Slashdot Mirror


Trump's Executive Order Eliminates Privacy Act Protections For Foreigners (whitehouse.gov)

Long-time Slashdot reader Kernel Kurtz writes : January 28 is supposed to be Data Privacy Day, so it seems fitting in an alternative sort of way that U.S. President Trump just signed an executive order that eliminates Privacy Act protections for foreigners. As a non-American, I find it curious that the person who says he wants to bring jobs to America is simply confirming the post-Snowden belief that America is not a safe place to do business.
The Privacy Act has been in place since 1974. But now section 14 of Trump's "Enhancing Public Safety" executive order directs federal agencies to "ensure that their privacy policies exclude persons who are not United States citizens or lawful permanent residents from the protections of the Privacy Act regarding personally identifiable information" to the extent consistent with applicable law.

39 of 952 comments (clear)

  1. Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who wants to visit a broken down piece of crap US run by a stupid cunt like Trump. Happy to stay in civillsation.

    1. Re: Meh by SirSlud · · Score: 1, Insightful

      He certainly doesn't favor the individual by any standard that doesn't include a specific mix of gender and color. He favors the certain type of individual, sure.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    2. Re: Meh by Dahamma · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, really, the only ones saying this are those trying to trivialize the horrible things he's already done.

      So, I wouldn't call you a doublenazi at all. Just a regular Nazi.

    3. Re: Meh by Stephan+Schulz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The most obvious difference is Trump still favors the individual (and individual liberties) whereas fascism is founded on the premise of a single national identity and almost no individual identity.

      Right. I nearly forgot his slogan. "Make American Individuals Great Again", right? And his wall is not separating Mexico from the US, but just Mexican individuals from US individuals. And he is creating not "American jobs", but jobs for individual Americans. Just as he is not applying a blanket ban on entry against people from certain nations, but carefully targets this to individuals.

      If he is not a full-blown facist, it's not for lack of inclination, it's because he does not know history well enough to understand the pattern.

      --

      Stephan

    4. Re: Meh by KeensMustard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As for Trump, I'm not sure what to make of him. I think his actions are boneheaded because they're going to create international retaliation against US IT firms, thus likely harming the domestic tech sector

      Also, he is blowing up the very foundational concepts of the country that happen to be the things that made America powerful and great (like freedom of movement, freedom of speech, immigration etc) - he is fundamentally anti-American.

    5. Re: Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The fuck are you talking about?

      Americans are free to do all of those things. We're more free now than we were under Obama.

      These actions apply to non-Americans. They aren't American by definition. Our laws and freedom are for us. If you want them, create them in your own country. You don't have to come to ours.

    6. Re: Meh by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also, he is blowing up the very foundational concepts of the country that happen to be the things that made America powerful and great (like freedom of movement, freedom of speech, immigration etc) - he is fundamentally anti-American.

      Furthermore, the core philosophy of America was that all men are created equal and have inalienable rights, not just its own citizens. The US government can only ensure that those rights are protected for people living within its borders but even somebody living under a totalitarian regime is, according to to this philosophy, endowed with the same rights as the most privileged US citizens (it just happens that that poor schlub's government is preventing him from exercising those rights. US intervention is often based on the philosophy that we must remove these unlawful government so that the innate freedoms of those foreigners can be practiced).

      Within the confine of the United States, however, the rights of all can be protected. Yes, in certain cases We-the-People might have to sacrifice some of those rights for the common welfare (so though I may have the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded room, we've agreed - in the form of law - that this would be a bad idea and have laid that right aside). Certain privileges and responsibilities (voting, holding public office) are restricted to citizens, but these are quite limited. It is possible through criminal action for certain individuals to abrogate some of their rights, but these will only be lost through a decision of the courts, and made on a case-by-case basis.

      Specifically targeting a group - whether because of race, creed, sexual orientation or citizenship - and saying "No rights for you!" is contrary to the basic concepts of America. It's why slavery was so wrong, it is why the incarceration of the Japanese-Americans in WW2 was wrong, it is why it is wrong to deny homosexuals marriage, and it is why it is wrong to specifically say that foreigners are not afforded the smae privacy protections as the USA's own citizens.

    7. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      'first they came for the foreigners.
      i was not a foreigner, so i did nothing ...'

    8. Re: Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've learned a bit of early American history from a European perspective. I do know that there was a rather large group of immigrants in the area that would become the US, but were still colonies, who fled from the Muslim terror in Southern and Eastern Europe. Almost the entire Mediterranean coast was depopulated by centuries of attacks by Muslim slave traders. South Eastern Europe was overrun by Islamic Empires under Turkish rule. Many people fled from the horrors of Islamic conquest.

      One rather influential group during the creation of the American constitution explicitly asked a law that would protect the individual states from the union in the case one of the states would be turned into an Islamic state. Some even wanted a constitution that banned Muslims from entering the soon to be created union. The same suggestions were made against Catholics by the way. Constantinople, the biggest city of western civilization was the big example of what could happen when you underestimate the power of Islam. This didn't happen however, but it took a very long time before a constitution was created. Not everyone was happy with the constitution and a civil war was needed to adjust the system a bit. One of the first foreign interventions of the US was actually in North Africa, in modern day Libya, Tunis, Algeria and Morocco to free American white slaves. The Turkish led Barbary states wanted to extort the young US just like they did with the European states. But the US didn't give in and fought for the freedom of Americans.

      This news had a big impact on the public opinion in Europe. Why did the European states just let Muslims attack the coasts and take slaves while the family had to pay their live savings to free their loved ones if they were lucky to have the money, while the US traveled thousands of miles to free American civilians? This was unheard of back than, a state that fought for the right of its own citizens instead of a small elite. People demanded the same action from European states hence why Napoleon was so popular among the population. Yet when Napoleon was defeated the Congress of Vienna decided to restore the Ancient Regime. Another applauded action of the young US is how it battled the UK without being destroyed in the early 19th century. Many people in Europe wanted to join the American army to support their fight against the British domination. As the Congress of Vienna already showed, the British Empire still ruled over the continent together with a handful befriended empires after destroying the liberal movement led by Napoleon (who was himself a crazy dictator by the way). The people who managed to travel to the US are the ancestors of many US-people who are proud to fight for freedom, democracy and the US, just like those who had fought for the independence of the colonies. In Europe it was Hitler, yet another crazy dictator with lots of blood on his hands, who finally managed to bring the last remaining empire on its knees.

      The people in the states whose population was 200-300 years ago against Catholicism and Islam still have a similar mindset as their ancestors (Kennedy with a bullet in his head comes to my mind). You will find the same mindset in large parts of Europe. I've Greek friends who simply hate Turks. They can't stand them. Yeah, they can become friends with an individual, but the country Turkey, they simply can't stand them. They would even move out of the EU if the EU would invite Turkey into the EU, that's how much they hated Turkey. That doesn't mean that all Greeks think that way, but the friends I had were as aggressive anti Turkey as your average Muslim is anti free speech that allows mocking the prophet.

      For years progressive parties have tried to change the way people thought. The idea was by importing as many cultures as possible, the people would slowly change in a new multicultural race (just like in Brazil). But it isn't that simple. If you want to create a new kind of human, you need to get rid of the people who do not want to c

    9. Re: Meh by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Check out the no-go areas in Malmà where immigrants are now calling for Sharia law and have moral police patrolling the streets and harassing women who dare to walk around in jeans.

      Are those just like the non existent Muslim only areas of London?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  2. Key Phrase by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "to the extent consistent with applicable law"

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  3. Trump seems to think Executive Orders... by SeaFox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    let him unilaterally decide whatever he wants.

    I don't remember the United States being a monarchy.
    At what point does Congress tell him he's not a king?

    1. Re:Trump seems to think Executive Orders... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, in the short term, I'm assuming Federal Courts will step in, ...

      And... Trump and Fox News will label them "activist" judges, denigrate their heritage or gender, etc... and the shit-show will continue.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  4. Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yep, starting with getting rid of the stupid orange babbon who is president.

  5. Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is it true that Afghanistan, Pakistan and Sadia Arabia the three countries you think would of been on the top of that list weren't included, three countries that Trump has strong business ties with?

  6. Re:Whats the issue? by Lisandro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Are you serious? We're talking about legal residents who where prohibited, overnight, to enter the country without any other justification than a whim from Trump. No changed jobs, expired visas, incorrect documentation or lack of vetoes were part of the equation.

    The sad part is that the ban seems to be in place only because those 7 countries are mostly Muslim. None of them were involved on any kind of terrorist activity on US soil while other countries which were, notably Saudi Arabia and Turkey, are inexplicably left out of the executive action signed last Friday.

  7. Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't want my country flushed down the toilet by uneducated retards like yourself.

    I work with Muslims, and even though they don't drink they are nice people and we are lucky to have them in the country, and I'm glad that they are my colleagues.

    Hopefully one day you will realize that Muslims are hard working Americans.

  8. Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    CA pays your bills, bitch. We hand over much more money than we receive from the feds. I hope we do succeed and pull the useless fucking bigoted morons in the middle of our country from our overflowing teats.

    I'd like to see how you guys end up rationing your energy when you can no longer connect to the grid of neighboring states. You know your state only provides about 60% of its own energy demands, right? Let me guess, you'll just cut the power to all of the poor people's houses so that the industry there can remain intact? May as well because there are so many homeless people (and multiple families crowded into one single family home) there that you may as well just make everybody who isn't making at least $200,000 a year go the rest of the way to destitution.

    Oh, and how did that Arizona boycott turn out for you? That lasted...what...two minutes?

    And that's not even getting into the fact that if California seceded, they'd probably lose all of the rural counties that would want to form their own state (such as the already existing movement to form a state called Jefferson,) so California would have basically no farmland with all of those homeless people to feed.

    Let me know how all of that works out.

  9. Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't forget all the immigrants who came over on the Mayflower and screwed things up.

  10. Close but I have a nit to pick. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now, as to Congress, well I'm assuming here that these executive orders are based on powers bequeathed to the President by Congress, in which case if Congress doesn't like how Trump is using the powers that have been been granted to him by legislation, then they can amend or repeal any said legislation,...

    Close. But let me pick a small, but inprotant, nitl

    The Presiden't powers don't come from the Congress. The President's powers come from the Constitution. Some of them do amount to some component of "implementing the laws as passed by Congress". But not all of them are of that form; The others aren't generally subject to congress adding a "Do it this way / don't do it that way" prescription, and even their ability to specify HOW he executes that laws that they DID pass is limited.

    The President is head of the Executive branch of the government - one of three co-equal branches. Rule of thumb: If ONE of the branches gets out of hand, it takes BOTH of the other two to override it - and it's a major boat-rocker to do so. When two branches disagree and the third sits it out, the first two each get to run their branches' things their own way.

    Having said that: Much of the current over-power of the President and the Executive Branch IS the result of Congress shirking their own hard decisions by handing some of their OWN legislative power off to the Executive, in such forms as rule-making and war-powers preauthorizations. Those do act much as you describe. And they've been used to create the monumental overweening bureaucracy and set of "administrative rules" that Trump is now trying to dismantle, using the same mechanisms as were used to create it.

    Trump inherited Obama's "Pen and Phone". The executive order is the writing of the pen. Presidents before him created a set of juggernauts. Trump gets to disassemble them (much to the joy of his supporters) to his heart's content - at least until the Congress takes its own delegated power back. As you point out that's not likely to happen any time soon (and his party has the majority in both houses for the next two years).

    Meanwhile, the courts alone are limited in what they can do to counter him, both by the Constitution and their own rules of deferring to the executive unless there's good reason not to, avoiding an override of a law or executive action if a case can be decided on some other basis, limiting the scope of the laws or actions overridden to the minimum needed to decide a case, and not accepting a case for a ruing unless the prayug party is suffering real harm from the law or action being complained about. Further, the top court is tied 4 conservative 4 liberal, and Trump gets to appoint the ninth.

    So I would expect Trump to rapidly and selectively smash away. (There's so MANY of these structures to smash, and so little time in no more than two Presidential terms.) And if Congress DOES try to take its power back before he leaves office, tweet about being thrown into briar patches and ROTFLMAO.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Close but I have a nit to pick. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My understanding is that Executive Orders can only be made for powers either bequeathed to the President via the Constitution, or where Congress has granted the Executive branch those powers via legislation.

      We are in total agreement there - that this is the theory,

      In practice the President orders as he will, limited only by his conscience (if any), the courts, and (in extremis) behavior so egregious that his underlings would mutiny or Congress would impeach. Essentially that means the courts, which have explicit rules and policies in place to minimize such interference.

      LBJ called politics "The Art of the Possible". I've always read that to mean "Everything I Can Get Away With".

      In the case of immigration, it is Congress who decides the parameters of who enters the country, but it is the Executive's job to interpret and enforce immigration law.

      I note that the "immigration problems" we are currently having stem from various Presidents' choices to NOT enforce immigration law (and Obama's choice to write Executive Orders purporting to grant non-Congressionally-authorized extra immigration waivers and handle incoming illegal immigrants in a way that destroys the paper trail necessary to find and deport them). Trump can keep most of his immigration promises just by switching to vigorously enforcing the laws as written and building the (already Congressionally Mandated and partially funded) wall.

      For the rest, Congress, post 9/11, wrote the President a number of anti-terrorism blank checks. I'd be surprised if there wasn't at least one that could be read to authorize his actions. If he can't find or stretch one to fit, THEN he can try to justify it from his Constitutional Powers.

      Of course, if it ever DOES come to court, Trump's attorneys can throw ALL the claims at the bench simultaneously. Only one needs to stick.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  11. Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo by buss_error · · Score: 3, Insightful
    There are a lot of things we should fix in America first before we try to help everyone else.

    .
    If it weren't for German immigrant scientists (many undocumented, some Nazis) in the US during WWII, you'd be writing that in Japanese and you wouldn't be writing it from your iPhone...

    Thing about lending someone a hand? They do tend to reciprocate.
    Thing about giving someone the back of your hand? They do tend to reciprocate.

    Just sayin'.

    --
    Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
  12. Re: Do the right thing - stand against Trump's big by SirSlud · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The only reason your family suffers is because they can't make it in a meritocracy. It's certainly not because of the color of the skin they were born with, or the country they were born in. It's the idiots like you who think they have a birthright that are ruining the US.

    --
    "Old man yells at systemd"
  13. Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo by SirSlud · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Impressive is the person who has a Masters in economics and worries about terrorism. Mostly because I guess you can work formulas but can't do basic risk analysis.

    --
    "Old man yells at systemd"
  14. Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo by MattskEE · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Fun fact - the World Trade Center terrorists did not hail from any of the 6 counties that our President has enacted a travel ban on, they hailed primarily from Saudi Arabia, our ally.

    In the meanwhile you need to get out of your bubble and meet some Muslim people. You sound like you don't have a very diverse upbringing, well guess what there's a lot of diversity in America if you live and work in urban areas or technical fields. I have a colleague who is Muslim. She has a PhD in a technical field and wants to stay in the USA. She's the kind of person America should want to hang onto and not drive away. Yet now her parents in her home country likely won't be able to get a visa to visit her here, and she has no idea if the greencard she is in the application process for is still a possibly in this new scaremongering era of Trump.

  15. Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo by fredgiblet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Japan had literally no chance of winning the war once the US decided to fight. It was only a question of WHEN they would lose, not if. They even recognized that and performed Pearl Harbor in the hopes of making the US give up early, as that was the only plausible way they would come out ahead. Rejecting the German scientists would have cost us a lot of post-war gains, but wouldn't have affected the war that much.

  16. Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Your analogy is off by orders of a magnitude. Quit trying to justify irrational fear.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  17. Re:Privacy is a joke by Sique · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It exists in the same way than property rights or rights to remain unharmed and alive. Yes, there are robberies, grievious bodily harm and murder, and there is privacy intrusion. Why do you defend your life and your property, but not your privacy?

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  18. Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No idea? Ask Steve Job's dad?

  19. Obama already did the same thing, no out cry by bongey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Obama similar executive order in 2011 for Iraq for 6 months and then signed the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 https://www.congress.gov/bill/... , which restricted Libya, Somalia, and Yemen 3 of the 7 countries .

    Consular nonreviewability applies to this case. Legal Aliens at the border have virtually no constitutional rights, this settled case law. The judge is way out of line shooting down the other order.

  20. Re: Do the right thing - stand against Trump's big by Uberbah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only reason your family suffers is because they can't make it in a meritocracy.

    If the United States was a meritocracy, George W. Bush would be lucky to be the assistant manager of a Burger King, and you'd find 50% of investment bankers and dot com millionaires coming from a background of destitution because they studied hard in school.

  21. Re: Do the right thing - stand against Trump's big by PoopJuggler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You don't seem to realize that you people are reacting EXACTLY as Bin Laden wanted you to. He baited you and you fell for it. Look at what our nation has become since 9/11. Bin Laden wanted to destroy our freedom, and he has succeeded because Americans are predictable morons. He knew exactly what he was doing, how we would react, and what the result would be. And you let him.

  22. Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It can't hurt for us to keep our word, for starters. We already gave them the assurance of the US government that they could travel to/stay in the country--now they try to act on this, and we tell them, "HA-ha! We had our fingers crossed!"?

    As a practical matter, if Trump keeps up such shenanigans, it might not be very long at all before Americans visiting or living overseas find their visas vanishing into thin air in retaliation.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  23. Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo by gtall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Washington Post has an article showing the list of Muslim countries whose people are banned from entering the U.S. The common trait is they have no Trump business ties. Welcome to Fascism in the old sense of the word.

  24. Re: Do the right thing - stand against Trump's big by Dogtanian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Daesh (or ISIS if one wants to pander to their own self-propagandising title) aimed to force Muslims on to their side by committing extreme and unjustifiable acts that would be reflect on- and be associated with- Muslims as a whole by the greater world, increasing discrimination and prejudice against them- and, in turn, increasing the hostility of Muslims as a whole in the face of this prejudice- forcing them into the hands of Daesh and their allies.

    For this to work, you need people to respond in the planned kneejerk manner.

    Step forward, Donald J Trump. Your executive order blanket-banning people from Muslim countries and plans to discriminate on the basis of religion are *exactly* what they planned for and wanted.

    Well done. You played right into their hands. You are ISIS/Daesh's useful idiot.

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  25. Re:Whats the issue? by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If by "deceive the American people" you mean "keep the campaign promise he had been making for 18 months", then you might have a point. But of course, that makes no sense, at least not in English.

    It is a trap in that he used a list made up by Obama, one that did not include several majority-Muslim countries that have actually been implicated in terrorist attacks. And now, people like you are raising hell about that, and effectively demanding that he extend this policy by adding them to the list.

    He told you exactly what he was going to do, and then he did it. And you lot didn't have the good sense to think before you REEEEd, so now tens of millions of his supporters are pointing at you and laughing at your self-inflicted tears.

    Now take responsibility for the fascist you voted for, you coward.

    Nah, I voted for Trump. If you think he is the fascist, then you weren't watching the news. Was it Republicans that were attacking Democrats and shutting down her rallies? Did we watch videos of Democrats getting pelted with rocks and eggs? Chased down by packs of ferals and beaten? Sucker punched on the street?

    When Fascism comes to America, it will be called anti-Fascism

      - unknown, but chillingly accurate

    --
    See that "Preview" button?
  26. Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Umm, so you are apparently unaware that the countries Trump's immigration ban apply to was created by Obama. Trump did not come up with these seven countries. He just applied his executive order to the seven countries which the Obama Administration had already designated as countries of special concern relatvie to people coming to the U.S. from those countries.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  27. Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo by quantaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are the news reports that Trump's 90-day immigration moratorium is aimed at majority-Muslim countries excepting those where he has/had business interests. And also calling it a "Muslim ban". But those narratives don't fit the facts. Here's the list of majority-Muslim countries in descending order of population, plus those with severe civil unrest, and those subject to the moratorium. I'm measuring accuracy by country count. I should really come up with a more sophisticated measure of accuracy, but can't be bothered...

    The overlap with his business interests may or may not be a coincidence, that's the problem with his business interests, you can't tell if he's making a decision for personal profit or not.

    But this is intended as a Muslim ban, Giuliani is taking credit for the policy saying that Trump asked him for a legal way to do the Muslim ban and that's what they came up with.

    The list of countries banned corresponds to a list of countries singled out for extra scrutiny in an omnibus spending bill signed into law by Obama. But it's misleading to say it's Obama's list since the bill was primarily authored by congressional Republicans and if Obama didn't sign it when he did the US would have had another government shutdown.

    From a safety concern this is entirely targeted at Muslims and not terrorists since it includes Iran which is the wrong religion.

    Iran is a Shia majority country and Islamic terrorism is overwhelmingly confined to a few Sunni sects. It would be like banning immigration from London because you're afraid of the IRA. There is no rational reason to ban Persian immigrants from a safety perspective.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  28. Pot, Kettle by Shane_Optima · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do you live in the UK? Remind me... isn't that the country with all of the CCTVs? The one that's trying to collect and bank DNA evidence on everyone every chance they get? The one that routinely tries to ban people with unpopular opinions from setting foot in the country? The one with the ASBOs? The one without a right to remain silent[1] without it being held against you? The one that is banning all "deviant" pornography, including any image or video showing any female orgasm that looks a bit too moist? The one that has made it flatly illegal to refuse to provide your password to the police/courts?

    Please. If you want to criticize the American government's attitude towards privacy and individual liberty, you should first try moving to a country that didn't regard 1984 as a goddamn instruction manual. Our healthcare system may be a fucking joke, but privacy rights are still a hundred times better over here even if this order stands.

    (if you live in AU or somewhere else, please let me know so I can adjust this rant accordingly.)


    1. Granted, ours has frayed a bit recently.