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.
Seriously, ban legal, visa-holder residents for 90 days? Was he expecting that not to turn into a shitshow?
This is what happens when you let Bannon write foreign policy.
Trump has to follow either the US Constitution, or whatever Congress decides he's allowed to do.
What happens if he doesn't adhere to the above? I get the feeling we're about to find out.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Well, in the short term, I'm assuming Federal Courts will step in, which is what has happened with those who were in transit who had visas. So while that's not a perfect solution, it demonstrates that the checks and balances mean that the President isn't an absolute monarch whose executive orders carry the weight of some sort of royal proclamation.
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, thus terminating that executive authority. I wouldn't hold my breath on that, however. There's no way a Republican Congress, even if the majority find what he's doing horrifying, are going to start using legislative nuclear bombs at this point. They'll let the courts take the flack, which is what politicians normally do, and hope that by the time that's done, Trump will have moved on to something else.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"to the extent consistent with applicable law"
Once he exercises his free (AKA stolen) pick for the SCOTUS, "applicable law" will mean whatever #PresidentTweety wants it to mean. My prediction is that he will pick whichever candidate can convince him of the highest personal loyalty. It's a variation of how the Donald hires his accountants:
Trump: "How much is 2 + 2?"
Winning accountant: "How much do you want it to be?"
Trump: "Are my executive orders legal?"
Winning judge: "How legal do you want them to be?"
Welcome to the Donald's latest pseudo-reality program. The ratings are YUGE. It's on ALL the channels and in ALL the newspapers. Even international!
I actually see this as a market opportunity. Whereas CNN promises the most disaster porn, I'm looking for a news source that promises the least possible amount of Trump news. Only the stuff that REALLY can't be ignored.
Oh, wait. That's just what he wants, isn't it?
(Prior search for "funny" was disappointed. Ditto "insightful", but maybe it's just too early.)
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
OK, if you want to play the odds argument with me, MightyMartian. I have a bowl of 1000 chocolates for you to try. One of the chocolates is poisoned and will kill you in minutes with no antidote. Still want to eat any of the chocolates from my bowl? No, you most certainly will not, because while the risk is statistically low, it is an easily avoidable risk, and you can get non-poisoned candy just about anywhere. Yet here you are, making the argument to pour more candies into the bowl, even though you know that some of the new candies will be poisoned too. And you expect all of us, and our children to eat a few, with the argument being that the odds of anyone dying are pretty low... even though it is a nearly 100% certainty that some innocent people will die. It sounds pretty foolish when all the bleeding heart PC bullshit is stripped away doesn't it?
Also, just note that the highest lifetime or old age killers are heart disease and cancer, however, these are accepted and as of now unavoidable risks. Terrorists tend to kill preferentially people in their prime along with children. The impact on society of an old person dying of cancer is minimal and to a degree expected (we all have to die of something), while the death of a child or adult in their prime is far more disruptive and detrimental to individuals, families and society as a whole. Also, the mortality rate in those age brackets makes the chances of dying from terrorism exponentially larger, since very few children or 30 year old adults die of heart disease or cancer.
Beyond the simple statistics is the problem I allude to in my chocolates example. Terrorist attacks are a largely avoidable phenomena (check out Japan, they keep a close eye on their Muslim residents, including surveillance cameras in mosques and have had no terrorist attacks, BTW: funny no one shit a brick when Japan did this). To avoid Islamist terrorists, you must first realize that Islam practiced to the letter is violent and completely incompatible with the US laws and constitution, as well as American values and traditions. We allow freedom of religion up to the point where it violates the law. If your religion requires human sacrifice, and you kill someone in the practice of your religion, we sure as hell will hunt you down and prosecute you for committing murder. Many of the facets of Islam and Sharia law also violate basic laws in the US, up to and including honor killings, and killing the infidel and violent jihad, which are out and out murder.
We should do no less than any other nation and demand that all immigrants who come to America respect our laws and out beliefs, and if that is too much to ask of them, then they need to leave. We provide for freedom of religion, up to the point where that religion teaches treason, condones murder, mutilation and subjugation of women, slavery (and the list goes on).
The promise of freedom and prosperity that America offers comes at the price of requiring immigrants to become American, something that has almost been forgotten with all the multicultural BS. We are America, and we have our own culture. If your religion precludes you from adopting our beliefs, then I am sorry, but there is the door. America was founded on Judeo-Christian philosophy (sorry revisionists, you can suck it) and Islam played no part in our founding documents, no Muslim blood was shed to free us from oppression, and in fact, America's first armed conflict after gaining our independence was against Muslims (Barbary wars 1801-1816) who we had to go to war with because they were just as evil as the Islamists are today.
The US allows in more than 1,000,000 immigrants every year, more than any other country, but that doesn't mean we have to be stupid about it. There are plenty of people in line who do not ascribe to a worldview that is diametrically opposed to our beliefs.
Regarding the humanitarian crisis and refugees, it is much safer and more effective to set up safe zones in Iraq and Syria with UN soldiers from Muslim nati
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
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.
They don't get that energy for free. They pay for it you fool. The United States has interconnects and significant energy trade with both Canada and Mexico. Integrating North American Energy Markets - Department of Energy
Consular nonreviewability, end of story. Non-citizens at the border, have no legal standing, ie not even a right to sue.
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 .
Where was the up roar then? Same action, I guess Obama was Hitler too by the liberal left logic.
The claim of "clairvoyancy" and being able to determine who will do harm based strictly on the god they worship is the single biggest factor for why people voted for trump, or so it appears. It's also why the "fortune teller" at county fairs is quickly becoming one of the a big draws. And now one of those fortune tellers is POTUS. Yeah for 'merica.'
Would this be the same law that sees police shoot unarmed, cooperating people dead without fear of even loosing their jobs let alone be prosecuited or held accountable
You mean the law that routinely brings such cases before grand juries and then frequently sends them along to a trial? That law?
or would it be that law that allows for unrestricted disregard for the 4th Amendment and other "rights"?
Which law is that? You're being deliberately hand-wavy and vague in order to sound dramatic and righteous without troubling yourself to provide any actual examples. Why? Because you know you're being a drama queen. "Unrestricted" in which sense? Which law is completely unrestricted? Be specific.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.