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.
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.
Who wants to visit a broken down piece of crap US run by a stupid cunt like Trump. Happy to stay in civillsation.
"to the extent consistent with applicable law"
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Don't forget all the immigrants who came over on the Mayflower and screwed things up.
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
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"
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.
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?
No idea? Ask Steve Job's dad?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
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
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.