The OSTP Blog demands full names on the internet. This is a known security risk, and an improper request.
The public is not sitting behind federal security guards. Politics is a volatile issue, it is simply unwise to put a genuine name out there.
Yes, we could lie, but it weakens our credibility to demand open and honest government when we are compelled to begin with a lie. That is a setup. It isn't an accidental one either.
Continue to notify the White house. The petty administrators are attempting to exclude public comment through minor manipulations.
Do not let them close this issue. It is our government.
Comments (7)
Those who gives their name and address to Obama supporters had better be sure their guns are loaded - The Black Panther Storm Troopers and ACORNS "goons-for-hire" are available to do the dirty work for the Obama supporters.
i am going to an OFA meeting tomorrow so i'll keep that in mind, but i have not experienced violence from anyone, rather they all seem a bit dreamy eyed to me.
Anonymity is a integral part of the American psyche when it comes to political discussion. It is important that ideas remain "faceless" and "nameless". The People will weigh the messages and accept or reject them on their content. The requirement proposed to associate "idea" with "person" would only get in the way of honest and thoughtful discussion.
there are lots of crazies in the world and i think participants need to be afforded an element of anonymity. if whoever is reading this diatribe (ie, white house) can't find a way to contact any of the participants then that is pretty pathetic. all the need to do is send an email to the respondent.
now, i'm not that paranoid on most days, but do you really think they are getting ready to round up folks who aren't willing to sleep with the pods???
The issue here is that some people take things a little more than seriously, and can in some cases find no other resolution to an argument but by violence. Left and Right wing groups are equally guilty of this. Extremists on any side are dangerous, and putting a name on an idea or rebuttal that might provoke an extremist to harm someone is a very dangerous idea indeed.
Some people find it impossible to "agree to disagree" and we wind up with a tragedy.
What seems obvious to me is not that the expectation is wrong, it is, but that the office of technology cannot not know that.
Our government is based on a constitution where the bill of rights starts with a guarantee for anonymous political participation.
This is a deliberate chill, and should be openly challenged.
The number of participants is evidence that many people cannot and will not participate because they are unwilling to be forced into a lie or risk personal safety.
stupid, its the internet, get outta here.
im american don't have to talk to no foreign. go back to kenya