re The White House just posted the emails of critics without censoring sensitive personal information

["Dave Farber" <farber () gmail com>]

> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Karl Auerbach <karl () cavebear com>
> Subject: Re: [IP] The White House just posted the emails of critics without censoring sensitive personal information
> Date: July 14, 2017 at 6:19:12 PM EDT
> To: dave () farber net, ip <ip () listbox com>
>
>
> With regard to the so-called Presidential Commission on Election Integrity (PCEI):
>
> The collection of voter records that it is building, as implied from the letters it sent to the various States, does 
> appear as if it would be subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 USC 552a - notice that little 'a' at the end) 
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a
>
> And from the mission of the PCEI it would be reasonable to conclude that their intention is to use that data to match 
> records from different states and with other databases.
>
> It's been more than 30 years since I last dug deeply into the Privacy Act, but it seems to me that the PCEI may be 
> flouting its obligations under that act.
>
> The Privacy Act of 1974 is interested in records about people.  The statute is interested in aggregations and linking 
> of data to other databases.
>
> The Privacy Act does not appear to automagically exempt databases of such data just because some (or perhaps even 
> all) of that data could be obtained by the public by other means or even if there is an assertion that the data is 
> "public" in some way.
>
> One of the requirements of the Privacy Act is that a notice of the existence of such databases must be published in 
> the Federal Register (and be listed in the CFR).  And the details of "matching programs" that use that data must also 
> be published in the Federal Register.
>
> I just took a look at the Federal Register for all of 2017 and such notices have *not* been published.
>
> I would be rather useful if a group such as EPIC or EFF could take a look with eyes more recently skilled than my own 
> in the arts of reading 5 USC xxxx and ascertain whether the PCEI really is trying to fly without adhering to its 
> Privacy Act obligations.
>
>       --karl--
>
>
> -- 
> This message was sent to the list address and trashed, but can be found online.
> at https://www.listbox.com/login/messages/view/20170714181920:7947CB1C-68E2-11E7-8283-B5CA1CECBBBD




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/18849915-ae8fa580
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-aa268125
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-32545cb4&post_id=20170714213302:8612CF34-68FD-11E7-8025-8A155F9C74DF
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com