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.

61 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 ArmoredDragon · · Score: 5, Informative

      Neither place is broken down, but people in the EU certainly shouldn't throw stones from glass houses. The EU has for several years now been putting MANY self-described fascists into its parliament, and very recently, participating in it in an official manner:

      http://www.euractiv.com/sectio...

      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 (Trump seems to like mercantilism as well, which will have a similar impact in other industries) however we can at least definitively say that Trump isn't a fascist, and anybody who says otherwise is either using hyperbole or has no idea what fascism is actually about. 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.

    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 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.

    6. 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.
    1. Re:Key Phrase by shanen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "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.
    2. Re:Key Phrase by sheramil · · Score: 4, Funny

      Trump: "How much is 2 + 2?"

      THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!

    3. Re: Key Phrase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Obama signed less executive orders than Bush Jr, Clinton or Reagan. You can see the counts here. Of course, I don't expect Trumptards living in Alternative Fact Land to pay attention to reality.

  3. Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigotry by bit+trollent · · Score: 4, Informative

    Donald Trump's bigoted and idiotic executive orders are blocking legal visitors at airports, and spreading chaos at tech companies.

    Seriously - when someone manages to escape a civil war and work his way into the tech industry - we shouldn't send him or his family back at the airport when he's traveling or living here on a valid visa.

    These are our friends and colleagues. If we don't speak up for them, we have no honor.

  4. Amazing how much he fucked up in just 10 days by Lisandro · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re: Amazing how much he fucked up in just 10 days by gravewax · · Score: 4, Interesting

      you mean like the leech working for the US military as a Translator that was detained returning to the US? Perhaps you mean the family that helped US military and had to sell up and move to the US because they thought it was the right thing to do only to find the door slammed shut in their face for the sacrifice? That is how you create terrorists, you would think something might have been learnt from the past 40 years of such moronic behaviour, but apparently not.

  5. 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 ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.
    2. 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. . . .
    3. Re:Trump seems to think Executive Orders... by grcumb · · Score: 5, Informative

      What happens if he doesn't adhere to the above? I get the feeling we're about to find out.

      It's already become clear that the White House explicitly overrode a DHS determination that contended the ban didn't apply to Green Card holders and other valid, vetted residents. The ACLU is reporting that some officials are not abiding by a number of stay order issued at courts in at least three locations.

      As a legal instrument, at least one scholar sees these particular orders as so incredibly flawed that they won't stand up to a sustained legal attack by the ACLU, CAIR and others.

      Most worrying though are the reports circulating that the drafting process bypassed the normal interdepartmental and legal review stages, and that DHS was only briefed on the content of the Executive Orders as they were being signed. This doesn't sound like an administration that's particularly worried about adhering to the letter of the law, or bringing a lot of people into the conversation. Not sure how that will stand up over time. Politics is often petty and vengeful, and the White House is already leaking like a sieve. It might be that their incompetence is what does them in. It may be that their unwillingness to share power will do it.

      My personal feeling is that neither one will stop them. I think people severely underestimate the lengths that this administration will go to to see this through. When Donald Trump promised the people of America that he would never back down, that he would do everything to advance the cause... I think he was speaking literally. When Steve Bannon says that we're at war with Islam, I think he believes it fervently. When Flynn and others portray their work as an existential fight, I think they're sincere in that.

      Left-leaning people and other opponents have mobilised quickly, but they're expecting the administration to react the way they would react. They think that public shaming, legal action and political activism will drive Donald Trump's administration back. I fear they're wrong. They will be seen as traitors and subversives, and they'll be treated accordingly, through formal and informal means. They don't realise that their resistance will ultimately have to be physical. They should be reading up on their Thoreau right about now....

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    4. Re:Trump seems to think Executive Orders... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 5, Informative

      let him unilaterally decide whatever he wants.

      Me thinks he learned this whole executive order thing from the previous holder of the office...

      As far as number of executive orders is concerned, Obama's record was far below average.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  6. 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?

  7. 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.

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

    And what do you suppose the odds of you being a victim of a terrorist attack? Seriously here. Stop and think for a minute. Are you making a rational assessment? In general terms, the biggest causes of death in America are heart disease and cancer, with accidental deaths being choking, automobile accidents and falls. Terrorist attacks are so far down the list that you might as well start worrying about lightning strikes taking you down. That's why you're a retard, because you're unable to assess risk with anything approaching rationality, are easily stirred up, and really are the most delicate of little snowflakes.

    Seek out a psychiatrist, and in the meantime, take a fucking statistics course.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  9. 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.

  10. Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo by Lisandro · · Score: 5, Informative

    You forgot the words "bigoted", "misogynist", and "Hitler".

    Laugh it up, but Trump just ordered a weekly publication of crimes committed by illegal immigrants. Hitler did the same back in the 40's. Google up "The Criminal Jew".

  11. Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo by gijoel · · Score: 5, Informative
    From the SMH

    Key phrase.

    In the 40 years to 2015, not a single American was killed on US soil by citizens from any of the seven countries targeted - Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen - according to research by the conservative-leaning Cato Institute.

    When the Cato Institute is calling you out on racist policies you know you're up shit creek.

  12. Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 5, Informative

    Umm, no.

    There are a lot of things we should fix in America first before we try to help everyone else.

    And how does allowing talented immigrants in not "fix" America? If we always did what Trump is doing, we'd be way behind the rest of the world technologically. Einstein was a refugee and so was Wernher von Braun (though he was a refugee for a much different reason.)

    Speak of Wernher von Braun; he got to skip the gallows because of his knowledge, and if we didn't keep him we would have lost the space race for sure -- something to keep in mind if we're going to kick out immigrants from potentially hostile foreign nations, as that could cost us our next space race.

  13. Re:Whats the issue? by Lisandro · · Score: 3, Informative

    Don't be dense. Of course visas and permits can be revoked; the entire issue here is that it happened without any justifiable reason. "Hey, it can happen" is a poor argument.

  14. 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.

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

    Yup, terrorists in 9/11 weren't from any countries on Trump's list.

  16. 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.

  17. 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
  18. 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.
  19. Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo by arth1 · · Score: 3, Informative

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

    Um, no. Japan was losing anyhow.

  20. Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo by arth1 · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are a lot of things we should fix in America first before we try to help everyone else.

    Give me your tired, your poor,

    your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

    the wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me.

    I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

  21. 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"
  22. Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo by Dorianny · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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.
  26. Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    The key part of this is "yearning to breath free"

    People who move to a place to then try and impose the rules of the places they moved from are not the type of people who are wanted.

  27. Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo by Pikoro · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now it reads "No Vacancy"

    --
    "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
  28. Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 4, Informative

    That's the state budget you dummy. Californians contribute more to federal revenue in proportion to what they get back than all but a handful of other (blue) states. That's why it's fair to say that CA subsidizes red states. Whether or not that's a good argument for secession is another story.

  29. 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*
  30. Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No idea? Ask Steve Job's dad?

  31. Re:Privacy Act Exemptions by Sique · · Score: 3, Informative

    But the Privacy Shield agreement between the E.U. and the U.S. demands similar protections as spelled out in the Privacy Act for E.U. citizens. And if the U.S. don't comply, the E.U. is forced by a court decision to forbid any processing of E.U. citizen data in the U.S., which means that Google, Facebook. Amazon and Microsoft are in a ton of shit.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  32. 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.

  33. 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.

  34. 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.

  35. 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.
  36. 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.

  37. 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).
  38. Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo by Freischutz · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the SMH Key phrase.

    In the 40 years to 2015, not a single American was killed on US soil by citizens from any of the seven countries targeted - Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen - according to research by the conservative-leaning Cato Institute.

    When the Cato Institute is calling you out on racist policies you know you're up shit creek.

    The real irony here is that Trump and his alt-right claque are banning travellers from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and justifying it by citing 911 but the countries that the 911 terrorists came from are not on the list, especially Saudi Arabia and the UEA and keep in mind these are the same countries whose citizens are covertly funding ISIS. On top of that Trump set up a series of shell companies to handle a hotel deal in Saudi Arabia and he did it after his bid for president: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-... at the same time as he was lambasting Clinton for taking donations from the Saudis.

    My favourite parts:

    "They [Saudis] buy apartments from me, ... They spend $40 million, $50 million. Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much.”

    "I would want to protect Saudi Arabia, ... But Saudi Arabia is going to have to help us economically. They were making, before the oil went down ... they were making $1 billion a day.”

    So rich countries that can make tribute payments to the Trump regime and whose citizens are financially benefitting Trumps companies are not destined for 'the list' even though these countries are financing terrorist organisations that attack and kill US citizens but others including some that are actually fighting ISIS in Syria make the list. I suppose Trump supporters have a hard time spelling 'hypocrisy'.

  39. Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    California's boycott of Arizona was successful and turned Arizona into a dystopian wasteland populated by shambling zombies.

    Thing is, nobody noticed.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  40. Deport All Toddlers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

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

    Here are some actual numbers:

    In 2016 'islamic' terrorists were responsible for 0.3% of the all the murders in the US.
    Over the last 15 years they were responsible for 123 out of 240,000+ murders or just 0.051%.

    In 2015 more people were killed by toddlers than were killed by 'islamic' terrorists.
    On average, toddlers kill 2x more americans than 'islamic' extremists do.

  41. Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo by SumterLiving · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.'

  42. Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo by gweihir · · Score: 3, Funny

    Au contraire! I think president Trump is displaying great vision and great awareness of the US role in history! Its current role is to decline and eventually collapse. Trump has realized this and is doing his very best to ensure it is happening soonest, no matter the cost. I, for one, salute his efforts!

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  43. Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo by ljw1004 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    That's technically true but still dishonest reporting by the Washington Post.

    The claim "Trump's immigration moratorium is targeted at majority-Muslim countries" -- this claim is 21% accurate [i.e. basically false].

    The claim "Trump's moratorium is targeted at Iran, plus those countries with civil unrest and poor-functioning central government" -- this claim is 98% accurate (only exception is Afghanistan)

    The claim "Trump's moratorium is targeted at majority-Muslim countries save for those where he has business interests" -- this claim is 38% accurate (major exceptions include Pakistan, Bangladesh, Algeria, Morocco, Uzbekistan, Niger, Malaysa).

    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...

    Indonesia [trump business interests]
    Pakistan
    Nigeria [not majority-muslim, has civil unrest but well-functioning government]
    Bangladesh
    Mexico [not majority-muslim, but has civil unrest due to drug war but otherwise well-functioning government]
    Iran [30day ban]
    Turkey [trump business interests]
    Egypt [trump business interests]
    Algeria
    Sudan [30day ban, civil unrest]
    Morocco
    Iraq [30day ban, severe civil unrest]
    Afghanistan [severe civil unrest]
    Uzbekistan
    Saudi Arabia [trump business interests]
    Yemen [30day ban, civil unrest]
    Syria [30day ban, severe civil unrest]
    Niger
    Malaysia
    Mali
    Senegal
    Burkina Faso
    Tunisia
    Somalia [30day ban, civil unrest]
    Kazakhstan
    Azerbaijan [trump business interests]
    Guinea
    Chad
    Tajikistan
    Jordan
    Libya [30day ban, civil unrest]
    Kyrgyzstan
    Turkmenistan
    Mauritania
    Siera Leone
    United Arab Emirates [trump business interest]
    Kuwait
    Oman
    Lebanon
    Gambia
    Kosovo
    Qatar [trump business interests]
    Bahrain
    Comoros
    Western Sahara
    Maldives
    Mayotte
    Cocos (Keeling) Islands

    Note: I'm not a Trump supporter. I've written to my representative and senators to add my voice against him, and I marched with my family last Saturday. On the other hand, I think the media have been FAILING us liberals by giving incomplete or misleading journalism -- articles that are designed to inflame our passions and attract our clicks, but without having the solid factual basis needed for us to engage with our republican friends.

  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. 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.