User Comments

1. 

   9/16/09

   clioandme

   Umm, tell me a web site that doesn't collect data on its users, and then maybe I'll take this seriously. If you really think you're surfing the internet anonymously, you need to look into the real electronic trail that you are leaving behind wherever you go.
   
   I get the "without notice" charge, except none of us bloggers has a notice about our stats, do we? How many of you use GoogleAnalytics, for example? If there is an issue, it is broader than just the White House. But the Washington Times has a thing about Democrats. It hates them.

   [reply]
2. 

   9/16/09

   cooper

   My question is why does anyone read a newspaper funded by Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church? Reverend Moon's beneficiaries include the Bush family, something not often talked about. Probably a few Dems too.
   
   I think the CATO institute's director of information policy studies, Jim Harper, has it right in Bizarre Privacy Indictment.
   
   "The question here is not over the niceties of the Presidential Records Act, which may or may not require collection and storage of the data. It’s over people’s expectations when they use the Internet."
   
   "America, for most of what you do, you do not get “notice” of the consequences. Instead, in the real world and online, you grown-ups are “on notice” that information you put online can be copied, stored, retransmitted, and reused in countless ways. Aside from uses that harm you, you have little recourse against that after you have made the decision to release information about yourself.
   
   The White House is not in the wrong here. If there’s a lesson, it’s that people are responsible for their own privacy and need to be aware of how information moves in the online environment."
   
   www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/09/16/a-bizarre-privacy-indictment/
   
   I really wish we could use html links here.

   [reply]
3. 

   9/16/09

   anticsrocks

   "We at BarackObama. com are committed to protecting the privacy and security of your visits to this website"
   
   Open, honest and transparent administration....yeaaaahhh, riiigghhhttt.
   
   
   Big surprise as to who were the first two to defend El Presidente's "Big Brother" tactics. Very amusing when you consider who is behind this...
   
   "His remarks indicate support for laws mandating Internet traceability, limits on domestic use of encryption, and more restrictions on free speech online. He also called for new powers for federal prosecutors, some of which became law under President Bush as part of the USA Patriot Act.
   
   Eric Holder
   (Credit: Covington & Burling LLP)
   
   In some cases, Holder's statements echoed the position of Justice Department staff members or political appointees, many of whom clashed with civil liberties groups. In others, the former deputy attorney general seems to have gone further than his colleagues in advocating more powers for police.
   
   As one of the Clinton administration's most knowledgeable spokesmen on Internet crime, surveillance, and intellectual property infringement, Holder immersed himself in these topics and frequently appeared on Capitol Hill to address them. He also adopted some positions that former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and other Bush administration officials would echo for the next eight years."
   
   
   
   news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10110922-38.html
   
   Probably hard to type with one's foot in one's mouth...

   [reply]
4. 

   9/16/09

   Agit8r

   i wonder why POTUS has a ".com" address... seems that an organizing website ought to have a ".org" address... o_0

   [reply]
5. 

   9/16/09

   anticsrocks

   Maybe its all about the Benjamins?

   [reply]