Ҥ 552a. Records maintained on individuals

(a) Definitions.— For purposes of this section—

(1) the term “agency” means agency as defined in section 552(e) ** of this title;

(2) the term “individual” means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;

(3) the term “maintain” includes maintain, collect, use, or disseminate;

(4) the term “record” means any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency, including, but not limited to, his education, financial transactions, medical history, and criminal or employment history and that contains his name, or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or voice print or a photograph;

(5) the term “system of records” means a group of any records under the control of any agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual;
. . . .” (my emphasis)

Regarding agency requirements, subsection (7), below, is the kicker that makes what they are doing so highly questionable:

“(e) Agency Requirements.— Each agency that maintains a system of rec­ords shall—
. . .
(7) maintain no record 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 or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity;
. . . .“

Under the Privacy Act, “Agency” means [as reallocated from sec. 552(e) to sec. 552(f)] ** the following:

“(f) For purposes of this section, the term –

(1) “agency” as defined in section 551(1) of this title

includes any executive department, military department,

Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or

other establishment in the executive branch of the Government

(including the Executive Office of the President), or any

independent regulatory agency.” (my emphasis)

Hence, it appears that because the records being sent to them pursuant to this mass solicitation by political operatives within the White House, and that they are sufficiently specific to individuals, including having e-mail addresses, often including the sender’s full name therein, traceable computer identifiers such as dates and times, and especially IP addresses, and a host of other personally identifying information, frequently including automatic signature lines that are within e-mail messages, that these are “records” within the meaning of the Act.

Who believes for one second that they are not looking for patterns by individuals?

So this is quite arguably a violation of the federal Privacy Act of 1974, found at 5 USC 552a, as amended.

** Footnote: There was a tricky legislative reallocation [ 552(e) to (552(f) ] at one point that makes it necessary to look at the official version — the “Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives” version — where it states in the footnotes, that:

“REFERENCES IN TEXT

Section 552(e) of this title, referred to in subsec. (a)(1), was redesignated section 552(f) of this title by section 1802(b) of Pub. L. 99-570.”

However, it’s a fairly unsatisfying answer. What worked in the campaign isn’t going to work now that he’s president.

You don’t have to thank me.

What ever happened to that “stop snitchin” campaign?

Red Cloud on August 6, 2009 at 10:13 AM

Doesn’t apply to not tattling on upstanding white people doing legal activities, apparently. Just to the odd black who opposes his/her peers behaving like modern-day Huns.

Unfortunately, this idea of a national snitch hotline is a disaster that Bush started, albeit with very good intentions and directed at the right group of people. Informing on bloodthirsty ragheads =/= turning in perfectly good citizens practicing their God-given rights…but that’s what it’s being twisted to.

If you can afford some costuming and a few 40 ounce bottles of malt beverage, you can participate in wrecking this very, very stupid program.

Next town hall I attend I will wear a shirt with my full name printed on it, front and back. I wish everyone else would do the same.
…
Bishop on August 6, 2009 at 10:26 AM

How about everyone wear a T-shirt that says:

I am Spartacus!

(We’re armed with our walkers and dangerous.)

Loxodonta on August 6, 2009 at 10:57 AM

I have images of the convoy to the senior protest rally on the National Mall. 20 miles of vehicles all with the left turn blinker on. :-0

highhopes on August 6, 2009 at 11:41 AM

At the tax-day protest, I stood with two very sweet bubbies who were outraged at porkulus…

I hope to see them at the Kratovil protest on 8/11.

Laura in Maryland on August 6, 2009 at 12:10 PM

Hey! All you young guns with your blinkers flashing right!

We sweet bubbies get all the hot conserva-babes.

So let that be a lesson to you.

Mr. Obama, Tear Down This Webpost!

Trochilus on August 6, 2009 at 5:01 PM

Recall Obama’s Berlin speech, to take down all walls. You have no rights; unalienable rights are dead along with the Constitution. That’s been Obama’s shovel ready project all along.

The reason for this type of strategy is the only transparency I’ve seen from this administration thus far.

Texas Gal on August 6, 2009 at 1:17 PM

Exactly. The only transparency Obama honors is the open view into our privacy.

Here is a link, http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009/08/william_jefferson_verdict_guil.html

txmomof6 on August 6, 2009 at 2:19 PM

Thanx busy txmomof6! Hot Air must have decided this news was irrelevant.

Sweet_Thang on August 6, 2009 at 2:42 PM

It was covered in the headlines. http://hotair.com/headlines/?p=47975

You can scroll through older headlines by clicking “all headlines” then use the arrows (>>) and browse older blog entries in the Vault.