The White House’s strategy of stonewalling the flagging operation becomes more difficult by the day. Here is yesterday’s exchange between Major Garrett and Robert Gibbs. Major Garrett was contacted by numerous people confounded as to how in the world they received an unsolicited email communication from the White House. It is unclear whether all of the complaints came from people who flagged themselves or were flagged by others using the flag@whitehouse.gov email. I love watching Robert Gibbs squirm whenever this issue is raised. It is quickly becoming one of my favorite pastimes. His reference to Organizing for America and Obama for America having nothing to do with the White House is completely unrelated to the question Major Garrett is asking. An indication of panic on the part of Gibbs?

Like many of my readers, I flagged myself – multiple times. It now appears the White House is not only collecting this data and is forced by the Presidential Records Act to keep this information, but they are also using the same information gathered by these emails to create an additional database or multiple databases which are subsequently used for list building – the process of collecting emails for marketing, advertising, or information sharing. As someone who does internet marketing on the side, there is a right way to collect peoples emails and a wrong way to do it. Collecting solicited emails – good. Collecting unsolicited emails – bad.

It is interesting to note this unintended consequence of the flag yourself campaign. White House staff, including lawyers now seem completely clueless. Unaware of the backlash created by spying on citizens, they never guessed the flag program would lead to evidence that emails are being collected and used to create additional databases for White House communications; communications that were never solicited in the first place. Lucy, you gotta lota of splainin’ to do.

Here is a partial screenshot of the email I forwarded to another account and that I received, unsolicited, from the White House. Just click on the thumbnail to see the full image.

Note the senders address (info@messages.whitehouse.gov). Hmmm, sounds like the White House to me.

I would recommend to anyone who receives an unsolicited email from the White House to save that email. Note how my email is from whitehouse.gov, and nothing to do with Organizing for America or Obama for America which, thanks to Gibbs own admission, are unrelated to the White House. Shout out to Mr. Gibbs for helping make our case for us – your assistance is greatly appreciated.

Related: Obama Could Be In Trouble: ACLJ Legal Analysis of White House Flag Program

In other news and opinion:

How to kill ObamaCare and get real reform.

Michelle Malkin’s culture of corruption a hate crime? I read it, and if telling the truth equates to a hate crime, then I agree, it’s a hate crime.

Green Czar vs. Glenn Beck; Britain vs. Michael Savage.

The Etiquette Czar’s Rules for Patriotic Protest

Democrats Having Trouble Getting Cap & Trade Passed Because of Democrats. Good news here, now if we can just kill that health care bill.

Is Palin getting ready to tweet again?

Is the White House losing urban Democrats on health care reform?

Lies, lies, and more lies. The White House seems determined to draw itself into litigation. How stupid can these people be?

White House continues spy campaign: White House Launches Health Tattle-Tale Site on another .gov website. The site is here.

I describe in a previous post how the older now defunct White House flag site violates .Gov domain guidelines as outlined here.

What is interesting is that I am unable to use Firefox’s built in capabilities to look at the White House source code to discern what email address is being used in the section “Contact Us”. I find this a bit fishy. Perhaps someone with more computer acumen than I can figure this one out. I still think it good strategy to inundate the new website’s email address by using the contact form. Millions of emails equates to letting our voices be heard.

Amazing how many lies these people will attempt to propagate in a vain attempt to spread the meme of “ObamaCare” is good for you. Melt the phone (202-501-0282) and send those emails to Lee Ellis (lee.ellis@gsa.gov), policy administrator of the GSA Federal Acquisition Service (GSA FAS) which assign .Gov domains and creates the guidelines for the use of .Gov domains. Be courteous.

Most interesting is the following statement on the main page of the new site:

Links to Facebook, Twitter, and “More Ways to Share,” point to third-party sites that are not on the White House server.

Assume for a moment the White House is not in violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, but is in violation of .gov guidelines which do not allow the use of a government second level domain to be used for political or campaign purposes. In my talks with Lee Ellis, I was informed that two actions that could be taken against whitehouse.gov website of which Macon Philips is the Chief Information Officer (macon@who.eop.gov). A request to take down the website or put a disclaimer on the site stating the page violates the .gov guidelines. Still nothing has occurred to date on the new site, and the old site is now down, whether at the request of the GSA FAS or their own volition unclear at this time.

I must admit I am disappointed in the lack of action on the part of the GSA FAS concerning the new site. The “Reality Check” site, although pointing to a non .gov location, would still be in violation of the guidelines by the very act of providing a link to a site dedicated to campaigning for ObamaCare.

Even with the closure of the old site, I believe the White House is open up to litigation as pointed out in this Fox News story:

But Napolitano said the White House probably cannot be sued because of sovereign immunity, unless someone was harmed by what the government did with the records. But that’s unlikely, he said, because the person would probably be unaware of the harm.

“That’s a silent violation of your right to privacy,” he said.

Any emails collected by the White House must be maintained via the Presidential Records Act (PRA), which requires the White House to preserve and maintain its records for permanent storage in a government database as reported here.

I still think there is a case for Privacy Act violation by the White House or First Amendment encroachments. I believe these should be pursued with the utmost passion. It looks like the American Center for Law & Justice is doing just that.

New ACLJ petition here. Check out the ACLJ Legal brief here.

Remember, people have died for our freedoms. It is imperative that nobody fear the government, for a life lived in fear is a life not worth living. Protect your rights and freedoms. Obama and his propagandists be damned. Its your life, your future, and the future of your children. The time for sitting down and taking it on the chin are over. Let the battle for the hearts and minds of America be joined.

Contact the RNC – melt the phones (202.863.8500). Ensure they intend on using national television to expose Obama’s overt violation of the privacy of U.S. citizens.

Such a blatant violation of the First Amendment could very take down the Obama presidency. Talk about Waterloo.

Is there a Woodward and Bernstein team ready to take this on? Pulitzer Prize anyone?

In other news and opinion:

White House: You’re not un-American, but you are still corporate shills so just pipe down

Be careful: DOT inspector general challenges O’s stimulus spending.

Overflow crowd at Maryland town hall.

Specter faces angry crowd at town hall meeting

Internet Snitch Brigade disabled, but…Updated. Michelle is starting to cover the new site. To date, there has been no major player covering the violation of .gov guidelines (rules for thee but not for me?).

Power Line and Byron York are reporting the Office of the President is not subject to the Privacy Act. Some readers disagree, but if they are right, it gets even better. From Byron York: Obama’s dissident database could be secret — and permanent:

In a letter to Obama Tuesday, Republican Sen. John Cornyn wrote that, given Phillips’ request, “it is inevitable that the names, email address, IP addresses, and private speech of U.S. citizens will be reported to the White House.” Cornyn warned the president that “these actions taken by your White House staff raise the specter of a data collection program.”

“I can only imagine the level of justifiable outrage had your predecessor asked Americans to forward emails critical of his policies to the White House,” Cornyn continued. “I urge you to cease this program immediately.”

Senate Judiciary Committee lawyers studying the proposal say that although there is no absolutely settled law on the matter, the White House plan is likely not covered by the Privacy Act, which prohibits government agencies from keeping any records “describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained.” Therefore, it appears the White House can legally keep records of the emails and other communications it receives in response to Phillips’ request.

Those lawyers also point out that the White House is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act, which means it would not have to release any information on the plan to members of the public who make a request.

In addition, the lawyers say the collected emails likely will be covered by the Presidential Records Act, which requires the White House to preserve and maintain its records for permanent storage in a government database. …

if “fishy” information is indeed collected, as Phillips’ request suggested, the laws involved mean that the information obtained by the White House could not only be secret but permanent. A dissident database, in whatever precise form it ultimately takes, could be around for a long time to come.

The American Center for Law and Justice is monitoring the case. Hopefully, I will hear something from them today:

A very troubling development in Washington – a new attack on the free speech of Americans from the Obama Administration.

Yesterday, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) wrote to President Obama expressing his concerns about a recent post on the White House blog written by Macon Phillips, the White House Director of New Media.

In his post, Phillips notes “[t]here is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there” both on the web and floating around in chain emails. Phillips states that “[s]ince we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”

In a nutshell, the White House is asking you to report on your neighbors, family, and friends who disagree with the President’s policy choices on health care. The White House is also implying that you should think twice before sending an email disagreeing with the President, since it might end up being forwarded to them. The White House email address says it all – let’s “flag” those who disagree with us. For what purpose are these individuals being flagged?

In his letter, Senator Cornyn rightly seeks assurances from President Obama that this new reporting program will be “carried out in a manner consistent with the First Amendment and America’s tradition of free speech and public discourse.” He poses several questions, including, “[h]ow do you intend to use the names, email addresses, IP addresses, and identities of citizens who are reported to have engaged in ‘fishy’ speech” and “[w]hat action do you intend to take against citizens who have been reported for engaging in ‘fishy’ speech.”

The First Amendment states, in part, that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” Our Founding Fathers fought and died for the right to speak openly and freely about the government.

__________
Original Post:

It’s a curious question. Here is what I have found so far (emphasis mine):

The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C.A. 552a) is a federal law that places restrictions on the federal government’s collection, use, and dissemination of personal information. As with most comprehensive federal statutes, the act provides general and specific exemptions as well as an administrative appeals process.

The genesis of the Privacy Act can be traced back to 1965, when a congressional subcommittee examined privacy issues. Between 1965 and 1974, other congressional committees held hearings and issued reports on how individual privacy rights were affected by the growth of national data banks and the emergence of electronic data collection and storage. An important catalyst for the legislation was a Department of Health, Education, and Welfare report on government records and computers. The report proposed a “Code of Fair Information Practices” to be followed by all federal agencies and urged the adoption of five core principles: (1) the government should not maintain any secret records; (2) individuals must be able to see what personal information about them is stored and how it is used; (3) individuals must provide prior written consent before personal information collected for one purpose can be used for a different purpose; (4) individuals must be allowed to fix or clarify personal information about them; and (5) organizations that store or use personal data must be responsible for the information’s veracity and must attempt to prevent its misuse.

Congress incorporated these principles into the Privacy Act, which applies to the EXECUTIVE BRANCH of the federal government. The executive branch encompasses administrative agencies, government corporations, and government-controlled corporations. The act does not apply to records kept by state and local governments or by private companies or organizations. Only U.S. citizens and lawfully admitted ALIENS are given rights under the act. Accordingly, nonresident foreign nationals may not invoke the provisions of the act.

Generally, the only materials that are subject to the act are those that are maintained in a system of records. The act defines “records” to include most personal information kept by an agency about an individual. A record contains individually identifiable information, such as data on a person’s education, medical history, criminal history, employment history, or financial transactions. A “system of records” is a group of records from which information can be retrieved by name, SOCIAL SECURITY number, or any other identifying symbol linked to an individual. Most personal information that is kept in federal government files is subject to the Privacy Act. Therefore, the government may not, for example, share medical-history information from a MEDICARE recipient with another government agency without first obtaining the individual’s written consent.

It is unclear to me whether, with regards to the Privacy Act, the Executive Branch includes the Office of the President as exempt. This link implies the answer is the Act does not apply to the Office of the President, but it is clear the statements are only an opinion:

The Privacy Act does not apply to the White House Office, which is also known as the Office of the President.

September 8, 2000

STATEMENT BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY
AND HUMAN RESOURCES
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to be here today to testify regarding the Department’s longstanding position that the Privacy Act of 1974 (“Privacy Act”), 5 U.S.C. § 552a (1994 & Supp. IV 1998), does not apply to the White House Office…

However, the site in question which asks for private information of U.S. citizens who, as the author states, promote “disinformation” regarding health care reform, is a whitehouse.gov site. The author is one Macon Phillips. In which office is Mr. Phillips employed? Assume for a moment the President of the United States authorized such a gathering of information and the holder of that office is exempt from the Privacy Act. If ultimately an agency of the Executive Branch is involved, is seems likely that agency would be in violation of the referenced Privacy Act. Is the Health Czar involved? Is the Health Czar a member of the Office of the President? I’m not even sure what a Health Czar is. As Michelle Malkin points out, there are over 43 (or is it 44 – I lost count) czars in the White House. Which branch of government has oversight of these czars? To whom are they accountable? What about the White House Health Reform Office? Is the later to be equated with the Office of the President?

I am not a lawyer, nor am I a constitutional scholar, but something does seem a bit fishy here. Putting aside the sheer audacity of this data collection, I am left wondering if somebody, somewhere is not in violation of the Privacy Act. I am also left wondering if the POTUS himself is not in violation. Remember, the above statement that he is not is only an opinion. And we all know that famous statement about opinions.

Food for thought.

For additional background see here, here, and here.

Also:

Cornyn Attacks Obama Scheme To “Flag” Dissenters.

Quinnipiac poll: 39% of Americans need to inform on 52%

Obey-mian Representative Democracy