"Tech-Savvy" White House Denies, Then Apologizes For, Unsolicited Emails

Nick Gillespie | August 18, 2009

The AP, keeping it real when reporting on email-gate or whatever it is we're supposed to call reports of unsolicited mass emails (a.k.a. spam, which used to be so evil) emanatin' from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue like so many Newt Gingrich bulletins:

After insisting no one was receiving unsolicited e-mails from the White House, officials reversed their story Monday night and blamed outside political groups for the unwanted messages from the tech-savvy operation.

White House online director Macon Phillips said in a blog posting that independent groups—he didn't name them—had signed-up their members to receive regular updates about Obama's projects, priorities and speeches.

The White House had consistently denied that anyone who hadn't sought the e-mails had received them.

"It has come to our attention that some people may have been subscribed to our e-mail lists without their knowledge-likely as a result of efforts by outside groups of all political stripes-and we regret any inconvenience caused by receiving an unexpected message," Phillips wrote.

"We're certainly not interested in anyone receiving e-mails from the White House who don't want them. That's one reason why we have never-and will never-add names from a commercial or political list to the White House list," he wrote.

Whole thing here.

Why does the press, especially the supposedly impartial media, insist that the Obama administration is "tech-savvy"? Because he's got an iPod with a suspiciously wide-ranging playlist? Sure, compared to John McCain, who probably isn't even using plastic adult diapers, Obama may be tech-savvy, but what kind of yardstick is that? And so, in a story that's about how either the White House is full of beans or getting used, you have the admin described as tech-savvy. Go figure.

Hat tip: Glenn Reynolds via Breitbart.com. 

Bonus video: More signs of Obama admin's tech-savitude, an unintentional dada film about the Great Easter Egg Roll/Hunt '09.

Comments

|8.18.09 @ 10:06AM|#

Obama @ 1:33:

Life imitates art!

"..and tame them with the magic trick of staring into their yellow eyes without blinking"

Fluffy|8.18.09 @ 10:09AM|#

Wow, that McCain comment is nasty enough to be one of mine. Kudos, Nick.

|8.18.09 @ 10:11AM|#

Sure, compared to John McCain, who probably isn't even using plastic adult diapers, Obama may be tech-savvy, but what kind of yardstick is that?

Yeah, I mean, what kind of yardstick is it, saying that he types better than someone who can't do so without pain thanks to injuries suffered while a POW?

Fist of Etiquette|8.18.09 @ 10:21AM|#

Sure, compared to John McCain, who probably isn't even using plastic adult diapers, Obama may be tech-savvy, but what kind of yardstick is that?

Poor McCain. Once trusted to pilot million-dollar aircraft on and off a pitching carrier, now relegated to barely able to work a manual typewriter. History is cruel.

TallDave|8.18.09 @ 10:23AM|#

"Ewww! My egg was full of socialism!"

|8.18.09 @ 10:23AM|#

"Sure, compared to John McCain, who probably isn't even using plastic adult diapers, Obama may be tech-savvy, but what kind of yardstick is that? And so, in a story that's about how either the White House is full of beans or getting used, you have the admin described as tech-savvy."


McCain is not my favorite guy. But that is a nasty, juvinille and stupid statement. Please explain why anyone should take you seriously when you write crap like that Nick?

Alan Vanneman|8.18.09 @ 10:23AM|#

If I forward an email that Reason sent me, is Reason responsible for the unwanted email? Is it "tech savvy" to think so?

|8.18.09 @ 10:24AM|#

If George Bush had collected people's e-mails and then sent out spam, the media would have portrayed it as another step towards the long dark night of fascism.

<strike>strike through</strike|8.18.09 @ 10:31AM|#

In related news, the infamous "snitch site" is now sleeping with the fishes, and the "death panel" provision that was never in the mythical health-care bill(s) is now out.

<strike>strike through</strike|8.18.09 @ 10:33AM|#

And in the Sour Grapes Dept., the Administration never really wanted that Public Option thing anyway. It was an afterthought, a trifle. Nothing to see there. Move along.

Fluffy|8.18.09 @ 10:36AM|#

If I forward an email that Reason sent me, is Reason responsible for the unwanted email? Is it "tech savvy" to think so?

That's not the issue, Alan. The issue is that the White House allowed activist groups to mass-register all the email accounts on their mailing lists.

Since there's no way, really, to prevent people from submitting other peoples' email addresses to White House spam lists, the only real solution a tech savvy person would devise would be to not have any White House spam lists.

|8.18.09 @ 10:44AM|#

Don't confuse Vennamen with logic that takes more than one step. He never fails to come on here and right some simplistic snark that almost makes sense if you don't think past the first step.

|8.18.09 @ 10:46AM|#

Alan,

Actually, it could be if Reason induced you to send the e-mail in some manner and the e-mail served some commercial purpose.

CAN-SPAM expressly exempts political advertising and propaganda, I'm pretty sure.

|8.18.09 @ 10:48AM|#

It amazes me how often actions that would be clearly a legal problem in the private sector are hunky-dory if the government is the actor.

JB|8.18.09 @ 10:48AM|#

They have been doing this since the campaign.

I sent them a comment and they automatically signed me up. That is spam. I never agreed to be on any email list.

Obama is an amateur in nearly every way.

|8.18.09 @ 10:50AM|#

Come JB,

They were doing you a favot putting you on Movon and ACORN's mailing lists.

|8.18.09 @ 10:50AM|#

I've read this article a few times now and I can't seem to find a real explanation of what's going on here. This one sentence is the key to the whole article but, (unsurprisingly) the rest of the article ignores it:
"It has come to our attention that some people may have been subscribed to our e-mail lists without their knowledge-likely as a result of efforts by outside groups of all political stripes..."

Who and what are these "groups"?
What "efforts" have they employed that allowed them to access what is explicitly described as private information being controlled by the Federal Government?
How do we know that these "groups" aren't employing "efforts" to access other information controlled by the Federal Government that is supposedly private?

Flippantly waving this away as nothing more that a few email addresses makes me wonder what other information they consider unimportant enough to protect.

|8.18.09 @ 10:57AM|#

This violates two laws I can think of. First, the privacy act. And second the anti-deficiency act. They are using government resources to collect names and give something of value (mailing lists) to non-govenrment entitities. To put it in simpler terms, where do these people get off using tax money to do the bidding of private organizations?

hmm|8.18.09 @ 10:59AM|#

I guess the White house not being tech savvy is as good an excuse as any. I still don't buy it. The White House is a little too chummy with its buddies that got them where they are.

|8.18.09 @ 11:09AM|#

What happens when the government violates the Privacy Act? It says, "Sorry" and keeps doing what it did before?

I'm assuming there was a disclosure, since outside groups did the spamming. Allegedly.

|8.18.09 @ 11:13AM|#

And we're all just shocked, shocked, that the Obama WH distributed lists of email addresses to their political cronies.

And remember the Clinton WH, with all those FBI files on their political enemies?...

Another inadvertent oversight.

|8.18.09 @ 11:14AM|#

"What happens when the government violates the Privacy Act? It says, "Sorry" and keeps doing what it did before?"

There are statutory damages available to anyone whose information was released. And it is a criminal statute.

The Dems love to release private information on their enemies. Forbes mentions the FBI files. But don't forget Linda Tripp having her FBI background check leaked to the media. That is a felony. But nothing ever happened to the person who did it.

|8.18.09 @ 11:23AM|#

I took a quick look. It appears that civil liability (actual damages but no less than $1,000 per individual, along with attorneys' fees and costs) could exist, and I imagine that the willfulness standard would be met here, too, which could lead to criminal liability. . .and even more money. There's even more liability if the existence of the database wasn't properly disclosed.

I'd sue.

I just went off a quick read of a summary of the Act, so I could be overlooking ten or twenty exceptions, etc.

CatoTheElder|8.18.09 @ 11:25AM|#

Just what you'd expect with Vivek Kundra as Chief Information Officer of the US.

John Dvorak, certified geek and IT journalist since the PC was invented, has looked into Czar Kundra's background and performance and reports that it is startlingly deficient.

See http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/08/12/special-report-is-us-chief-information-officer-cio-vivek-kundra-a-phony/

Warty|8.18.09 @ 11:27AM|#

McCain is not my favorite guy. But that is a nasty, juvinille and stupid statement. Please explain why anyone should take you seriously when you write crap like that Nick?

Because it's not possible to be too nasty to John McCain.

|8.18.09 @ 11:29AM|#

"That's not the issue, Alan. The issue is that the White House allowed activist groups to mass-register all the email accounts on their mailing lists."

Says who? The White House? And you just take them at their word that this is what happened?

Who are these groups? Let's hear from someone that admits, "Yep, I gave the WH our entire mailing list".

|8.18.09 @ 11:38AM|#

You got it right Pro. There are seven exceptions to the privacy act but I assure you that "releasing spam lists to your political buddies" is not one of them last I looked.

|8.18.09 @ 11:39AM|#

McCain is not my favorite guy. But that is a nasty, juvinille and stupid statement. Please explain why anyone should take you seriously when you write crap like that Nick?


I think I know what commentor John's real last name is! It sure would explain all the Obama hate and Republican love.

|8.18.09 @ 11:45AM|#

If you don't give the White House your email address voluntarily, you're a racist.

|8.18.09 @ 11:46AM|#

Shouldn't the recipients just forward the emails to [e-mail]?

MattXIV|8.18.09 @ 11:47AM|#

I assume lists were not entered individually through a normal single registration UI, so they're either retarded for allowing public mass submissions or were just fine with using those lists - the latter seems much more likely. In all probability, they knew the list were being used but didn't think they'd get caught, then they got caught, and now they're throwing excuses out there hoping they find something that can fool the credulous.

ToBeRIght|8.18.09 @ 11:47AM|#

John S nailed it. This is a huge scandal if only the media would step up. Maybe Major G will ask about it.

If i have this straight:
1) White House gathers snitch emails
2) Delivers email addresses to outside groups
3) Outside groups then mass enroll said emails onto their lists

Questions: Who at the WH was in charge of securing the snitch list? Who was in charge of gathering the emails from the WH logs? Who authorized the resulting list to be distributed to outside parties? Which outside parties were the lists distributed to? Did any money exchange hands for access to the lists? Were there any terms associated with the handling of the info on the lists?

Oh man - I'm just getting started with this...

Rich|8.18.09 @ 12:14PM|#

Wrt the bonus video, Un chien andalou is better, except for the soundtrack.

|8.18.09 @ 12:25PM|#

There are statutory damages available to anyone whose information was released. And it is a criminal statute.

Good luck getting the DoJ to pursue charges. Though I recall you singing a different tune when the Bush DoJ was refusing to serve contempt of Congress citations to administration officials.

|8.18.09 @ 12:27PM|#

My favorite part of that story is where they explain that the emails to [e-mail] have to be stored and released to the public in a few decades via the National Archives. The teenagers of the future will thank all of you who signed that email address up for free porn. Talk about the greatest generation!

jtuf|8.18.09 @ 1:28PM|#

Following a link in an intial e-mail to confirm that you actually signed up for a list serve is rather standard now. Obama is way behind the times.

Fluffy|8.18.09 @ 2:00PM|#

If i have this straight:
1) White House gathers snitch emails
2) Delivers email addresses to outside groups
3) Outside groups then mass enroll said emails onto their lists

I don't think you have it straight.

It appears to be the reverse.

Outside groups were taking their own email lists and mass enrolling them onto Obama's email list, so that they could be notified when the White House wanted some kind of "action".

This resulted in people getting emails from the White House that they weren't expecting to get, i.e. unsolicited spam.

They aren't saying that they took email addresses from emails sent directly to the White House and gave them to anyone else.

Since political spam is not illegal the way that some kinds of commercial spam are, the White House didn't break a law here. They just made themselves look stupid.

|8.18.09 @ 2:29PM|#

Outside groups were taking their own email lists and mass enrolling them onto Obama's email list, so that they could be notified when the White House wanted some kind of "action".

Here lies the problem. The White House email enrollment system was set up so that third parties could enroll people without their consent. It's not hard to set things up so this can't happen (as jtuf alludes to above).

|8.18.09 @ 3:26PM|#

I got the Axelrod Emails for the last two months. I wrote back to tell them to stop sending me spam yet I still get this:

"Dear Friend,

This is probably one of the longest emails I've ever sent, but it could be the most important. "

Jim Treacher|8.18.09 @ 3:28PM|#

Back in 2000, McCain was "the most cybersavvy of this year's crop of candidates." Narratives are fun.

Jim Treacher|8.18.09 @ 3:33PM|#

Shouldn't the recipients just forward the emails to [e-mail]?

That address has now been changed to [e-mail].

|8.19.09 @ 8:13AM|#

"The AP, keeping it real when reporting on email-gate or whatever it is we're supposed to call reports of unsolicited mass emails..."

I understand the context, and the tone, but c'mon Nick... "-gate"??

The "-gate" thing was original... once. Might've been cute... once. The overwhelmingly tiresome practice of adding the "gate" suffix to a situation indicates a serious lack of original thought on the part of the author, and the expectation (by the author) of a similar mindset in the reader; not something I expected from you or from Reason.

Go ahead and take this slam personally, but only to the extent that you are personally responsible for perpetuating this industry-wide slothful practice; leave some of the blame for the others.

Shut the "-gate" already. Give us a break.

|11.4.09 @ 8:33PM|#

The white house is doing it again, but bigger than ever before. I've rec'd several with others names beside Obama's. Does that free them of their spying? I never gave them my email address.

|11.4.09 @ 8:34PM|#

Save your emails...I feel a lawsuit coming on.