny ignorance by educating yourself about how our government actually works.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

And have you say I made it all up....nope, I'm a teacher. You must follow instructions and follow links to learn for yourself how the government actually works. We learn best by doing. The links are all in the original article. I can't open your brain and pour this in or change your chip.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt


LOL.... All you have to do to keep your stellar academic reputation intact is link to me to a list, or two, that is similar to the one being discussed in this thread. I'm not here for a grade. Prove your point.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

In this instance, I think I would agree in part... the person who posted the contact address did not appear to advise the people emailing to the posted address that comments may be made public.

Usually there are forms setup for contacting, where email should be a last recourse.


+1 more 
posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: DanteGaland

I have quickly come to associate DanteGaland with #FakeNews.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: DrStevenBrule
Not sure I would call it fake news but it certainly is a platform from which has sprung more ignorance of laws and policies and rules of government than I've seen in a long time. What were the editors thinking when they approved this piece? Why did they find the rantings of these dissatisfied citizens interesting in any way?

I'll repeat it again, if you are going to play the game, you'd better know the rules. The only way to know the rules are to read them and ask questions before you start posting your scree to a government website.

There are lots of people out there who are paid good money to go through these comments and evaluate them for the agency. There are lots of other people out there who are paid to go through these comments and evaluate them for any number of other interested parties. If you don't want your comments to be part of the public record, you really should just post them on social media.

There are step by step instructions included in one of the links in the story and yet people can't seem to follow the simplest instructions. So they get a participation prize.



posted on Jul, 16 2017 @ 05:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Perfectenemy
a reply to: DanteGaland

Oh poor babies. Not so nice when you're on the receiving end huh. Well Trump supporters were scrutinized and bullied left and right after merely showing support for him during the election. At least now they know how that feels. I chalk this up as poetic justice.


And if vigilante, mob style beatdowns occur then thats just collateral damage, right?

After all, they spoke up.



posted on Jul, 16 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   
I just find this entire thing rather hilarious, in a disbelieving sort of way.

There is no doubt in my mind, whatsoever, if Obama's administration had done this exact same thing, the people acting as if this is perfectly normal and 'OK' would be screaming for justice. If there is one thing the Trump administration brings out in people, it's extreme hypocrisy.

You are honestly suggesting if you wrote in concern of an Obama policy, and they then posted all your personal information, you'd have been perfectly ok with it? If you say yes, you are lying. Even if there had been a fine-print disclaimer. Because it's just not right.



posted on Jul, 16 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

Half the released emails were submitted before the WH changed the website to include language that notified about the potential release of personal information.

Just because you give yourself a disclaimer and CAN release personal information, doesn't mean you SHOULD.

Are people incapable of wrapping their heads around that? The White House did not have to do this. There really wasn't any reason to do so, other than act in a thuggish, mobster-style, passive aggressive fashion.



posted on Jul, 16 2017 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Kettu
Let me repeat what I've said before: If you are going to play the game, you should first learn the rules. If you submit a document to the government---no matter who is in the White House---that document becomes a government document which can be used by the government to its advantage. What is so hard to understand about that?

The people who "submitted" before the official call for comments were duped by their "friend" who sent them the email address in an attempt to overwhelm the commission studying election fraud. It always helps to read the entire story and know the rules before beginning to yell. Had you read the entire thread you would have seen this explained to you. The emails were not sent to the White House, the White House did "change" the website since it is the Federal Register, the site used for public comment on public policy issues since Hector was a pup. The "heads-up" about the release of information submitted is there in every call for comments. Non-readers suffer the consequences of their inability or laziness.

Deny ignorance and educate yourself before you try to launch attacks against the government. Otherwise you might get a nasty surprise. If you wish to rant against any official policy, there are rules which govern the official process. The link in the OP gives links to the proper method of submitting comments. It ain't brain surgery but apparently simple processes elude this generation of whiners. Life is hard for the ignorant and even harder for the willfully ignorant.

But here's a trophy for your wall!



posted on Jul, 16 2017 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Let me repeat what I've said before: If you are going to play the game, you should first learn the rules. If you submit a document to the government---no matter who is in the White House---that document becomes a government document which can be used by the government to its advantage.


By "to their advantage" you mean trying to influence citizens to NOT protest anything the government does, you'd be right. Unfortunately that sort of government antics never leads to something that is good for the citizens it rules.

And again.. people are only "ok" with it because it's their boy Trump. If Hillary had won.. and done the same, would your post read the same way? I seriously doubt it.

People should be concerned - they are dealing with a government that is trying to silence media that doesn't agree with it.. silence citizens that don't agree with it. It's all fun and games now for the Trump supporters, but this has never ended well in any country where this sort of thing went unchecked.



posted on Jul, 16 2017 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: fleabit
It isn't "fine print" it is the Federal Register. Willful ignorance is a pitiable thing. In this thread you have the opportunity to deny ignorance and educate yourself about commenting on the policies of government in the prescribed manner to get your comments before the commission investigating this issue. This is for official purposes---it isn't social media. I guess that's the difference for this crowd. They "assume" a lot and don't bother to read the rules and follow them then screech at the top of their lungs when the consequences of not learning the rules hit them.

You can "disbelieve" all you wish but this has been the official method of accepting comments in the Federal Register for longer than I can recall. My participation began in the 1970s and all the identifying information is right there with my comments. If you don't want the information released---don't submit it to the government. That is essentially said in the call for public comment. I'm sorry your civics class teacher didn't properly do the job to teach you these important issues but if you are an adult you can educate yourself. It will prevent a lot of embarrassment on your part in the future.

Please explain why it it is "not right" for the government to follow the rules they set up---even when people submitting don't read the rules and follow them? These are public documents, their intended purpose is help inform those studying the issue. How would it be "right" or "fair" to allow those who don't follow the rules to have special privileges of anonymity while those who do follow the rules are subject to those rules?

Here's an award for your participation:



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 03:11 PM
link   

You can "disbelieve" all you wish but this has been the official method of accepting comments in the Federal Register for longer than I can recall.


The rule is what is required when submitting. Care to point out the rule that they must publish personal information that is provided? Also you have to consider the subject matter Just because there is a disclaimer, it does not nullify the U.S. code regarding the intimidation of voters for example.

Context matters.

Or just continue to act as if the blanket disclaimer for submitted info makes it perfectly ok to publish home and email addresses of individuals who protest the ridiculous voter fraud initiative the Trump kicked off. That is after all, the modus operandi of Trump supporters - excuse all the stupid things he and his administration does (and tweets), no matter how ridiculous the defense.
edit on 17-7-2017 by fleabit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: fleabit
If you want the rules changed, you need to get busy and get a bill through to change the way the Federal Register works. Otherwise, just use your social media if you are so afraid of government documents. Otherwise, I can't help you if you can't understand the plain English used in the call for comments.
The fact is that the ploy to overwhelm the commission with comments before the comment period opened blew up like a cheap firecracker. Blame the dude that thought that up, not the government. Mama always said, "Look before you leap." It had proven to be good advise.



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: diggindirt

Half the released emails were submitted before the WH changed the website to include language that notified about the potential release of personal information.

Just because you give yourself a disclaimer and CAN release personal information, doesn't mean you SHOULD.

Are people incapable of wrapping their heads around that? The White House did not have to do this. There really wasn't any reason to do so, other than act in a thuggish, mobster-style, passive aggressive fashion.


Honestly, I have been starring some of diggindirt's posts. Even though he is being extremely condescending...he is correct. Correspondence within government automatically becomes public due to the transparency issues.

Now, true, I understand that many in America do not know this fact and even with fine print added...most do not read. Too many in America rarely read pass headlines, for Pete sakes, nowadays.

I have to agree with diggindirt's posts, since I am frustrated that so many, even politicians, believe that if they didn't know or have intent, that she should automatically get a pass. Sigh. I am tired of 'pass the buck' blame games and more so...'I didn't know better' excuses.

Deny ignorance. Those folks should now take responsibility and research the truth on why their comments are public information. The only way to do that is to tell them they are wrong in assuming anything until they verify the facts.

Edit add: haha...was going correct she to they, but decided WTH...everyone knows what I was thinking about anyways.
edit on 7 17 2017 by CynConcepts because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts
No matter how much we point it out---the non-reader, non-compliers are going to argue and whine. I wasn't the first to point out the normalcy of this and yet we still have people screeching.
I've pointed them to the links and yet the denials persist. My name and home address are on every single comment I've ever submitted and a lot of those comments were in the printed form that was released after the comment period ended. That's the way a lot of networking on specific issues works. I've been contracted on numerous occasions pertaining to my comments but I've never once felt intimidated by having my comments and identification published. I stand behind my words. Heck, I even go to the public meeting and speak right there in front of a crowd.
I simply don't understand how this became a partisan issue.



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

Did you read my entire post before hitting "quote"?

Just because they have all that information, does that mean they should publish it?







 
23
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join