(09/16/09): "EXCLUSIVE: W.H. collects Web users' data without notice" (Audrey Hudson, Washington Times)

[Tybee]

The White House is collecting and storing comments and videos placed on its social-networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube without notifying or asking the consent of the site users, a failure that appears to run counter to President Obama's promise of a transparent government and his pledge to protect privacy on the Internet.

Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said the White House signaled that it would insist on open dealings with Internet users and, in fact, should feel obliged to disclose that it is collecting such information.

"The White House has not been adequately transparent, particularly on how it makes use of new social media techniques, such as this example," he said.

Defenders of the White House actions said the Presidential Records Act requires that the administration gather the information and that it was justified in taking the additional step of asking a private contractor to "crawl and archive" all such material. Nicholas Shapiro, a White House spokesman, declined to say when the practice began or how much the new contract would cost.

Susan Cooper, a spokeswoman for National Archives and Records Administration, said the presidential records law applies to "social media" and to public comments "received by the president or immediate staff."

Mr. Obama signed a memo in January stating that his efforts to maintain an open government would be "unprecedented" and "ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation and collaboration."

An Obama campaign document on technology pledged that, as president, Mr. Obama "will strengthen privacy protections for the digital age and will harness the power of technology to hold government and business accountable for violations of personal privacy."

In a June 5, 2008, article in PC Magazine, Mr. Obama said, "The open information platforms of the 21st century can also tempt institutions to violate the privacy of citizens. We need sensible safeguards that protect privacy in this dynamic new world."

The National Legal and Policy Center, a government ethics watchdog, said archiving the sites would have a "chilling effect" on Web site users who might wish to leave comments critical of the administration.

More at link:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/16/obama-wh-collects-web-users-data/?feat=home_cube_position1

[hobbitt]

Defenders of the White House actions said the Presidential Records Act requires that the administration gather the information and that it was justified in taking the additional step of asking a private contractor to "crawl and archive" all such material.

Jeez but this sounds awfully Cheney-like. Creepy.

And totally illogical: how does "posted on the net" equate to "received by the president" ?


Will there be other private contractors crawling through newspapers, books, magazines, street flyers, broadsides, graffiti and notes passed in class for sentences which might be construed as "public comments received by WH staff"? ?

Another campaign promise - privacy protection - bites the dust; 'transparency in government' bit the dust about 3 hours into the administration.

Oh - and where do the payments to these private contractors appear?

WH Budget? CIA / FBI Budget? Perhaps the IRS? Or maybe the Records Department in the Ministry of Truth?

[Alces95]

Jeez but this sounds awfully Cheney-like. Creepy.

And totally illogical: how does "posted on the net" equate to "received by the president" ?


Will there be other private contractors crawling through newspapers, books, magazines, street flyers, broadsides, graffiti and notes passed in class for sentences which might be construed as "public comments received by WH staff"? ?

Another campaign promise - privacy protection - bites the dust; 'transparency in government' bit the dust about 3 hours into the administration.

Oh - and where do the payments to these private contractors appear?

WH Budget? CIA / FBI Budget? Perhaps the IRS? Or maybe the Records Department in the Ministry of Truth?

I tell my students this very same thing. If you post anything online consider it public information. There is nothing private about the internet. The entire internet is archived in some way - even this site.

[Kbentleyis]

The left and liberals love this--uh uh uh--until it happens to them! Lol, so where is the outrage? It's all bullchit like their fearless leader.

The old saying... if his lips are moving...Mr. Obama signed a memo in January stating that his efforts to maintain an open government would be "unprecedented" and "ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation and collaboration." he's lying!

[foxyladi]

i,m staying away from those sites.

[mack20]

Uh, most large companies collect and archive user data. It allows them to more specifically market and figure out what their core is doing and how to expand the core. It's something that happens all the time. I suppose it would depend on what information the WH is collecting, but the actual notion of an entity (government or private) collecting data is completely unremarkable.

I tell my students this very same thing. If you post anything online consider it public information. There is nothing private about the internet. The entire internet is archived in some way - even this site.

Yes.

[TheTaoOfBill]

Hope you guys don't use Amazon or Facebook.

[Ikasu]

I hate Amazon. They send me so many emails on books I have no interest reading.

[TheTaoOfBill]

I hate Amazon. They send me so many emails on books I have no interest reading.

Probably because you bought a book from them or you signed on your account and started searching for books. Amazon is best at collecting any information they can about visitors to their site.

And facebook has actually been known to sell your personal information to 3rd parties. They are all looking for certain keywords in your postings and in your actions.

[Ikasu]

Probably because you bought a book from them or you signed on your account and started searching for books. Amazon is best at collecting any information they can about visitors to their site.

And facebook has actually been known to sell your personal information to 3rd parties. They are all looking for certain keywords in your postings and in your actions.

Yes. I get emails almost every day on related books that I buy from there. But the related books never interest me.

One of the reasons I'm not on facebook (I must be the only one). Main reason is because I know my weaknesses and I would be obsessively checking it all the time. It's better to avoid that.

[smiledr]

Main reason is because I know my weaknesses and I would be obsessively checking it all the time. It's better to avoid that.

Hmmmm much like I do with this forum? ::)

[Ikasu]

Hmmmm much like I do with this forum? ::)

Much like we all do with this place. lol this forum is enough for me!

[hobbitt]

I tell my students this very same thing. If you post anything online consider it public information. There is nothing private about the internet. The entire internet is archived in some way - even this site.

The point is not that the "internet is public" I'm sure that we all know that. Or I hope we all do.

The point is that for some reason, the administration considers casual internet sites as 'communications with the President,' and hence covered by the Presidential Records Act.

[and I already know what WyoDem is going to say: 'he thinks everything is about him...'']

[foxyladi]

Probably because you bought a book from them or you signed on your account and started searching for books. Amazon is best at collecting any information they can about visitors to their site.

And facebook has actually been known to sell your personal information to 3rd parties. They are all looking for certain keywords in your postings and in your actions.

like racist:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

[Tybee]

The point is not that the "internet is public" I'm sure that we all know that. Or I hope we all do.

The point is that for some reason, the administration considers casual internet sites as 'communications with the President,' and hence covered by the Presidential Records Act.

[and I already know what WyoDem is going to say: 'he thinks everything is about him...'']


Believe it or not, but from the beginning after so much came out about Obama, I always had a bad feeling about signing up on most political sites, esp. anything to do with him. This forum and one other are the only forums that I've signed up on, no facebook, no twitter, the only politican site was McCains. Now, I'm very glad I was cautious.

[foxyladi]

Hope you guys don't use Amazon or Facebook.

i don't not puttin my face on any book

[Wyoming Dem]

The point is not that the "internet is public" I'm sure that we all know that. Or I hope we all do.

The point is that for some reason, the administration considers casual internet sites as 'communications with the President,' and hence covered by the Presidential Records Act.

[and I already know what WyoDem is going to say: 'he thinks everything is about him...'']
DING DING DING...We have a winner! And I have news for Obama...were I ever to wish to communicate with him, I would not do it via a website (or using my real name or my own computer or without wearing a slouchy hat, trenchcoat and dark glasses....:rotfl:)

[mack20]

Okay, now I'm confused a little. From reading the original article more closely it looks to me like they are archiving materials posted on the facebook/twitter/etc pages that they operate. So if you posted something to Barack Obama's facebook page, they would archive that. I would have somewhat more of an issue if they were trolling pages of random users for no discernible reason (though like I said, many MANY private companies do this already), but if they are archiving materials posted on pages they own then why is it a problem? If you're posting something (good or bad) to Obama's facebook page, I'm assuming you're aware that someone in his administration may, in fact, read it. Am I reading the original article incorrectly?

[tracker]

It will make great late night reading! :D

[mavfin]

As I understand it, this is for the sites the WH puts their name to, and the law probably does apply to those sites. Laws were put in place when GWB couldn't find the emails.

Much ado about nothing. They're not digging through users' computers, just saving correspondence put on WH sites. If you send a paper letter to the White House, it gets stored, too.