White House Obfuscates Email 915
markgo2k writes "Do you want to email the president? This John Markoff, New York Times story (reprinted here in the non-subscription Seattle PI) details how the White House no longer promises to read anything you send to president@whitehouse.gov. Instead, you must navigate a multi-page website AND confirm your submission via email. Oh, and they only want to talk about subjects that are of interest to them." The web-form system appears to be a bit overloaded at the moment.
I'd rather not have to deal with the DOJ... (Score:4, Insightful)
So when those emails come in, I guess they go in either one of two mailboxes. "With us" or "Against Us".
The "Against Us" email automatically get forwarded to Ashcroft.
Mike
Waste of the President's time. (Score:5, Insightful)
Since many people use... (Score:5, Insightful)
Head over to the real whitehouse alternative [whitehouse.com], much more fun.
Because... (Score:5, Insightful)
a) Mailing
b) Phoneing (being on hold for hours then talking to a nobody)
c) It gives you a warm happy feeling.
So why shouldn't they filter out their most popular form of communication given that most of it is crap anyway?
That, and my second point:
You shouldn't be emailing your most important concerns to the president - do your congressman, your senator, and your local government, they can probably help you more specifically.
convenient (Score:5, Insightful)
Snail Mail... (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering G.W. runs a press conference once every six months, before an invasion, or after he beats up on some third world country, you expect better treatment?
Security through obfuscation, just like the ports.
Bah.
"they only want to talk about..." (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I can remember phoning the White House during the Clinton Administration. Before getting to an actual person I was presented with a survey of some sort. I can't remember what it was about, but I do remember thinking that I preferred NONE of the possible choices for each survey question.
My point is that it appears every administration does this. It's not simply the current one.
Deluges of mail (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, it's now harder to complain to them about it, as well.
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Things like this dilute the issues... (Score:3, Insightful)
Rights are things like free speech, bearing arms, and freedom from false imprisonment.
Having to use a web form instead of an e-mail address is NOT a violation of your rights.
Re:I'd rather not have to deal with the DOJ... (Score:1, Insightful)
It's irrelevant anyway... (Score:5, Insightful)
Chances are, he won't be reading what you send anyway. Frankly, I suspect the concept of "mail your representative/elected official" is largely a thing of the past. Lobbyist's and big politcal money have largely ended any sort of grassroots effect.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Or have we forgotten the lesson we learned from being a colony of Britain?
White House Obfuscates Email? (Score:3, Insightful)
A good idea, IMHO. Filters out the drunk, drugged, and pure loony.
Use snail mail (Score:4, Insightful)
In Canada at least, sending a letter via regular post to any Member of Parliament [parl.gc.ca], including the Prime Minister [pm.gc.ca], is free. Your letter is also far more likely to be read.
This isn't news, it's "DUH" (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with "representing the people" and such, but going through George Bush is just a bit too unfair. He has to look over 300 million people
Remember... (Score:3, Insightful)
What with the general assaults on personal freedoms, Abraham Lincoln and the other Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves. Democracy isn't dead, but it isn't exactly at its zenith right now, least of all in the USA.
Can anyone think of a time when the freedoms of the average American were more at threat from their own government?
Like I've said before, the ideal of America is beautiful, it's just the reality that's becoming fubar.
Re:Hmm (Score:2, Insightful)
How could the government POSSIBLY read everything that is sent to them? I really just don't think it's even possible.
I mean, do you read EVERY comment here on Slashdot? Wow, you think we've got TROLLS around here? Just imagine the kinds of comments the GOVERNMENT gets!
Re:Hmm (Score:2, Insightful)
This entire article is destined to be one giant troll session.
We've come a long way baby (Score:5, Insightful)
Once, the President of the United States recieved visitors who just walked up to the White House. Once, the President used to walk out to Pennsylvania Avenue and hail a passing buggy for a ride.
My, how times change...
Re:Hmm - MOD PARENT DOWN (Score:2, Insightful)
talk to your LOCAL Representative.. not the president. and stop with the chicken little bullshit.
Re:Hmm (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder how many times they have gotten the Nigerian Official's e-mail?
I suspect that the offer's for generic Viagra, HGH, Weight Loss, International Drivers Licence, etc. should also be falling on deaf ears.
I have enough trouble with my own e-mail, and I do not have one of the world's most well known e-mail addresses.
Granted the worst of the offenders have probably excluded all "@*.gov" addresses from their mailing lists, but I am sure they get enough of the rest.
-Rusty
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
No excuse (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no excuse for a confusing system like this reaching the public, as the White House has someone "in-house", so to speak, who is a great benchmark for the lowest common denominator in those three areas. From the description, I believe there is no chance this procedure would have passed the "Dubya" test.
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Really, do you think everything was read under Bush I or Clinton? The cost would be staggering, and now they're basically being honest. Sure it's depressing, but if you didn't know that was the case before now, you're just being naiive at best.
That's why the advice of political activisim is: write an ORIGINAL letter on PAPER, sign it in ink, and MAIL it to your local representative. It will get put in the "fer or agin" pile, and not read beyond that, and you'll get a bedbug letter back, but at least you'll be counted.
As someone else said, if you really need to have a conversation, lots and lots of money is the only way to achieve it. Or sleep with them. That'll work too.
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
You think that this or the previous administration read all the email that it got? At best they had a bank of secretaries reading and responding to it. That's arguably the same as not reading it.
When a government doesn't have time to listen to the people it's supposed to govern, you know that it's grown too large.
While I agree that a government should listen to its people, that is largely done at the ballot box. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that in a country of nearly 300 million people where it takes just a few seconds fir anyone to rocket off an email to anyone--including the president--that the president or even the staff is going to be able to reply or even read every submission.
More power to local governments
I agree with you there.
Re:Hmm - MOD PARENT DOWN (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Silly silly person. What do you think this is? A government by the people, for the people?
Re:Waste of the President's time. (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, so I assume you disregard as "unsolicited" any email that comes from your bosses, too...
How to send a message to the white house... (Score:1, Insightful)
why do you believe that? (Score:5, Insightful)
Contacting the President should be a process simple enough that anyone in the USA, even those with limited technical, communication, and cognitive abilities could perform.
There's no excuse for a confusing system like this reaching the public, as the White House has someone "in-house", so to speak, who is a great benchmark for the lowest common denominator in those three areas. From the description, I believe there is no chance this procedure would have passed the "Dubya" test.
Why do you believe that? Do you really believe that Saturday Night Live parodies are reality?
I never thought much of Clinton's wisdom, morality, choices, etc. but I never deluded myself into thinking he lacked cognitive ability. Nobody gets to positions like that without it.
Re:We've come a long way baby (Score:5, Insightful)
Classic IT and bad PR, but it's a real attempt (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would you do this? Because given the overwhelming number of e-mails that come in, you can't process it and get it into a database with any "meta"-info attached. This way you let your users organize it for you, would be how the IT people sold the change. Then you really do have a better sense of the layout of all the mail you're getting, and you really do know more about what people think.
Not to say that this isn't incompetence on the part of the Bush folks. Anyone with a clue about PR would know the multi-page form that starts with stuff like "Do you Agree or Disagree with our beloved Kim Jong Il?" or "Are you a donor?" would be a mistake. Even if the Web guys told them they needed to use a revised front end to sort stuff, they should've realized how that form would read. In particular, they really needed to maintain the perception that every note got read -- to blow that off in any way just looks awful. The IT people had the same blindspot for that one -- ever decide to call an 800-line instead of using a tech support form you weren't sure would ever get responded to?
So this speaks to the blinders of both IT people and the Bush regime, sure -- but it probably was an honest try to address the volume of mail that comes in. I worked at the Ford Presidential Library for a while, and they've still got boxes and boxes, and shelves and shelves, of letters people sent abot pardoning Nixon -- categorized as pro and con, and that's about it.
(What they need is the text grinders to do the sorting automagically -- but wait, wouldn't that cost serious tax dollars?)
Re:You find ANYTHING about this administration ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yep. Have yours been infringed lately? Mine haven't.
Remember budget surpluses?
Not since 1960 when the debt went down by $500 million [treas.gov]. Despite urban legend, there was no budget surplus under the Clinton administration. Or if there was I'd like someone to explain where it was spent, because it certainly didn't reduce the debt--which means it wasn't really a surplus.
Remember an economy that was working?
The one that Clinton nuked and then handed off to Bush as he left office?
Remember employment?
Business cycles suck, don't they? This wasn't the first recession and it won't be the last.
Stop YOUR whining and get to work.
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want to know whether or not a politician is beholden to large contributors it doesn't matter how many people donated small amounts of money, but what percentage of the total money raised came from the political interest groups in question. What we need to know, from both parties, is the distribution of "income from supporters", the same way that the distribution of income is measured. What percent of the money was raised from the smallest 20 percent of contributions? What percent came from the top 1 percent?
And most definitely, all contributions need to considered, not just donations from individuals.
Re:I'd rather not have to deal with the DOJ... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you were really serious about getting a message through to the "president" I would check "supporting comment," then say something nice about him (if you can think of anything) and then offer some "supportive criticism." This method actually works for me on a regular basis. (Although I haven't tried it in the scenario) It saves me lots of stress and the other person is more likely to listen.
However, if you just want to send flaming messages, that's a different story.
So? (Score:5, Insightful)
You want to communicate with the President? Vote.
Re:So What? (Score:3, Insightful)
I would tend to agree with you; however, this...
We're not any more important than anyone else.
Everyone in a democracy is supposed to get equal time and treatment. The republic of the USA tries to face the (IMHO, old) reality of actually exercising a 1:1 democracy by having elected officials speak for chunks of the population. Furthermore all such officials at any ;evel are to be accessible as possible by the public in light of "for the people" as well as acknowledging the handicap of this neo-democracy.
So while I would agree that this is not really news insofar as the unlikeliness of any message to president@whitehouse.gov ever actually being read by the president, the new system in place now demonstrates a microcosm of what the GOP has become.
For instance, the pre-canned Subject: tags that you select out of a menu. Or the laughable pre-qualifier - right up front! - of 'For or Against'. I'd loveto see that as a web form:
You are:br> For
x Against
Mussolini had these radios, you may have heard of them, that could only pick up one radio station.
Put down the stick; I'm not saying Bush = Mussolini or that its even comparable. I'm saying this administration is very bold, does not tolerate criticism or dissent as part of their game plan, and certainly only pays lip service to many long-standing ideals of 2-way communication with the President.
You've seen the way President Bush is shielded in press situations. Now you've seen his email mechanism. Just observer them for what they are and derive what information you will from his actions.
Re:We've come a long way baby (Score:5, Insightful)
Snopes has a long article [snopes.com] on this very subject.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you ever stop to think that nowdays, perhaps president@whitehouse.gov has a spam problem many orders of magnitude greater than your e-mail does?
Its easy to find conspiricy theories in all of this, but just imagine how much staff time was probably being allocated to filtering spam out of this mailbox.
Re:I'd rather not have to deal with the DOJ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that U.S. senators and representatives are so far removed from the public that responses are, by default, not expected is a very strong argument, in my opinion, why most issues should be handled by state and local governments and not the federal one.
Local officials are much more accessible by their constituants (constituant to politician ratio is an order of magnatude less), and local officials are more accountable in thier communities. For example, the local state representative is very likely a local businessperson who is a member of the local chamber of commerce and lives in a known neighborhood on one end of town. He may even be active in a local church or civic group and may even know local people by name (imagine that!). Simply, the "pro" and "con" piles are just much smaller for local representation and are more likely to be given attention.
Compare the local people to national people like Hillary Clinton or Dick Cheny, for example, and there is no comparison. Besides the Letterman show or the Weekly World News, do the constituants of New York really understand or have the resources to care about what Ms. Clinton does for their state?
I just think that human society scales poorly (suburban spawl, for example), and that smaller groups are more likely to make real progress towards a genuinely happy community than very large ones. Smaller groups are also more accountable, and, if a person can't cope, moving to another group is not a big problem. If a person can't cope with a federal government, or the approaching global government, then what?
And, to be clear, "small" doesn't mean, necessarily, on the scale of nomadic tribes, but more like regular towns of several tens of thousands of people each. It seems that once an area gets into the hundreds of thousands of people, people start clashing in their everyday lives--traffic, for example--and don't find effective ways to deal with that scale.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: we've come a long way baby (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly ive always felt that unless the cause for war is good enough for the commander in chief to pick up a gun and lead the troops off to battle in the name of truth and honor and whatever else he might be fighting for, then its not a good enough reason to send a single lowly infantryman.
But maybe I hold warmongers to too high of a standard? Ya know, thinking the onus should be on them to justify their actions, inisting they be truthfull in their assertions and even to back them up. You know, silly things like that.
I don't think leading the troops is too much to ask. Afterall, How can you give an order that would cause people to die if your not willing and ready to be counted among the dead?
Guess you could say I just think hes a yellow bellied coward more than anything. War is easy. Diplomacy I guess is pretty hard.
-Steve
Re:"Supporting comment" / "differing opinion" (Score:3, Insightful)
If promised to sign a law making it illegal to piss in your soup, most mail concerning the policy would STILL be against it. The people most likely to mail are those who oppose something, and want the esteemed mail receiver to do look at their argumentation. Of course, a president won't make a statement unless he's already made his mind up to the point that any and all argumentation is worthless. When was the last time a president changed his mind about a policy for ANY reason, never mind mail from concerned citizens?
Regards,
--
*Art
Re:You find ANYTHING about this administration ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:WRONG, Asshat! (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with this technique is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Israel's nuclear weapons do not matter (Score:3, Insightful)
Mod parent up! (Score:3, Insightful)
Politicians are, like virtually anyone else, interested in advancing their own agendas and the agendas of their allies. They see their constituents in three groups...
- People who will support them no matter what.
- People who will oppose them no matter what.
- People who can be persuaded one way or the other.
Politicians will play enough to the first group to keep their "base" support strong. They'll completely ignore the second group, if they are not outright working against them.The key to effectively communicating with a politician is to appear to be in that third "swing" group.
Think about it. If you were the president and received two letters criticizing policies on "domestic spying" - the first called you a "fascist pig" - and the second acknowledged "you efforts to provide safety and security to the American people", then asked you to "reevaluate the balance between security and the civil liberty that we all cherish" - which would be more likely to make an impact?
And just another comment... Many of the "/." community talk about terrorism in their posts as if the threat is made up hysteria. I live in the NYC area. My wife watched the second plane impact and the collapse of the towers from her car on the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway. Later that morning at the foot of the Brooklyn Bridge she picked up refugees fleeing from lower Manhattan and ferried them out of the area. We know 4 fire fighters who gave their lives in the rescue effort.
It is not a hysterical witch hunt.
Island of Civilization? (Score:2, Insightful)
Muslim countries like Persia and Southern Spain preserved the science and literature of the greek, roman, and egyptian civilizations while the holy roman empire was burning books and people.
Don't judge an entire region by the acts of a few zealots.
Bordering on genius (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead, you must navigate a multi-page website AND confirm your submission via email.
Kind of like subscribing to slashdot.
Seriously, you're making it sound like it's a bad thing. How much spam do you think president@whitehouse.gov gets? This isn't obfuscation, it's replacing a system with zero accountability with one with a bit more accountability. Considering it's the government doing this it borders on genius compared to solution I'd expect.
But he was AWOL before. (Score:2, Insightful)
He even went AWOL from his Reserve unit, which he was placed in so he wouldn't have to face real combat.
No, I don't think he'd fight in this war, or any war. He seems to like to talk tough when surrounded by security. But he's had plenty of chances go active military and he's never done so.
Re:Israel's nuclear weapons do not matter (Score:3, Insightful)
Reasons why Israel should have WMD:
1. Maybe it's because Israel is the only democracy in the middle east.
2. Or because Israel has had WMD for more than 20 years now and never even thought about initiating an assault (unlike the US, mind you). In fact Israel doesn't even declare officially that it has these weapons, unlike many arab nations that declare how much they can't wait to use them on the Infindels (that's you!). The fact that these weapons are quasi-secret just goes to show that they're there for intimidation - in order to keep the arms balance between then Billion arabs surrounding Israel and it's 6 mil. population.
3. Maybe it's because Israel protects the interests of the US in the middle east, provides intelligence for example - the only worthwhile intelligence the US has about the middle east, IMO.
4. Maybe it's because Israel isn't run by "crazies" - at least not more than the US is run by a war mongering illiterate. Such claims are prejudice.
Get your facts straight. The fact of the matter is that Israel has the same right to bare nuclear arms as the US has. Israel hasn't started any of the wars it was engaged in. Israel hasn't sponsered any military coos in south america or east asia. Israel didn't give the Taliban billions of dollars and training to fight the soviets. Israel's foreign policy is much more peacefull than the US's. You might not agree with it's current internal security policy - with regards to the palestinians - but that's a very complicated issue and peace isn't going to come in two years just because Bush decided to draw a RoadMap-To-Peace. It's going to take seperation from the palestinians. It's going to take generations of healing and trust-building. It's going to take a sane palestinian government that would put an end to suicide-summer camps for 6 year olds and fanatic islamic religious text books in the schools. Palenstine needs to be built on a stonrg democratic foundation and not on Jihad. The area in Israel has no natural resources like Saudy Arabia or Kuwait and if a palenstinian state is to rise it has to have a free market, an educated working market that could support it financially. Otherwise, what's stopping it from becoming another Syria? Nothing.
The worst thing you can do is fulfill the stereotype of the ingnorant american cowboy by oversimplifying a painful and serious situation and thinking every problem can be solved by using power and money. Take the time to really study the issue and don't post your Israel-bashing opinions until you read at least a few books about 20 century middle easy history.
Re: we've come a long way baby (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'd rather not have to deal with the DOJ... (Score:2, Insightful)
That's if you can even get people to bother voting which rarely takes me more than a few hours of research before-hand and all of about five minutes at the polling place!
To me, that's bass-ackwards and irresponsible...the local councils are the ones who set the rates and maintain the civil services (perhaps paid through the state for roads, etc.). And the vast majority of the people who complain most about the rates can not be bothered take advantage of the fact that it's awfully hard to blow off someone who is politely engaging you in a conversation in your office whereas phone calls, EMAILs, and snail mails are easily discarded.
Case in point...I got married and had difficulties in actually get the certificate from the county which proved this to any governmental agency that cared. Essentially our paperwork ended up on someone's desk who was away on holiday and got lost in the shuffle. Not only did I get an audience with the Register of Deeds, we had a very good conversation on the process and how to improve it and I got five copies of the certificate for free to boot (and a heck of a story to tell...our certificate was the last one processed that year in our county!). Of course, that's probably the kiss of death because he got voted out the next election but he at least had my vote and had earned it once I had gotten to talk to him after three weeks of utter frustration and futility in dealing with his minions.
I really can't imagine most state assembly members and the federal office holders really feeling like they have to care about the individual citizen any more. The staggering amounts of money and even more staggering amount of issue prostitution one must engage in just to get elected in this country would seem to preclude that. Are we surprised that access goes to those with the biggest wallets?
We certainly aren't keeping them accountable to us!
Unless, of course, you've got pictures of the joker in question with a few goats and jugs of wine or you know someone else high up...and then you too can have access to your government!
That being said, even though our current implementation is hardly friendly to the citizenry (if not outright hostile to basic rights!)...it's often heads-and-shoulders above the rest!
SunFox
Re: we've come a long way baby (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I think you do hold them to too high standards. It would be fantastic if we would always have perfect information and always can back up everything. But we live in a world of uncertainty. Leaders have to make decisions anyway. Hard decisions, like going to war or not going to war. In the case of Iraq, many predictions turned out to be false: for example the claims of uranium purchases or the ones about millions of civilian deaths. I agree with the telling the truth part, but I don't think either side in the Iraq debate has been lying outright, they have just made different assessments based on incomplete information.
I don't think leading the troops is too much to ask. Afterall, How can you give an order that would cause people to die if your not willing and ready to be counted among the dead?
Again, I disagree. It is just that warfare has changed quite a bit since the old days. No longer do you take everyone to a big field, and the side with the more people and the better morale wins the day (in which case it makes perfect sense for the top guy to sit on a horse furthest ahead).
Having the top general on the front line is romantic but not efficient. He does more good in an airconditioned command center. This is in the interest of the grunts as well, unless they prioritize the general's unsafety over their own safety. The Iraqi generals did often follow their men to the front line. It did not do their men much good.
Tor
Re:Or worse (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:We've come a long way baby (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see why not...the muskets that people were shooting in the late 18th century were state-of-the-art weaponry at the time. (A tactical nuke is probably outside the budget of anybody who's not Bill Gates...but you didn't see too many people with cannon and other large artillery pieces in their yards back in the day for the same reason.)
That is one of the many arguments made for the Second Amendment. We had just tossed out one tyrannical government largely through the skills of ordinary people who showed up ready to fight. The people who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights recognized that even though they had taken extraordinary care to craft a system of government to secure an unprecedented amount of freedom for its people, there was always the possibility that someone could come along long after they were gone who might try to undo what they had accomplished. Whether citizens with long guns and handguns are a match for modern armed forces with tanks and supersonic aircraft with bombs and missiles is irrelevant WRT the rights of those citizens.
The issue I actually wanted to write about... (Score:2, Insightful)