Obama's Tech Policies

Larry Lessig - Obama's Tech Advisor




Follow up to the posts, “Fourth Amendment/Cash for Clunkers Program” and” Cash for Clunkers – A Gov’t Worm Hole”: Why we should be suspicious of the government disclaimer that any computer logged on to the Cash for Clunkers Program web site becomes the property of the Federal Government and they take all rights to anything on the citizens’/car dealers’ computers.

On April 27, 2008, Marbie’s Blog wrote about Larry Lessig, an Obama friend, colleague and Obama’s technology expert/advisor during his presidential campaign. See the original post below.

Today, the referrenced web sites have been cleansed of everything controversial, but I personally saw what I wrote about on April 27, 2008. Larry Lessig would not be a Christian’s choice, and Obama claims to be a Christian, and the film maker, Javier Prato, was a self-proclaimed Marxist with Che Guevera faces all over his web site. All gone today. His current web site describes Prato as a digital guerilla.

Bottom line for today’s post is that there is reason to be suspicious of the Obama administration’s intentions and possible actions when citizens log on to government computers for any reason, especially in light of the disclaimer posted on the Cash for Clunkers program.

Glenn Beck, after reporting about the government disclaimer last week, has checked today and the disclaimer has changed to a much less threatening blurb, probably as a direct result of flack from citizen’s who heard Beck’s program. But does this action ensure our Fourth Amendment Rights will be protected now? It’s not clear, since Obama is over-riding previous bans on government computers using tracking cookies to store information about citizens and companies.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9136001/Use_of_tracking_cookies_on_government_sites_sparks_privacy_concern

“Computerworld – Privacy advocates are raising questions about a proposal to revamp the use of tracking cookies on federal government Web sites.

Under the proposal, U.S. government agencies would be allowed to use single-session and multi-session cookies, including persistent cookies, to track users — as long as security and privacy standards governing the collection and use of tracking information are met. The agencies would have to post clear notice of data collection and allow users to opt-out.”

“If the plan is adopted, it would mark a departure from a policy first put in place in 2000 and updated in 2003that prohibits government sites from using persistent cookies “or any other means” such as Web beacons to track visitor activity, unless agency heads authorize their use. When tracking cookies are used, agencies must conspicuously post the reasons for collecting information, spell out the sort of data collected and detail privacy safeguards.

Privacy advocates have for some time maintained that such restrictions protect site visitors from being tracked and profiled. They have argued that users should reasonably expect privacy when visiting a government site and that any attempt to dilute the protections is ill-advised. Those concerns have grown in recent months, with many worried that the Obama Administration’s espousal of Web 2.0 technologies and social networking tools will affect long-held privacy protections.

Soon after Obama took office, for instance, privacy advocates were up in arms over a White House policy change that permitted the use of tracking cookies in YouTube videosembedded on the WhiteHouse.gov Web site.”

Now if you’re deciding whether or not to trust that the Obama administration will not collect, store or use information on your computer, remember the people Obama surrounds himself with. Remember Larry Lessig and the film he uses routinely in teaching seminars, produced by a Marxist film maker, who calls himself a digital guerilla.

ORIGINAL POST – APRIL 27, 2008





http://www.youtube=http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xbRE_H5hoU

This video is over 61 minutes long. You don’t need to watch all of it. Skip the first 12 minutes and begin precisely at 12 minutes and 14 seconds.

I WARN YOU. IF YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN, YOU WILL BE OFFENDED.

Who is the narrator lecturing to Google company employees?

LAWRENCE (LARRY) LESSIG - Who is Larry Lessig? (April 27, 2008)

FORMER FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE AND ADVISER/AIDE OF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA’S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN

Obama’s campaign website calls Lessig one of the industry experts supporting his technology plan. Larry Lessig has worked actively on behalf of Obama, explaining to journalists, Obama’s plan to appoint a technology czar to serve in the White House under the title of chief technology officer. Lessig’s website endorses Obama.

“In August 2006, several people in the audience walked out when Lessig showed the “Jesus Will Survive” video in his keynote address to the LinuxWorld Conference and Expo in San Francisco.” http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62484by Jerome R. Corsi

In the Google lecture, you hear them laughing at the video. Prefacing the video, Lessig warns the viewer that it is sensitive, and says, “I don’t know why”.

I KNOW AND I BET YOU KNOW!

Obama has said many, many times that he is NOT a Muslim and that he IS A CHRISTIAN. That being the case, how can he add someone as his campaign aide who has this anti-Christian sentiment and who uses a video depicting Jesus in this horrible way? I would expect Obama to be just as offended as I am, if he is truly a Christian. An aide’s religious beliefs don’t have to be in sync with a candidate, but when the candidate is a Christian and the aide is using (multiple times) such an offensive video, that does make a difference.

For the record, Lessig says he didnt’ make the film, he just chooses to use it in his lectures. There are hundreds of others he could have chosen, but he didn’t. He chose this one.

The film was made by Javier Prato. His web site is http://www.javierprato.com/. When you visit his site you will immediately notice that he has chosen Che Guevera’s picture to represent himself instead of his own and has used that picture repeatedly for his background. If you’re wondering where you’ve heard Che Guevera recently, it was the controversy over the Cuban Flag and the Che Guevera flag hanging in the Houston, Texas campaign office for Barack Hussein Obama.

Che Guevera was an Argentine Marxist revolutionary terrorist who was involved in efforts to overthrow governments in Guatemala and Cuba. He left Cuba in 1965 to incite revolutions in Congo-Kinshasa, then Bolivia, where he was captured and executed.

Isn’t it odd how the same themes keep popping up in Obama’s camp?

If you decide that this isn’t important, you should know what Wikipedia says about Lessig online at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig

“He is best known as a proponent of reduced legal restrictions on copyright, trademark, and radio frequency spectrum, particularly in technology applications.”

“Lessig has known president Barack Obama since their days teaching law at the University of Chicago, and has been mentioned as a candidate to head the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the telecommunications industry.“

What a horrible thought!

According to this Wikipedia article, Lessig, a political activist, decided to focus on political corruption through his wiki, “Lessig Wiki” and has encouraged the public to use it to document cases of corruption. This sounds a lot like Obama’s call for citizens to rat out their friends and neighbors by emailing the government’s new site flag.gov.

How long before Obama’s Opponents will be forced to wear arm bands bearing the tell-tale “OO” mark???

Of course, that is far-fetched, but his actions and those of his administration, are scary at best. We need to regain this country’s freedoms.

Be vigilant. Be wise. Be free.

Fourth Amendment Rights/Cash for Clunkers

A reader commented on the previous post about the Cash for Clunkers a Gov’t Worm Hole. The point was worth researching and discussing, so here it is.

The comment stated that Beck was off base with his conclusions about the agreement that must be provided before a “Cash for Clunkers” participant could continue with the transaction online at the cars.gov web site.

Comment:

“These disclaimers on gov’t computers are necessary due to the Wiretapping Act. It is illegal to monitor the activities of a user without their consent. To do the necessary monitoring (if your site is defaced you want to try to figure out who did it, y’know?) you must allow everyone an opportunity to leave without entering. That’s all. We’ve had a similar disclaimer here for 15 years.”

Everyone can agree that any computer must be protected from hostile activity and employ a program to identify the perpetrator. Disclaimers must make consumers aware and give them the opportunity to leave the web site without giving up their Fourth Amendment Rights. No problem here.

The cars.gov web site goes far beyond what is necessary in the following paragraph, which consumers are obliged to agree to if they participate in the Cash for Clunkers program:

“This application provides access to the DoT CARS system. When logged on to the CARS system, your computer is considered a Federal computer system and is the property of the U.S. Government. Any or all uses of this system and all files on this system may be intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied, audited, inspected, and disclosed to authorized CARS, DoT, and law enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other agencies, both domestic and foreign. ”

This agreement usurps your Fourth Amendment Right and waives your rights under the Wiretap Act, Privacy Act, etc.

See

http://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Privacy:_Statutory_Protections

(portions)

Privacy: Statutory Protections
From Internet Law Treatise

With the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, the Homeland Security Act and other laws focused on national security, Congress has been active in changing the legal landscape for access to real-time and stored communications. Despite these amendments, detailed below, the legal regime for obtaining wiretaps and stored communications remains ambiguous.



Privacy: Searching and Seizing Computers
From Internet Law Treatise

Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

Accessing information stored in a computer ordinarily will implicate the owner’s reasonable expectation of privacy in the information. See United States v. Barth, 26 F. Supp. 2d 929, 936-37 (W.D. Tex. 1998) (finding reasonable expectation of privacy in files stored on hard drive of personal computer); United States v. Reyes, 922 F. Supp. 818, 832-33 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (finding reasonable expectation of privacy in data stored in a pager); United States v. Lynch, 908 F. Supp. 284, 287 (D.V.I. 1995) (same); United States v. Chan, 830 F. Supp. 531, 535 (N.D. Cal. 1993) (same); United States v. Blas, 1990 WL 265179, at *21 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 4, 1990) (”[A]n individual has the same expectation of privacy in a pager, computer, or other electronic data storage and retrieval device as in a closed container.”). See also United States v. Long, 64 M.J. 57 (CAAF 2006) (finding REOP in emails defendant sent from her office computer and in emails stored on government server); Quon v. Arch Wireless, 445 F.Supp.2d 1116 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (gov’t employee had REOP in text messages sent through his city-owned pagers).

The Tenth Circuit has cautioned that “[b]ecause computers can hold so much information touching on many different areas of a person’s life, there is greater potential for the ‘intermingling’ of documents and a consequent invasion of privacy when police execute a search for evidence on a computer.” United States v. Walser, 275 F.3d 981, 986 (10th Cir. 2001). But see United States v. Gorshkov, 2001 WL 1024026, at *2 (W.D. Wash. May 23, 2001) (holding that defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in use of a private computer network when undercover federal agents looked over his shoulder, when he did not own the computer he used, and when he knew that the system administrator could monitor his activities).

In the offline world, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized legitimate privacy interest in confidential letters. United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 114, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 1657 (1984) (“Letters and other sealed packages are in the general class of effects in which the public at large has a legitimate expectation of privacy.”). See also Ortega v. O’Connor, 146 F.3d 1149, 1163 (9th Cir. 1998) (under circumstances, employee had legitimate expectation of privacy from employer).

Federal Constitution

The contents of telephone communications are fully protected by the Fourth Amendment. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 353-354 (1967). The Government must satisfy stringent procedural requirements, discussed below, before it can acquire the contents of communications. Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41, 63-64 (1967) (“[I]t is not asking too much that officers be required to comply with the basic command of the Fourth Amendment before the innermost secrets of one’s home or office are invaded. Few threats to liberty exist which are greater than that posed by the use of eavesdropping devices.”).

The Privacy Act

The Privacy Act regulates the “‘collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of information’” about individuals by federal agencies. Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614, 618 (2004) (quoting Privacy Act of 1974 § 2(a)(5), 88 Stat. 1896). It “authorizes civil suits by individuals . . . whose Privacy Act rights are infringed,” Sussman v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 494 F.3d 1106, 1123 (D.C. Cir. 2007), and provides for criminal penalties against federal officials who willfully disclose a record in violation of the Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(i)(1).

State Statutes

Title III does not preempt state statutes that are more protective of privacy. “Congress intended that the states be allowed to enact more restrictive laws designed to protect the right of privacy.” People v. Conklin. 12 Cal.3d 259, 271 (1974); see also Roberts v. Americable Intern. Inc., 883 F.Supp. 499, 503, fn. 6 (E.D.Cal. 1995); United States v. Curreri, 388 F.Supp. 607, 613 (D.Md. 1974); Bishop v. State, 526 S.E.2d 917, 920 (Ga.Ct.App. 1999) ; People v. Pascarella, 415 N.E.2d 1285, 1287 (Ill.App.Ct. 1981).

The Wiretap Act, the U.S. Patriot Act, the Homeland Security Act, were all dealing with wiretapping and eavesdropping needed to combat terrorism and to facilitate criminal investigations. They required reasonable suspicion and warrants from judges.

Trading a clunker in for a new car hardly designates citizens as criminals or terrorists and does not generate reasonable suspicion of crime or terrorism. Our Fourth Amendment Rights should not be compromised or stolen.

I don’t believe Beck was off-base in his assumptions. Citizens should refuse to accept this disclaimer and realize that buying a car on the taxpayers’ dime isn’t worth forfeiting Fourth Amendment Rights. Our founding fathers fought to gain our freedoms and we should never throw them away, especially for a car that will only last a few years. Freedoms last forever, unless you throw them out with the clunkers.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in the Bill of Rights

Search and Seizure

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt4.html