Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sluissa]

Public comment. Your comment and basic identity will be public as part of the submission. If you're not comfortable with that then back off.

Sure, now did they blatantly advertise the fact that these comments would outright reveal this information?

As well by revealing this information are they, in fact, trying to force public discussion in a way that aids them? (Since even in a public forum people don't have to speak their names and phone numbers in order to talk)

It is poor form either way and frankly the commission deserves its scrutiny. It would deserve scrutiny even if they blatantly advertised it.

Scrutiny sure, but not this bullshit "call them out on anything and everything even if it doesn't matter".

Have you looked at the emails in question linked from the NPR article? Some of them have no personal information, being submitted under false names or simply initials. Anywhere where there is personal information revealed is volunteered.

I'm just getting sick of it all.

[Neonivek]

I understand sluissa.

Frankly I don't feel like I know enough about this situation to really make a judgement.

Besides as I am learning news quality is extremely poor.

[RedKing]

To me, it's the incongruity of an "agency" (if it can even be called that) essentially saying "Ok, give us all your personal data. We promise we'll keep it secure and not misuse it."

Followed by them immediately doing a full data dump of everyone that emailed them for comment, without any scrubbing. How is this suppose to inspire any confidence that they have even the slightest hint of competence?

[EnigmaticHat]

Meh, the government legally can publish that info AFAIK but that doesn't mean that they should without a justification.  This is basically baby doxxing, it means people can send junk/hate mail to people who's info was released.  I was mad at CNN for threatening to doxx a memer, I don't see I shouldn't be mad about this.

Besides, this just means that people emailing their complaints to the administration will make disposable accounts in the future.  RIP several thousand gmail addresses.

[Neonivek]

Meh, the government legally can publish that info AFAIK but that doesn't mean that they should without a justification.

Man do I hate that argument (I am not accusing you of doing that).

Look people, Imaginary people who I am imagining making that argument right now.

The government can do a lot of things but that is because the law suspects some level of competency and honesty out of the government and its agents. It gives them room to maneuver so it can do the right thing expediently with less oversight being required.

Yet that isn't a free check or immunity from scrutiny. In fact it should mean they are under MORE scrutiny and harsher critique because they have this power. "You had this power, and you abused it"

[Rolan7]

To me, it's the incongruity of an "agency" (if it can even be called that) essentially saying "Ok, give us all your personal data. We promise we'll keep it secure and not misuse it."

Followed by them immediately doing a full data dump of everyone that emailed them for comment, without any scrubbing. How is this suppose to inspire any confidence that they have even the slightest hint of competence?

My understanding is that they made no such promise.  But hearing about it, I assumed they did...  It seems almost implied, unless they went out of their way to point out that it would be public.

Kinda goes back to the question of whether people deserve privacy if they fail to protect themselves properly.  They say ignorance is no excuse, but I say it isn't a justification either.
(In other words, this is scummy, even if they technically never promised anonymity)

[Neonivek]

You know... maybe Trump won't build that wall... I mean he doesn't even have a viable design.

[Rolan7]

You know... maybe Trump won't build that wall... I mean he doesn't even have a visible design.

FTFY

[Egan_BW]

You know... maybe Trump won't build that wall... I mean he doesn't even have a viable design.

Was this ever in any question? It's an impossible megaproject and always has been.

[Neonivek]

You know... maybe Trump won't build that wall... I mean he doesn't even have a viable design.

Was this ever in any question? It's an impossible megaproject and always has been.

Trump uselessly spending a ton of money for barely functional vertical concrete slabs was honestly the way I thought he would do it.

He could then find a way to earn a lot of money off the wall.

---

The big question I have is how much work will it take to reverse all the damage Trump created?

Assuming he doesn't get elected again (which he will)

[Antioch]

You know... maybe Trump won't build that wall... I mean he doesn't even have a viable design.

Was this ever in any question? It's an impossible megaproject and always has been.

It's not impossible, it is just stupidly expensive for no gains at all.

[RedKing]

You know... maybe Trump won't build that wall... I mean he doesn't even have a viable design.

Was this ever in any question? It's an impossible megaproject and always has been.

Unlike his "Fuck The World" lever, which forty years of Cold War was happy to build for him.

[Cthulhu]

Trump and #BasedMommyGF have given up on deposing assad

[misko27]

Now see RedKing, that was a possible Megaproject, not an impossible one; very big difference. Was it not Kennedy who said, "We choose to build the doomlever in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are possible"?

[smjjames]

Trump and #BasedMommyGF have given up on deposing assad

I think we gave up the 'force assad out of power via threat of death' years ago, then it became "Assad must go!" without any clear plan for doing so. If we learned anything from Libya and Iraq, it's that forcing a power vacuum does nobody any good.

Optimally, he would be voted out of power, but he isn't going to do that anytime soon.

And even if his own people (Syrians that is) forced him out, there isn't any single person that I know of which a majority of his people would rally around. Instead, it's more like the situation in Libya, with various factions in different areas.