Slashdot Mirror


Senators Push Trump Administration For Clarity On Privacy Act Exclusions (onthewire.io)

Trailrunner7 quotes a report from On the Wire: A group of influential lawmakers, including Sen. Ed Markey and Sen. Ron Wyden, are pressing the Trump administration for answers about how an executive order that includes changes to the Privacy Act will affect non-U.S. persons and whether the administration plans to release immigrants' private data. The letter comes from six senators who are concerned about the executive order that President Trump issued two weeks ago that excludes from privacy protections people who aren't U.S. citizens or permanent residents. The order is mostly about changes to immigration policy, but Trump also included a small section that requires federal government agencies to exclude immigrants from Privacy Act protections. On Thursday, Markey, Wyden, and four other senators sent a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Jon Kelly, asking a series of 10 questions about how the exclusion would be implemented, what it would cost, and whether the government plans to release the private data of people affected by the order. "These Privacy Act exclusions could have a devastating impact on immigrant communities, and would be inconsistent with the commitments made when the government collected much of this information," the senators said in the letter to Kelly. In the letter, the lawmakers ask Kelly whether people affected by the order will be allowed full access to their own private data that has been collected by the government. They also ask how the government plans to identify U.S. persons in their databases and what policies DHS will apply to separate them from non-U.S persons. The letter also asks for clarification on how the executive order will affect the Privacy Shield pact between the U.S and the European Union. That agreement enables companies to move private data between countries under certain data protection laws.

136 comments

  1. There will be no privacy under the ruling party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Until we reduce the reelection rates in congress you can forget about it.

    1. Re:There will be no privacy under the ruling party by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      The ruling party? Obama did a wonderful job of continuing the Bush/Cheney agenda of invading our privacy and taking away our rights.

    2. Re:There will be no privacy under the ruling party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      even you have to admit what is going on now is vastly more ominous

    3. Re:There will be no privacy under the ruling party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The party has two faces, but it is one party, and the voters are perfectly happy with that. Only voter initiative/desire can change anything. Without it, all is lost.

    4. Re:There will be no privacy under the ruling party by rubycodez · · Score: 0

      which thing? Travel ban from seven countries where ISIL operates and that support or harbor terrorism (which Obama did too)? Surveillance on foreigners (which we've done for decades)?

      Trump might do worse things but he hasn't done them yet, I would expect his "worse things" to be in realm of corporate fascism and also in carbon pollution (which I care about mostly because of acidification of oceans)

  2. Flynn is a Russian spy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Meanwhile CIA and FBI staff have confirmed Flynn's discussions with the Russian Ambassador about lifting sanctions, as described in the pee memo. BEFORE the election.

    "A US official confirmed to CNN late Friday afternoon that Flynn and the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, did speak about sanctions, among other matters, during the call....Flynn cannot rule out that he spoke to Kislyak about sanctions, an aide close to the national security adviser said earlier Friday. Flynn, the aide said, has "no recollection of discussing sanctions," but added that the national security adviser "couldn't be certain that the topic never came up."

    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/flynn-russia-us-sanctions-reports/index.html

    Keep in mind Flynn was a nobody, back in August, when the memo says Putin was grooming him. Which means Putin knew before America that Trump would pluck this nobody for his security advisor, and it confirms Trump conspired with Putin to select people. The Russian Ambassador knew too, before the election that Flynn was to be appointed, again before Trump actually chose him. Proving the two conspired.

    At this point Republicans need to get their shit together, prosecute Trump for treason, put Pence in, get the cyber security bill signed, the one Trump is blocking. Get the generals put back onto the National Security council, after Trump demoted them to occasional consultants... they are Congretional Appointees assigned to the National Security Council FFS, America is vulnerable if the military is removed from those meetings, and only Putin's agents are present.

    The two spies Putin arrested, they fit the profile of the two known agents in the pee memos. These agents were known and considered reliable by NSA, CIA, MI6 etc. Yet they were arrested just after Trump's men entered the CIA. If they are US spies in Russia, then Trump needs to face espionage charges for passing their names across.

    Kick this whiney buttercup out of office and put a Republican in.

    1. Re:Flynn is a Russian spy by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 0, Troll

      Wow.

      I thought we were working on removing Fake News garbage like the entire above post.

    2. Re:Flynn is a Russian spy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      No it's not You're selling out your own country. Fucking traitors.

    3. Re:Flynn is a Russian spy by JoshuaZ · · Score: 2

      Is there a specific aspect of the above comment that you consider inaccurate? If so, can you explain why?

    4. Re:Flynn is a Russian spy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How cute, another of those people who have the "liberal" boogieman syndrome.

    5. Re:Flynn is a Russian spy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Net. No my rabotayem nad ustraneniyem infektsii.

    6. Re:Flynn is a Russian spy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we'd much rather have your illiterate, beer-goggled vision of what the news ought to say?

      Ivan, you know it's all hands on deck right now with Flynn getting exposed. reddit needs your shit-posting more than Slashdot. Come to seeing me after work for the fun time, we will drink potato vodkas and share Hillary memes.

    7. Re: Flynn is a Russian spy by mmell · · Score: 1

      Flynn is a Russian spy (+5, Interesting)

      Anonymous Coward 4 hours ago

      .

      .

      .

      Re: Flynn is a Russian spy (+1, Troll)

      Cmdln Daco 4 hours ago

      As you can plainly see, the Trump (nee: Drumpf) playbook of denying the truth in the most insulting and pejoritive manner possible doesn't always work - and now that people are aware of your tactics I suspect it will lose effectiveness. In this instance, demonstrated by an Anonymous Coward - does that suggest anything to you?

      But please . . . continue! It won't take a violation of the Privacy Act or even a violation of basic ethics to recognize you as a troll, but more evidence is always useful.

    8. Re:Flynn is a Russian spy by GeekWithAKnife · · Score: 1


      Fake news. Trump said so.

      This is a post truth world. Trump is bigger than facts. Proof? some dumb fuckers still support him cause he's gonna MAGA.

      Trump is a waste of time.

      --
      A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
    9. Re:Flynn is a Russian spy by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      More the reverse, I look for evidence that something is true. That's how the burden of proof works and some hearsay they've published isn't going to change that. But feel free to jump at every new rumor, there's going to be a steady drip of those for years, FYI.

      Is there a single non-anonymous source there? Some random "US official," really? Because unless they have something that can be corroborated, the whole thing is just a rumor. We were told us they had attacks like that planned months ago.

      And no, I don't believe them when they tell me things I want to hear, either. It's just a stupid game they play in the press that only fools those who don't know how it works. Read this article for how not to get fooled. And note that the source of that is actually a fairly partisan Democrat.

    10. Re:Flynn is a Russian spy by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Kick this whiney buttercup out of office and put a Republican in.

      Then give us a real Republican to vote for. Seriously, between Trump and Clinton, Trump was the only sane choice.

      Here is the REAL kicker, Trump was an insane choice overall; he only looked like a sane next to Clinton. Seriously, what the fuck is going on when the best person presented for the office of President of the United States of America is an outright scoundrel and thief?

      The people who influence this country are deeply troubled. Too many groups are willing to outright slaughter in the name of an ideology. Here is an idea: If your ideology requires killing people, your ideology is likely WRONG. If your ideology requires the stripping of resources from the majority of sentient creatures, then your ideology is like WRONG.

      You do not have to hug and love the person next to you, but holy shit, how about letting them live without being molested by your ideologies?

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    11. Re:Flynn is a Russian spy by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The way to remove fake news is to start by getting Trump out of office. There are honest Republicans, sure, but Trump isn't anywhere near close to that.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  3. What no social media accounts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    do not pass go,
    do not collect $200
    off to Gitmo you go because you are obviously a terrorist.

    Welcome to Stalag/Gulag USA in 2017

  4. Why are you asking him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    He doesnt know what any of his policies are.

  5. Less secure by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

    No one is going to share data with the US if it goes ahead with this. The EU is already reluctant.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    1. Re:Less secure by johanw · · Score: 1

      The EU executive branch (the Euro commissionars) are greatly in favor of pleasing the US more and more. The chosen representatives and the courts don't agree. This "privacy shield" agreement was stillborn, it will live just as long as it takes to get shut down by the European supreme court (which, unfortunately, can be quite long because legel processing it has to start all the way up from lower courts).

    2. Re:Less secure by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      No one is going to share data with the US if it goes ahead with this. The EU is already reluctant.

      This has nothing to do with the EU Privacy Act, it has to do with data collected from and about illegals in the US.

    3. Re:Less secure by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      This "privacy shield" agreement was stillborn, it will live just as long as it takes to get shut down by the European supreme court

      And what would happen in that case? Google, Facebook, and Microsoft cloud services would be forced to stop providing most of their services because they couldn't finance them anymore through advertising. Small European advertisers would lose the ability to target people online by interest and would therefore face bigger barriers to entry. Europeans would lose big time. On top of that, if the EU effectively prohibits US online service providers from operating in Europe, there would doubtlessly be retaliation in areas where the EU has strong exports to the US, such as automobiles.

    4. Re:Less secure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The EU is already reluctant.

      Nonsense. The governing body of the EU, the commission, has always been handing over tons of data to the US: air travel, banking, etc. The commission loves giving the US access to everything.

    5. Re:Less secure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      about illegals

      No it isn't. Just like Trump's "refugee ban" wasn't about refugees. Feel free to insist it is though, then we can point and laugh when Trump uses it on legal immigrants and you start insisting that we've always been at war with eurasia and the chocolate ration is going up next week.

    6. Re: Less secure by mmell · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It seems more likely to me that this will create opportunities for European companies to clone US based services (including everything down to the business model). What person in Europe would choose a Gmail account when they could get a Euromail account which works just well and includes European-style privacy guarantees? You know, Protonmail suddenly comes screaming to mind.

    7. Re: Less secure by mmell · · Score: 2
      Are you really so blind that you believe it'll end there? If the US government can abuse one set of people, it can abuse anybody. This is why pro-Trump forces are so interested in assuring that Constitutional protections are interpreted as only applying to US citizens. Once you accept that falsehood, it becomes a simple matter to begin defining certain citizens (e.g., convicted felons, individuals on the terrorist watch list) as also not being entitled to Constitutional protections.

      A very few Constitutional protections are indeed reserved only for US citizens, and these are explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. The Constitution itself was written to be the rules by which we govern, not the rules by which we govern ourselves. That's why certain rights (such as eligiblity to serve as POTUS) are specifically reserved for US citizens. If a protection is not specifically reserved for US citizens only, it must be extended to all - otherwise, what's the point?

    8. Re: Less secure by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Spying is about control, and Euro politicians want control as much as American ones. This means the spying will happen regardless of any "Agreement" with the USA.

    9. Re: Less secure by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      What person in Europe would choose a [US-hosted mail] account when they could get a Euromail account which works just well and includes European-style privacy guarantees?

      Well, what threats are you concerned about? If you are concerned about the US government reading your email, you are probably better off hosting in Europe. If you are concerned about European governments reading your email, you are probably better off hosting in the US or Switzerland. No matter where you host, you should be under no illusion that the government of the country where you host your data can easily access your mail.

      If you are really concerned about privacy, set up your own server and use encryption. OwnCloud seems to be a good option.

    10. Re: Less secure by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      This is why pro-Trump forces are so interested in assuring that Constitutional protections are interpreted as only applying to US citizens.

      Which "Constitutional protection" do you think denying entry to the US to non-citizens from specific countries violates? It doesn't violate due process either under the Fifth or Fourteenth amendments. Nor does it violate the equal protection clause, which only applies to persons within the jurisdictions of states.

      This is why pro-Trump forces are so interested in assuring that Constitutional protections are interpreted as only applying to US citizens.

      That's not what's happening. The Trump administration has tried to impose a temporary ban on the entry of people from countries that the US has been actively bombing, that don't have functioning governments, and that have been the source of terrorism. It's what the president is authorized to do because it's a rational and reasonable thing to do.

      The idea that this is some nefarious slippery-slope plan by Trump to attack the Constitutional rights of citizens is ridiculous for the simple reason that Trump's immigration ban simply isn't in conflict with the US Constitution; after all, his ban is not substantively different from dozens similar bans imposed by previous presidents, including Obama.

      If the US government can abuse one set of people, it can abuse anybody.

      Yes, as a century of progressivism shows. Clinton explicitly promised to widen those abuses, while Trump promised to end them.

    11. Re: Less secure by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Once you accept that falsehood, it becomes a simple matter to begin defining certain citizens (e.g., convicted felons, individuals on the terrorist watch list) as also not being entitled to Constitutional protections

      To add to that list Trump has already made noise about people who have previously been citizens of other countries. Apparently they are not real Americans to him. He's also made tweets about revoking citizenship - not just residency, citizenship.

    12. Re: Less secure by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      The Trump administration has tried to impose a temporary ban on the entry of people from countries that the US has been actively bombing, that don't have functioning governments, and that have been the source of terrorism. It's what the president is authorized to do because it's a rational and reasonable thing to do.

      Just curious, but where do idiots like you think refugees flee from? Canada? Belgium? The Netherlands?

      Forget about the constitutionality for a second, do you not think that it's a blatant violation of the Geneva Convention to ban people from entering this country on the basis that they live in the kind of country that people would need to flee from?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    13. Re: Less secure by ooloorie · · Score: 2

      Forget about the constitutionality for a second, do you not think that it's a blatant violation of the Geneva Convention to ban people from entering this country on the basis that they live in the kind of country that people would need to flee from?

      No. Most of the people fleeing those countries don't even seem to meet the definition of "refugee" under the convention. Refugee status is for persecuted minorities, not merely people who leave their countries because they are violent shitholes. Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany were refugees; regular Germans fleeing from Nazi Germany were not. I also see no obligation under the Convention to actively transport refugees to the US.

      The US currently has about 20 million people illegally present in the country, many of whom fled poverty and violence in Mexico, plus at least another 20 million legal immigrants and about 3 million refugees (since 1980). I think we are pulling our weight when it comes to helping the downtrodden masses. There is a practical limit to how many people voters are willing to let into the country, treaty or not.

      Finally, if push comes to shove, the president can likely simply suspend or abrogate the treaty; it is poorly written, ambiguous, and ultimately unworkable.

  6. This is not news for nerds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is political crap.

    1. Re:This is not news for nerds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about news about Snowden, net neutrality, Hillary's email server? Also crap?

  7. "devastating impact" by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That's the entire point of Steve Bannon, the "President behind the curtain". He wants to destabilize the entire planet and destroy civilization as we know it. This is an exact quote from him:

    “Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.”

    He's the one who's really writing many of these Executive Orders. He wants to burn it all down, and rebuild it in his own twisted image that fits his into his alt-right image. He knows that our society is held together by very fragile bonds formed through trust, past promises, monetary policy; attack these pillars and the whole thing will collapse.

    1. Re:"devastating impact" by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Funny

      "It's easy to burn down the outhouse; the hard part is putting in new plumbing.”

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re: "devastating impact" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or they could read the context and any free thinker would then realize you are misleading them and lied to them

    3. Re:"devastating impact" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      destroy all of today’s establishment

      Why would this be bad?

    4. Re:"devastating impact" by Gr8Apes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe look at Sudan, Syria, or Somalia?

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    5. Re:"devastating impact" by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      He wants to destabilize the entire planet and destroy civilization as we know it. This is an exact quote from him:

      “Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.”

      Do you equate "the planet" and "civilization as we know it" with "the state" and "all of today's establishment".

      Isn't that what Democrats and progressives keep saying? Don't they keep claiming that the US is in the hands of "the 1%", "an oligarchy", and "the patriarchy"? Are you saying that you want to keep these people in power after all?

      He knows that our society is held together by very fragile bonds formed through trust, past promises, monetary policy

      You mean like the Democrat's "fragile bonds" and "past promises" to cronies and special interest groups like lawyers, certain billionaires, Wall St, big pharma, etc.? Well, yes.

      Wouldn't you prefer our society to be held together by trust and commitments between individuals, businesses, and groups, instead of trust and commitments by corrupt politicians?

    6. Re:"devastating impact" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's getting harder and harder to tell whether people are sarcastic or just hysterical.

    7. Re:"devastating impact" by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Countries that this administration wants to block people from, and which 'The Resistance' is against?

    8. Re:"devastating impact" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about Sudan, Syria, or Somalia, etc? It's the 'establishment' that is financing their destruction, all so we can enjoy *everyday low prices*. Stop funding and arming the terrorists, and there might be peace. And a decent water supply can't hurt, but there's more profit in war...

    9. Re:"devastating impact" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he SAID that.
      so you follow someone actually DOING that.... george soros.

      Oh yeah. I'm totally going to listen to the side taking orders from a nazi with the preprinted 'protest' signs...

  8. US emails? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well if Trump won't secure American political emails from FSB hackers, do they really think he'll secure EU emails from FSB and NSA nosey parkers? Nah. He'll be reading Paul Ryan's browser history for personal amusement, he'll listen in on Merkel, and as for the Aussia Prime Minister he pissed off, everything from this home security camera, to phone will be tapped.

    How long did his "Ivanka will resign from all Trump businesses" promise last? Well that promise was made January 9th, and that big pile of blank paper was supposed to be the contracts signed, and by 9th February, he's complaining that Norstrom are dropping Ivanka's line of fashion.... so his promise didn't even last a month.

  9. *Senators *Privacy Act by rmdingler · · Score: 1
    _________ press Trump administration for clarity on _________ .

    There were multiple plausible solutions to the puzzle when it was merely the Trump campaign, and what they learned then is that clarity is the enemy. It wasn't necessary to win the election, and it's not going to be a high priority now.

    Bilaterally, the Democratic campaign was no better at it.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:*Senators *Privacy Act by gtall · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You give Trump too much credit, there was no clarity because there can be no clarity from someone of such limited intellectual prowess. You can see that in his nominees for cabinet positions. They are not the A-Team, they are a reflection of Trump's idea of how to run an organization. There is no consistent ethos among the lot of them except hating the very agencies they are to lead. And Trump doesn't even trust them, he's got minders for each of the agency heads and those minders report to Trump and Bannon.

      You can also see the effect of his lack of intellectual depth when he's admitted signing orders that he never read. Bannon shoved them in front of him and he signed because Bannon told him to. When the shit hit the fan on the immigration order, he went nuts trying assign blame to everyone but himself. He is without honor.

  10. Re:Still much more secure by gorbachev · · Score: 2

    According to the US Government roughly 35% of all tourists to the country come from Western European countries. I'm pretty sure your idea will work real well.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
  11. It'll never happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Until we reduce the reelection rates in congress you can forget about it.

    We have become so partisan in this country - which the ruling class LOVES - that we'll never see that happen.

    My state keeps sending the same old people back every year. Why? because it means voting for a Democrat.

    And that will never happen. In my state, all a Republican needs to do is say "Pro-Life" and "Roe vs Wade has to go" and "Democrats gonna take yer guns!" he's in. And here, Democrats are socialists!

    Privacy and the finer points of civil liberties goes right over their heads. And how those "Conservatives" have gamed the system against them: how their retirement plans are being gouged by financial firms' fees; how they are being gouged by their ISP and cable TV company; why the business up the road can dump just about anything it wants into the ground; just flies through their ears.

    As long as they have their bibles, guns, football on ESPN and F-150, they're happier than the pigs on the McCully farm. You can do anything you want to them politically.

    I really hope my disgust for the American electorate shows.

    1. Re:It'll never happen by WheezyJoe · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You're better off in a swing state. Any state or district where one party has a "lock" is guaranteed to be corrupt... and that goes for Republicans (the Old South) and Democrats (looking at you, Massachusetts). It's just the way it is, no different from the way monopolies in business can't help but screw their customers... there's nothing stopping them, and the temptation is too great.

      The fix? Term limits. At least it's a start. But the sad thing is the Republicans actually PROMOTED term limits as part of their Contract with America. The Contract helped the Republicans capture the House back in the Clinton years. My faith in Republicans evaporated when their commitment to term limits did the same pretty much as soon as they took office (thanks, Newt... I haven't forgotten).

      But voters can do their own term limits. If Americans were really serious about their low approval of Congress, they would vote out whoever is the incumbent. Keep that up for a couple of terms, and the Parties would get the message, because they keep losing. Would force Congresspeople, particularly members of the House with their 2-year terms, to work a lot harder to keep their jobs or else resign themselves to a single term. But Americans have short memories, and often don't know who their Representative or even Senators are. Worse, the Parties often don't even try in Districts they don't feel safe in (looking at you, Democrats). That's why things don't change.

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    2. Re:It'll never happen by GeekWithAKnife · · Score: 1

      How can we tell by this if you're disgusted or if these are just facts? -speak up god damnit.

      Hope aint a strategy son. Let's see if I can work something out for you.

      Until we reduce the reelection rates in congress you can forget about it.

      We have become so partisan in this country - which the ruling class just LOVES! - that we'll never see that happen.

      My state keeps sending the same old people back. Every. Year, and why!? because it means voting for a Democrat, that's why!

      ...and guess what? that will never happen. In my state, all a knuckle dragging Republican needs to do is say "Pro-Life" and "Roe vs Wade has to go" and "Dem democrats gon'take ma guns!" and he's in regardless of how much of a baboon he is. To add insult ot injury, here (US of A), Democrats are socialists!! -can you friggin get your head around that train wreck?! because I cannot and I live here!

      I mean forget privacy and the finer points of civil liberties cause that goes right over their tiny socialist heads. They go on about how those "Conservatives" have gamed the system against them; how their retirement plans are being gouged by financial firms' fees, how they are being gouged by their ISP and cable TV company, why the business up the road can dump just about anything it wants into the ground. It all just flies in one ear, through their vacatious heads and out the other end FFS!!.

      Without a doubt, as long as they have their bibles, guns, football on ESPN and F-150, they're happier than the pigs on the McCully farm it dobn't even matter if you gonna have bacon soon. You can do anything you want to them politically as long as you aint black.

      If you cannot tell by now the sheer contempt, derision and my disgust for the American electorate then you must be an ecomentalist or a redneck and fuck you and your fat mom.

      Welp, now that you alienated 80% of Americans I hope life in exile without works out for ya fella. All the best.

      --
      A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
    3. Re:It'll never happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another point:

      Why not learn from other countries? Why this NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome? I say referendums for anything that impacts more than 1-2 percent of population like health care, guns, amendments to constitution, etc.

      Also, government pay should be approved by referendum.

      Am I thinking ahead of my time?

    4. Re:It'll never happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The fix? Term limits."
      Except we have term limits for city council members in NYC. We ended up with inexperienced PUPETS for the political party and labor unions who are more interested in grandstanding then governing. It has made things much worse. They are constantly trying to run for then next higher office. It has also discouraged people to leave the private sector because you only have 8 years and then what?

    5. Re:It'll never happen by Maxwell'sSilverLART · · Score: 2

      The fix? Term limits. At least it's a start. But the sad thing is the Republicans actually PROMOTED term limits as part of their Contract with America. The Contract helped the Republicans capture the House back in the Clinton years. My faith in Republicans evaporated when their commitment to term limits did the same pretty much as soon as they took office (thanks, Newt... I haven't forgotten).

      Do you also remember that SCOTUS shot down term limits as unconstitutional?

      --
      Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
    6. Re:It'll never happen by kevmeister · · Score: 4, Interesting
      My state (California) voted in term limits many years ago and we have come to regret the unintended consequences. The problem is that 4-6 years is not long enough ot learn to deal with the entrenched interests. The result was that lobbyists, who are around much longer, became invaluable "helpers" to the large number of newly elected and inexperienced legislators and ended up effectively running the legislature. Their influence, always a concern, grew tremendously.

      Now the term limits have been eased (also by popular vote) and it is hoped that this will help. We'll see in 5 or 6 years

      --
      Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired
    7. Re:It'll never happen by WheezyJoe · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Do you also remember that SCOTUS shot down term limits as unconstitutional?

      Please cite. And anyway, the Party can mandate term-limits within their own ranks, and SCOTUS has nothing to say. The Party gives you one shot, then if you want re-election, you're on your own as an independent. If there's a will, there's a way. But there was no real will behind term-limits, or else Newt knew all along that the plank for term-limits in his Contract was a sucker-play all along. Not the first time people like him played the electorate for fools, and sadly won't be the last.

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    8. Re:It'll never happen by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Charles Murray's book "Coming Apart" talks about the combination of geographic isolation (segregation by income/politics), elite schools (public and private) where their children all socialize, ideological conforming by the "elite" institutions all creating an elite population that has prime access to top corporate jobs, NGOs, government positions under Democrats. They base morality as adherence to the ideology and thus see all who disagree as evil/stupid and look down on those beneath them as at best unenlightened/uneducated and at worst people the world is better off without.

      Then they actively discriminate against conservatives and the middle and working class, seeing them as "not a culture fit" or actively deprecating them.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    9. Re:It'll never happen by jandersen · · Score: 2

      You're better off in a swing state. Any state or district where one party has a "lock" is guaranteed to be corrupt...

      That is probably why people in many European countries (especially in Scandinavia) have much more faith in their governments and parliaments: the voting system and the political process means that they have many parties in parliament, so no government rules from majority and no politician is safe in his seat. Just have a look at the Danish Folketing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... 179 seats - and 13 parties. It means the politicians are much more likely to represent the voters, and they are good at cooperating and finding compromises because they have to.

      Systems like the american and the British are rigged against ordinary people; Trump was right in that, at least, although I doubt he actually means in this way. What he complains about is that reality is rigged against him, personally.

    10. Re:It'll never happen by Maxwell'sSilverLART · · Score: 2

      U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995). Argued November 29, 1994; decided May 22, 1995.

      The exercise by Congress of its power to judge the qualifications of its Members further confirmed this understanding. We concluded that, during the first 100 years of its existence, "Congress strictly limited its power to judge the qualifications of its members to those enumerated in the Constitution." 395 U. S., at 542.

      "It would seem but fair reasoning upon the plainest principles of interpretation, that when the constitution established certain qualifications, as necessary for office, it meant to exclude all others, as prerequisites. From the very nature of such a provision, the affirmation of these qualifications would seem to imply a negative of all others." 1 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 625 (3d ed. 1858) (hereinafter Story). See also Warren 421 ("As the Constitution ... expressly set forth the qualifications of age, citizenship, and residence, and as the Convention refused to grant to Congress power to establish qualifications in general, the maxim expressio unius exclusio alterius would seem to apply").

      Unsurprisingly, the state courts and lower federal courts have similarly concluded that Powell conclusively resolved the issue whether Congress has the power to impose additional qualifications. See, e. g., Joyner v. Mofford, 706 F.2d 1523, 1528 (CA9 1983) ("In Powell ... , the Supreme Court accepted this restrictive view of the Qualifications Clauseat least as applied to Congress"); Michel v. Anderson, 14 F.3d 623 (CADC 1994) (citing Nixon's description of Powell's holding); Stumpf v. Lau, 108 Nev. 826, 830, 839 P. 2d 120, 122 (1992) (citing Powell for the proposition that "[n]ot even Congress has the power to alter qualifications for these constitutional federal officers").13

      Petitioners argue that the Constitution contains no express prohibition against state-added qualifications, and that Amendment 73 is therefore an appropriate exercise of a State's reserved power to place additional restrictions on the choices that its own voters may make. We disagree for two independent reasons. First, we conclude that the power to add qualifications is not within the "original powers" of the States, and thus is not reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment. Second, even if States possessed some original power in this area, we conclude that the Framers intended the Constitution to be the exclusive source of qualifications for Members of Congress, and that the Framers thereby "divested" States of any power to add qualifications.

      --
      Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
    11. Re: It'll never happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Am I thinking ahead of my time?"

      Yes Friend, you are. Way ahead, where real civilization must live.
      There should be a World Order that ensures that no country is suffering their people or the government is not corrupt. It would also determine the minimum of how the social medicine is implemented, how the children are educated, and how justice is served. When us humans are going to be capable of this, we will have become a civilization. Until then...

    12. Re:It'll never happen by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      In other words, it's a collection of right-wing propaganda, because "elite" is not the sole provenance of the Democratic Party. If "They" means Democrats, you're generalizing wildly about a varied group of people. The ones I know do not take their morality from ideology, but tend to take their ideology from their ethical and religious beliefs. There are ideologues in the Democratic party, but there's plenty in the Republican party. Republicans actively discriminate against other classes of people.

      Muslims tend to be religious conservatives, and would be a natural fit for the Republican party, except that the Republicans are against them. They get pushed into being Democrats, which is not their natural leaning, because Democrats accept them.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    13. Re:It'll never happen by WheezyJoe · · Score: 1

      U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995). Argued November 29, 1994; decided May 22, 1995.

      Most excellent cite. Thank you.

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
  12. I doubt they know... by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    and I doubt they even wrote the executive order.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  13. They should be asking Google and Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The feds have nothing on what Facebook and Google have collected.

    Private companies don't have to FOIA requests, can collect all sorts of stuff the feds don't (race, sexual preference, fetishes, diseases, how slutty you are, if you are a drunk or not, etc.)

    Do the work to become a citizen if you feel like you are being targeted as a non-citizen. Go the fuck home if you are an illegal. The raids have already started. They'll get around to you.

  14. Re:Still much more secure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As someone who lives in Western Europe and has been travelling to the USA since 1975 I can safely say that I really have no inclination to want to visit while you current TWIC (Tweeter in Charge) is running the show.
    Sorry guys but my tourist dollar will be going elsewhere for the forseeable future.
    Last year I spent close on $3,000 in the USA. This year, I'm going to Sri Lanka.

  15. Meanwhile, at Trump Tower... by know1 · · Score: 0
    1. Re:Meanwhile, at Trump Tower... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      So, the Constitution isn't something Federal judges are supposed to cite.

      Interesting outlook on the state of the country there.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Meanwhile, at Trump Tower... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Okay, where does it say that? The Constitution says Congress is the authority on these things, and the President can use only authority voted by Congress. I reread Article One (about Congress) and Article Two (about the President) last night, so they're clear in my mind.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  16. Yes, why are nerds interested in data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not as if any slashdotters would have to implement this, or if its effects would have any bearing on their work. I look forward to the day when Slashdot stops posting stories about data, or anything that might affect data.

    1. Re:Yes, why are nerds interested in data? by Sassinak · · Score: 1

      Actually it DOES have an impact on our work.

      Some of them are self-employed (which means a smaller market, and a shifting set of regulations that we can't plan around or who we can even sell to)
      Also with this "political crap" going on.. its going to change who can be employed, which means potentially a lot of new faces (ie: projects will get delayed, or even halted, some projects will be cancelled due to workforce issues.
      And if you think all these "changes" are going to be good for operating expenses, doubtful.

      So yes, if you mean the nuts and bolts of our work, no.. but will have an impact on our jobs and by extension our lives.

      --
      God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board -- Mark Twain Look for http://Thebar.steelbeachca
  17. Context is everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Bannons quote is in regards to restoring the US Constitution and removing the corrupt oligarchy from power. Even in that statement if you concentrate on the "all of today's establishment" it is clear that this is not destroying the Constitution but the Oligarchs and corrupt cronies they place in positions of power.

    Stop cherry picking for "fake news". Bannon has a long history of speeches going back well over a decade on Youtube and if you listen or read speeches you will see that corruption and a "political class" is the issue.

    The communists in this country have become very good at creating false narratives, and people have become so moronic that they simply follow the rhetoric without checking anything at all. Hence, wanting to protect the border results in a Candidate and President being labeled "anti-Hispanic", "Islamophobic", "xenophobic", anti-Semitic, and any other label that the morons will latch on to and repeat.

    Bannon wanting to get rid of the corruption means "destroy the entire planet" to useful idiots who need to start draining the water from their heads and think for themselves for a change. You are disgusting.

    1. Re:Context is everything by cryptizard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sure he's going to get right on that mission of removing the political class from power now that he is part of it. Literally lol.

    2. Re:Context is everything by mjwx · · Score: 1

      I'm sure he's going to get right on that mission of removing the political class from power now that he is part of it. Literally lol.

      Which you begin by limiting who can oppose you.

      Which is exactly what they are trying to do by labelling any media outlet that disagrees with them as fake news. Eliminate the freedom of the press then control information. Once you do that, you can limit who becomes part of the ruling party. Sounds like its straight out of a story thats on sale for $19.84.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    3. Re:Context is everything by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Let's not forget maligning the judicial branch of government and calling them illegitimate.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  18. no "changes to the Privacy Act" by ooloorie · · Score: 2

    Trump didn't make any "changes to the privacy act", nor could he if he wanted to.

    What they are saying is clear from these paragraphs:

    about the executive order that President Trump issues two weeks ago that excludes from privacy protections people who aren’t U.S. citizens or permanent residents.

    So, citizens and immigrants are excluded.

    Next:

    “These Privacy Act exclusions could have a devastating impact on immigrant communities [=people illegally present in the US], and would be inconsistent with the commitments made when the government collected much of this information,” the senators say

    I.e., the Obama administration made promises to people illegally present in the US that are not backed by law. And the Trump administration is saying that it does not intend to keep those promises, for the simple reason that they are planning on using information collected from illegals in order to prioritize and deport them.

    “This should be considered by Europeans a slap in the face for the Privacy Shield agreement that we entered into last year. This creates a new challenge,” Amie Stepanovich,U.S. policy manager at Access Now, said when the order was announced.

    That's a red herring; Privacy Shield is backed by law and an entirely separate issue. Trump isn't trying to go after EU citizens who have shared their information with Google or Microsoft, he is trying to go after people illegally present in the US. If Trump wanted to exclude EU citizens from privacy protections or even visa free travel, he could do that easily, but this EO doesn't do it. In fact, generally speaking, the Trump administration wants more immigration from democratic Western nations and less immigration from other parts of the world, so Europe is pretty much the last place on earth they want to make it hard to immigrate or travel from.

    In the letter, the lawmakers ask Kelly whether people...

    It's, of course, perfectly legitimate for senators to ask questions of the current administration. But let's not kid ourselves, this inquiry is political posturing, not a serious attempt at clarification, from senators that have little political power left; they are looking for ammunition against Trump. It will be interesting to see how Trump responds. I suspect, as he has done before, Trump will manage to turn these senators into unwitting allies in spreading his message.

    1. Re: no "changes to the Privacy Act" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Permanent residents is a subcategory of legal immigrants. Legal immigrants include people who were not originally from the IS but have applied for and received citizenship, permanent reaidents who retain citizenship of their country of origin but live permanently in the US, and sometimes people who are living in the us on a legal and valid visa. Equating all non-permanent resident immigrants with persons who entered the country legally is intellectually dishonest. Stop it.

    2. Re: no "changes to the Privacy Act" by mmell · · Score: 1

      The solution is obvious - make all the US look like Gitmo.

    3. Re: no "changes to the Privacy Act" by ooloorie · · Score: 2

      The solution is obvious - make all the US look like Gitmo.

      No, the solution is obvious: deport people illegally present in our country. You know, just like other civilized countries do.

    4. Re:no "changes to the Privacy Act" by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Immigrant communities does not mean illegal immigrant communities, and Obama devoted a lot of resources to deporting illegal immigrants. If you read the Fourth Amendment, it doesn't mention "citizens", although other parts of the Constitution do. It applies to people in general. If this refers to laws that are in conformance with the Fourth, the question is what the laws say, because in this sort of thing the authority of the President is that conferred on the office by Congress. I'm not a lawyer, personally, so I'll leave it to the legal system.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    5. Re:no "changes to the Privacy Act" by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Immigrant communities does not mean illegal immigrant communities,

      Precisely, but the EO only applies to illegal aliens within the US, yet Markey and Wyden misrepresent it as if it applied to "immigrants", and then they misrepresented it again as if it applied to Europeans. These senators are a bunch of dishonest pricks.

      I'm not a lawyer, personally, so I'll leave it to the legal system.

      We're not talking about the legality of the EO here, we're talking about the fact that Markey and Wyden are misrepresenting what the EO actually says.

    6. Re:no "changes to the Privacy Act" by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Precisely, but the EO only applies to illegal aliens within the US,

      That's not what you said in GGP: "that excludes from privacy protections people who aren’t U.S. citizens or permanent residents". There are people legally in the US who are not citizens or permanent residents, so any actual visa holders would appear to be excluded.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    7. Re:no "changes to the Privacy Act" by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Markey/Wyden: "These Privacy Act exclusions could have a devastating impact on immigrant communities"

      Me: No, it only applies to illegal immigrants/aliens.

      That is, my comment was within the context of Markey/Wyden's lies.

      The privacy situation for non-immigrant visa holders is a separate issue; it's an issue Markey and Wyden didn't comment on at all.

  19. Flynn's role by unixisc · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Flynn was named the National Security Advisor in the transition team, so meeting w/ envoys of other countries to discuss the agenda would have been part of his job description. In other words, him meeting the envoy of one of the world's 2 other superpowers would have been pretty high on his list.

    The OP's post is just a carryover of Democrat bitterness over losing the elections, and trying to illegitimize the role of Wikileaks here by tying it to Russia. Even though Assange has stated that Russia was not the source of his leaks. In fact, unlike in the physical world where only national spy agencies might have certain capabilities, in the cyber world, anybody can hack email systems. Particularly ones protected by passwords that are 'password'

    1. Re:Flynn's role by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      trying to illegitimize the role of Wikileaks here by tying it to Russia. Even though Assange has stated that Russia was not the source of his leaks.

      Allow me to borrow the broken record of many a Putinbot on Clinton re: DNC leaks, Assange has done a mighty fine job of "illegitimizing" Wikileaks all on his own.

      I used to be on the fence about Assange, and prior to that even a WikiLeaks fan, but we've observed the decline of an ideological actor pressured by forces well above and beyond his control. I sympathize with him as a human being, but I no longer believe Assange is in a position to practice what he preaches. He sings the song he is told to sing because Mr. Assange and more specifically a functionally headless WikiLeaks represents a kind of backdoor method to installing a Ministry of Truth.

      The subterfuge of America thrives on cult figures like this and the quasi-religious belief people place in their authenticity/underdog narrative. You put that on a leash and you're, er, golden.

    2. Re:Flynn's role by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      Can we assume a search/replace of 'Assange' in place of 'Nader' is all you had to perform to recycle the above content from your position in 2001?

      It's painful watching the 'progressives' eat their own, and over the failure of a candidate at best termed 'moderate' in a presidential election.

    3. Re:Flynn's role by JoshuaZ · · Score: 3, Informative

      So, normally such meetings start *later*. Moreover, your argument is hard to reconcile with Flynn explicitly denying that he made the phone calls.

    4. Re:Flynn's role by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, normally every president waits until he's sworn in before he starts doing anything. Since Trump started preparing for things in advance, the people he hired started work as well, w/o necessarily running a parallel policy. Flynn originally denied that he discussed the lifting of sanctions, and later changed that to 'he didn't recall whether that came up'. Worst case scenario - even if he did, nothing unlawful or even unethical about it: it's this administrations prerogative to change the policy towards Russia, just like it was Obama's prerogative to change the policy towards Israel

    5. Re:Flynn's role by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      No, that's not applicable to Nader. Nader stayed reasonably true to his beliefs, and acted accordingly. I disagree with some of those beliefs, but then I disagree with pretty much everyone over something or other. I believe he did a lot of harm, but that's due to how voting is done in the US, including the obsolete Electoral College, and not his fault.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    6. Re:Flynn's role by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      Nader stuck to his principles and opposed who he saw as a candidate who was really no better or worse than the Republican opponent.

      Assange stuck to his principles and opposed who he saw as an candidate who was really no better or worse than the Republican opponent.

      It's so disappointing that the 'Third Way' moderates took over and have now essentially destroyed the traditional Democratic party.

      The traditional Left should jettison the modern Democratic party. Bernie could be a part of that but he's very old and something fresh is needed.

  20. Re:Still much more secure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean Republicans?

  21. Re:Still much more secure by thsths · · Score: 2

    Nice try, anonymous troll. By most measures, Europe is a much safer place than the US. You are unlikely for example to be shot for honking at someone cutting in front of you. You are also safe from civil forfeiture. And you have the right to criticise the president - any president.

    But as the OP said, civil liberties are not appreciated anymore.

  22. Re:Still much more secure by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Interesting you should say this. One of my friends and his family was planning to visit the UK last fall, but after a stabbing jihad attack in London, he canned that plan and went to the Canadian Rockies instead.

    Most of the posters on /., as well as members of 'The Resistance' are pissed that people from countries like Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Syria are being stopped from coming to the US. They should put their money where their mouth is and go to one of these countries on vacation, instead of talking places like Sri Lanka or New Zealand or other such places

  23. Progressive Cockroaches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have infested Slashdot moderation system. If it's not far left it gets down modded. Slashdot needs to get the sockpuppets out of the system, normal people don't like to hang out in sewers.

  24. Senators should do more... by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    ...than just question that part of the EO. Senators should stop waving clearly unqualified and utterly inept chronic liars through into cabinet positions. Are the Republican Senators so afraid of orange Trump that they just fold like a cheap tent? What do I expect from folks who for a year outright refused to do their job!?

  25. Re:Feeble corrupt democrats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah yes, in the face of all this fake news the truth is now troll/flamebait. Now we are showing the root of the problem. And the democrats are considerably worse than the republicans on this. They are angry and violent. So... down we go then, eh? You are getting the fascism you want. You really should stop complaining.

  26. So we shouldn't be too concerned about privacy? by mmell · · Score: 2

    I agree with the current administration that privacy is counter to keeping us safe and making America great again. Let's start with this document.

  27. Re:Still much more secure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sri Lanka? Oh yeah! No corruption there! Big improvement over the U.S. And the place is so spotless!

    Or maybe Poe's law applies there...

  28. You're citing a fugitive from international justic by mmell · · Score: 1
  29. Re: Still much more secure by mmell · · Score: 1

    Why would you be friends with anybody who would even consider leaving the USA for any reason, even just to have fun spending their great American dollars in some foreign land. Now that Trump (nee: Drumpf) is in charge, American inner-cities will be safe again and certainly far more interesting than any foreign terrorist breeding ground like the UK - and their money will stay right here in the good old U S of A where it can help make America great again!

  30. Open primaries by Immerman · · Score: 1

    Another option - open primaries. Instead of having separate R and D primaries, have one open primary that all candidates take part in, with the top two going on to the actual election.

    That has a fair chance of breaking the lock-in in highly partisan races, since you may well end up with two R or two D candidates going into the election. At which point you've got the whole electorate voting for whichever candidate they think is best, rather than just voting the party line.

    Of course you may well get a bunch of disheartened "minority party" voters who don't bother to vote at all, but in a heavily partisan state you probably have that anyway. And at least with two "Evil party" members on the ballot you can vote for the lesser evil.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    1. Re:Open primaries by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      First that's already a state by state issue. Your state may not have them, others certainly do.

      Second it winds up just being an opportunity for voters in opposing parties to game the system. Many people think that Trump getting the nomination was due to Hillary's lock on the Democratic nomination providing opportunity for Democrats to vote for who they thought would be the worst Republican candidate.

    2. Re:Open primaries by kevmeister · · Score: 1
      California has open primaries and they generally seem to be working.

      The result has been the election of more moderate and FAR more independent candidates. The are more moderate because the main-line party candidate (both parties) tend toward the extremes of their parties. More independent because the parties have poured vast resources into the main-line candidates and the moderates don't feel at all beholden to them, even though they generally host similar positions on most issues.

      --
      Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired
    3. Re:Open primaries by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Indeed, some states do. I don't see how it offers a comparable chance to "game the system" though. I mean if the "good party" is strongly enough dominant that they're likely to fill both spots on the ballot, then generally speaking you're unlikely to try to get an "evil party" candidate onto the final ballot just to improve your preferred "good party" candidate's chances. Doing so lowers the chance of your preferred candidate making the cut, as well as putting an "evil party" candidate one unlikely election away from power.

      Similarly, if there's very likely to be two "evil party" candidates on the final ballot, then it's in your best interest to vote for the least-evil "evil party" candidate in both the primary and final election. That's not gaming the system, that's participating in democracy rather than being completely locked out by partisan politics.

      I'd love to hear a good counterargument, but even more significant than the gameability of the system is that it engages the minority-party population in the process far more effectively.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    4. Re:Open primaries by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      It isn't a question of good or bad, it's more unified vs less unified. To a certain extent primaries are meant to be internal party events to build unity within the party. With open primaries whichever party unifies quickest can disrupt the other party.

    5. Re:Open primaries by Immerman · · Score: 1

      >disrupt the other party.

      How so?

      Assuming a relatively evenly split electorate you'd have to unify pretty radically to be able to claim both spots on the ballot - after all it doesn't actually matter how much support the favored candidate of one party gets in the primary, it's the second-favorite candidate that the opposition is racing against - and they can't possibly get more than 25% of the vote unless they're attracting a lot of votes from across the aisle. So, as long as both parties can consolidate behind one candidate getting better that half their party's vote by the day of primaries they're guaranteed a place on the ballot.

      Granted, that may be an issue if one party has a broad field of candidates and the other has only two, but how common is that, really?

      Of course we could improve things even more dramatically if the primary was an instant runnoff election - then you'd pretty much be guaranteed that the two candidates going into the election proper were the two with the broadest overall appeal.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    6. Re:Open primaries by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Granted, that may be an issue if one party has a broad field of candidates and the other has only two, but how common is that, really?

      2016 ?

      It isn't even a function so much of the initial state as the rate of convergence. For the sake of argument lets say party A and B both start with 8 candidates but by the time New Hampshire is done party A has one clear front runner and someone left obviously playing for the VP spot. If party B still has 5 or more viable candidates it's a winning strategy for party A to have people tilt Party B towards weaker candidates and less unity.

  31. Re:Still much more secure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The same is true about visiting europe. Nothing about constant terrror attacks from refugee that roam the street and are not properly vetted. LOVE PARIS. Was there last summer and it was out and out SCARY with all the refugess sleeping on street corners and trying to rob you

  32. Re:Still much more secure by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

    How can you possibly say that.? In Europe, you can't carry your 14 round Glock pistol or your M-16 derived 'hunting rifle' into the grocery store. You never know what lurks behind the shelves.

    You're never safe over there.

    Never.

    USA! USA!

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  33. Re: There will be no privacy under the ruling part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wrong on two counts. Obama never implemented an outright ban, just what you'd call "extreme vetting", (certainly green card holders were never included) and the list of countries matches those with majority Muslim populations, rather than those ISIL operate in (there is some truth that they were identified by the Obama administration, though). If Trump were serious about blocking terrorists from coming into the US (which is impossible) then at least Nigeria should have been included, and a non outright ban to not alienate allies like Iraq would have been the sane approach. Trump has just managed to come across as overbearing and stupid, basically.

  34. Enjoy your trip. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Last year I spent close on $3,000 in the USA. This year, I'm going to Sri Lanka.

    Enjoy your trip.

    Meanwhile, Trump will just have ICE deport three more illegal immigrant households, more than making up for the money you might have spent (even if you'd been giving it straight to the US taxpayers, rather than mostly to the megacorps that exploit them.)

    --
    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:Enjoy your trip. by Sassinak · · Score: 1

      If you really believe that, then you have no idea how the economy works.

      1: It COSTS money to round up those illegal immigrants. So your taxes will go up in some ways. (data point: http://www.newsweek.com/how-mu...)

      2: Those illegal immigrants most of who are working and actually contributing to society. (in the form of taxes and general purchasing) they may be illegal but they are give far more than they take). - (data point: http://www.politifact.com/pund...)

      3: The places that employed them were doing so not out of the goodness of their heart, but cheap labour, which means they will now have to pay standard wages.. which means, costs where they were working will go up, which WILL be passed on to you the consumer. (ie: Post Tax money from you)

      4: A tourist, in general, is a net positive gain for a country, ie: someone that spends money, but consumes so little in services that they are net positive for a country (its a reason why lots of countries with little industry go to tourism, as its a vehicle for revenue and requires relatively little investment.

      So 3000 per year for one family may not sound like a lot, but lets assume most spend half that, and in 2015 there were 38 Million visitors to the US.. (so lets quarter that for families (figuring a typical house of 4) or about 9.5 million families visit. Now lets assume about half of them are business travelers (and many companies are looking to stop sending bodies to the US and go virtual) so we have 4.75 tourist families.. now lets assume half them are skipping the US (which most I know are.. I know personally the CEOs the top travel agencies in the Europe (western) and Asia (east) and they are have noticed that since Trump's election, over 20% of the reservations they had for families that were coming to the US have cancelled or changed their plans to other places). We have no stats on personally booked travel and other travel agencies, but if their numbers are similar, then a 50% reduction is not far off, which puts us at about 2.35 Million familes that won't visit. Which means a reduction of 3,562,500,000 dollars (3.5 Trillion dollars) annually gone from businesses (some of which depend on tourists), which means those businesses will reduce staff (ie: more people looking for work).

      Add that to the other things going on...

      Well, its not good.

      --
      God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board -- Mark Twain Look for http://Thebar.steelbeachca
    2. Re:Enjoy your trip. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Wall to Mexico is estimated $ 21.5 billion once. Merkel's refugee politics costs 22 billion annually.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  35. Re:You're citing a fugitive from international jus by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Was this that great document that got splashed on Buzzfeed and cited on CNN, thereby earning the latter Trump's permanent stamp of 'Fake News' and crashing their reputation among all but the most loony on the Left such as you?

  36. Re:Still much more secure by Sassinak · · Score: 1

    This is the difference of issues..

    Some people cancel travel over a specific/isolated crime event (something that can happen literally anywhere).. VS.. a government actively turning into a 3rd world dictatorship + isolated crime event (like the above) + the general attitude of the local populous.

    Yes, events do happen, but systemic issues + government turning into an oppressive regime = no tourists. (I know personally about 40 Chinese and Indian investors that are cancelling trips (and when I say investors, I mean people that can blow 50K USD on a night of fun without blinking an eye and buy million dollar homes like most by sandwiches) because of how the US is turning.. I myself (no where near their level of wealth but we do ok) am packing my family and heading out to Taiwan and England.. (we are moving our businesses out of the US and into Canada.. it will take a year or so to complete, but once we saw who was running, we knew back in June, it was not going to end well).

    --
    God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board -- Mark Twain Look for http://Thebar.steelbeachca
  37. How this will work by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    The privacy act offers a level of protection in the USA for citizens, legal non citizens in the USA from intrusive gov searches over vast shared gov databases.
    The US State department officials will keep on allowing refugees, students, workers, random people into the USA from nations that are on watch lists.
    So the travel aspect of getting valid US paperwork cant be changed thanks to massive amount of travel paperwork still been issued by US bureaucrats.
    The good news is people entering the US on such paperwork then face border control. Congress has passed a lot of real legal power for border control.
    Over the past decades the usable legal powers at the US border have been added to by Congress.
    Lying on entry to the USA does not get a lot of court protection. Found to be lying in the USA still gets court access, protections to try and halt any gov action.
    So any Sate department issues paperwork is valid but ability to question at any crossing point into the US still works very well.
    Entering any nation is not a right, that granted privilege can be revoked as more facts are discovered during a normal interview.
    Once a non citizen is in the USA legally some protection exist. At that crossing point, Congress has been very clear in what can be done to protect the USA from nations that support, fund and hide interesting people, cults, faiths, groups, political parties.

    If you are entering/renetering the US every US public, mil, gov, public/private partnership, private, city, state, court, police, federal, social media database should be used during an interview.
    Why should anyone get international legal cover, bluff, hide, omit, charm, forge or fake their way into the USA by lying to a United States official?
    Just having EU citizenship is not some legal magic diplomatic immunity when entering the USA.
    Given the ever changing ability to get EU citizenship by walking in from any random nation, it would be very difficult for the US to evaluate any interesting person "given" any EU passport.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  38. Re:Even life long people quit your party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep drinking the GOP kool-aid my friend. You're their favorite type.

  39. Re:Still much more secure by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

    Good! Stay gone! America doesn't need fair-weather friends who will drop us the minute we elect a politician they don't like.

    Americans are tired of wasting money on the likes of NATO, bases in Germany, etc. A complete waste of money that we canâ(TM)t afford, and which serves no purpose. If Russia wants to annex the Ukraine I donâ(TM)t care at all, not even a tiny bit.

    The EU also has massive, massive problems, unelected, unresponsive bureaucrats who view their jobs as an all expense paid vacation, flooding the continent with third world migrants, etc.

    European welfare state model is also probably unsustainable, particularly w/o the hapless US taxpayers funding their defense.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  40. Re:You're citing a fugitive from international jus by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Maybe it is fake, but Trump's stamp of 'Fake News' means nothing because he applied it to photos of the crowd at his inauguration.
    We'll need someone other than Trump to call it fake to be sure.

  41. Intelligence Collection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is newsworthy and relevant to nerds because the Privacy Act stops intelligence agencies from targeting non-citizen permanent residents.

    This is huge. Non-citizen permanent residents should be very cautious about what they do on computers and phones from now on.

  42. Don't Agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Term limits only ensure that you replace a Republican with another Republican, or a Democrat with another Democrat.

    No, the real solution (IMO) is to attack gerrymandering. Make the districts unsafe for any party! Safe districts are a pox on democracy. Get some control on gerrymandering and you start to break down the walls of the echo chamber.

  43. Privacy Act Exclusions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1). Congress;
    2). The Senate;
    3). The President.

    That is all!

  44. Re:Still much more secure by david_thornley · · Score: 2

    One single incident doesn't affect crime statistics much. Europe with Muslim violence can still be safer than the US. Humans are poor at judging such dangers, and it's getting worse.

    There's reasons why I don't want to visit Iraq, and some of those reasons are why we're getting lots of refugees from there, and why it's important to have a compassionate policy towards refugees (which doesn't preclude the sort of rigorous vetting the US does).

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  45. Re:Still much more secure by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    You know what we really can't afford? Our health care system. If we switched to one that was as expensive as the second most expensive system on the planet, we'd save nearly a trillion a year. That would more than cover NATO activities and much more besides. Let's look at the really big expenses first.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  46. Re:Even life long people quit your party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fucking apt AF response. *slow clap*

  47. UPDATE: Flynn Resigns As Ntn'l Security Advisor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Michael Flynn Resigns As Trump's National Security Adviser
    Posted on /. Tuesday February 14, 2017 @12:10AM
    https://news.slashdot.org/story/17/02/14/057208/michael-flynn-resigns-as-trumps-national-security-adviser

  48. Re: There will be no privacy under the ruling part by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    Trump hasn't banned anyone either, they were just vetted with more attention

    and plenty of "majority muslim" countries *aren't* on the list, in fact most of them aren't on the list. phrase is just a attention whoring device