1. The way I read that story Obama is storing comments and videos posted on White House sites, which they have on Facebook, and Twitter.

I would not put it past them to also monitor conservative sites as well,(I'm sure they do), but I don't get that from the article you linked to.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 16, 2009 10:52 AM

2. You better believe that they are monitoring both sides of the isle. They want to be fully apprised of which way the wind blows at all times. To see their effectiveness in putting there agenda to and over the public. Also, to notice any outstanding refuters/trouble makers to their agenda. The Internet can be their friend and their enemy at the same time because, Truth and Lies can be accessed equally for all to see. It's not like the MSM where information can be filtered, biased and limited to what best fits the Liberal agenda.

Posted by: Daniel on September 16, 2009 01:20 PM

3. Sorry, but Bill is right. This has to do with fulfilling the requirements to archive all government communications. Read the damn story, moron.

And in terms of "monitoring websites"... I certainly hope they do, on BOTH sides of the aisle.

Posted by: demo kid on September 16, 2009 02:08 PM

4. Bill, what they are doing is using Facebook and the friends ability. Are you aware of where all of your Facebook posts go? If you are a conservative and send out stuff on sharing that is anti-Obama, 5 will get you 10 that it will end up on one of the White House sites. Don't kid yourself here, Big Brother is alive and well and his is the President of the USA.

Posted by: Jack LeCerveau on September 16, 2009 02:37 PM

5. @4: Now you're just lying. The story specifically states that the comments to the president and staff need to be recorded under presidential records laws. Nothing in that story suggests what you claim.

So either admit that you're a liar, or provide evidence of what you claim.

Posted by: demo kid on September 16, 2009 02:45 PM

6. @3 demo shit...I never said Bill was wrong. I agree with Bill when, he said "I would not put it past them to also monitor Conservative sites as well, (Im sure they do)". So, what's the problem? Have you been drinking heavily again?

Posted by: Daniel on September 16, 2009 04:26 PM

7. @6: What makes you believe that I was responding to you? Is it, you know, the specific reference to JC's comment?

Dude, you're moving from idiotic to just plain silly.

Posted by: demo kid on September 17, 2009 08:56 AM

8. Here's the relevant part from the Presidential Records Act:

“created or received by the president, his immediate staff or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise and assist the president, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.”

I didn't know that this Administration is now carrying out its constitutional, statutory, or official or ceremonial duties on Facebook and Myspace!

This is, really, information gathering because they want it, not because they need it. The PRA says you only need to collect in certain times, and if you're not using these sites (which can collect their own information, including when you - the page owner - makes changes) for policy, it's no problem; you do not have to record this information.

If you ARE using these sites for policy, then we have a serious issue. Why, for instance? And have you checked that the site is up-to-snuff with Government regulations regarding security? What about whitehouse.gov?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 17, 2009 09:05 AM

9. @8: I didn't know that this Administration is now carrying out its constitutional, statutory, or official or ceremonial duties on Facebook and Myspace!

You haven't made a single argument that states that these comments AREN'T relevant. Better to keep records for posterity than to delete emails when it's convenient to hide your tracks, or use a (hackable!) Yahoo email account to bypass state public records requirements.

As far as information gathering, I sure as heck hope that they look at what's online. However, there's no evidence that the White House is using this information for anything improper. Do you have any proof otherwise?

(And security of government websites is not germane to this discussion.)

Posted by: demo kid on September 17, 2009 01:50 PM

10. SPFA,

I see. So official communications and records on non-Government servers is OK with you? Are you sure it doesn't violate US standards for data networks and integrity? Do you have ANY experience with what is required for a US Government official website? Is everything of relevance on that server being recorded?

Either it's not official, or they're potentially violating US Government regulations relating to official computer networks. If it's not official, then why record the information? If it is official, then we can get a record of their verification and compliance testing for Myspace and Facebook?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 17, 2009 06:06 PM

11. @10: What? Again, these are records of communications with government officials. You're claiming that there's proof that the government is recording data from these servers that is not relevant to these archival requirements. Where's that proof? What are they recording, outside of comments to Barack Obama's Facebook page? You tell me.

Posted by: demo kid on September 17, 2009 08:03 PM

12. SPFA,

I'll make it really easy for you:

The only reason to record the communications is if they are part of the official duties of the White House.

So, we have the question:

Are Facebook and Myspace posting part of the official duties of the White House?

If yes, then were those Facebook and Myspace servers properly vetted per US Government standards, and is the network to which they are connected up to US Government firewall standards?

If no, then why are they recording those postings?

It's really simple. If the White House claims they need to record it, then Facebook and Myspace posts about the President are now considered official White House business, and the White House better show that Facebook and Myspace servers and networks were vetted and controlled by the US Government.

If they are not official, then why record?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 17, 2009 08:34 PM

13. @12: You're belaboring a meaningless, idiotic point that has no bearing to this discussion. "Communication" and "official business" shouldn't be confused with the means by which the message is sent. According to your logic, the phone lines, DHL, cell phone towers, and all other media of communication would need to be appropriated by the government if a record needed to be kept by a staffer.

It's the fact that a message is received that is relevant here. But hey... why not just do what the Bush Administration did and delete emails, right? Who needs a "historical record" anyway?

But answer me this: is the White House archiving web content that is not related to, say, comments on Obama's Facebook page? Mr. LeCerveau is plainly lying about the content of the news story by suggesting otherwise. Are you agreeing with him?

Posted by: demo kid on September 17, 2009 11:35 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?