7 ms·

I'm sorry, but this has to be said: The White House doesn't owe you shit. They set up this petition system to expand the illusion that somehow the system is w

I'm sorry, but this has to be said: The White House doesn't owe you shit. They set up this petition system to expand the illusion that somehow the system is working for its constituents. It is not, and it was not designed to. The system makes decisions so you don't have to. It's better this way. The fact of the matter is that these prosecutors were doing their job, which is to apply as much pressure as needed to achieve a negotiated prison term (a win), and they did it a little too well for our comfort. The White House will not speak against these actions because these actions benefit the White House in the vast majority of cases. If you want things to change, change the system. Lobby against the CFAA. Lobby for rules to enforce ethical use of prosecutorial discretion. Protest. Volunteer for candidates that oppose these practices. Don't think that clicking a "Like" button is going to change anything, because if the White House petition system actually changed anything, it wouldn't exist. If you want to change the system, don't ask the system to change. Change it yourself.

NathanKP 14y ago
Yeah I'm afraid this may just go the way of several other petitions regarding judicial cases, in which the response was basically "here is why we aren't going to respond". In this case I feel some sort of real response is deserved even if I think it is highly unlikely that they can or will do anything as serious as firing people.
- tadfisher 14y ago
  Why do we deserve a response from the White House? What can the White House possibly say to appease us if they cannot or will not do what we ask?
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Uh, we deserve a response because they agreed to give us one? I am not expecting a response that pleases me. We nevertheless deserve what they have agreed to give.
    - tadfisher 14y ago
      "What happened was a tragedy. We cannot comment further as the investigation into the incident is ongoing." There, I saved you all the anguish and the time wasted writing up Forbes articles on how we deserve a "response" from the White House. Now what?
      - politician 14y ago
        I realize you're annoyed by what you perceive as a farce, but it's already had an important effect: some politicians are moving to tap into a fresh source of voters by proposing legislation to "get tough" on a heretofore unrecognized group of offenders, namely prosecutors.
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        I know you don't believe it, but that would be better than silence. I don't think we deserve a good response, just a response. Also, nobody thinks the response is the end game...
  - xaa 14y ago
    Er, because the White House works for us and is theoretically accountable to us for the decisions it makes?
  - betterunix 14y ago
    They could explain why they cannot or will not do what we want, on the record. I have little hope that they actually will though.
scarmig 14y ago
You miss the point: the White House isn't going to govern by petition, but the petition provides a useful organizing nexus. And these petitions have, if nothing else, put a serious damper on the prosecutors' professional goals and potential political aspirations. Not nearly enough, but I don't think anyone's argument is that "all we need to do is get one or two prosecutors fired and then we're done." The only question is, what's next?
- tadfisher 14y ago
  Then why not skip the farce and actually organize a movement? You know, like they used to do when "separate but equal" was a thing?
  - rdl 14y ago
    What's the potential civil disobedience movement? Refusing to participate in the federal court system?
    - philwelch 14y ago
      There's the type where you disobey unjust laws, and then actually go to prison when you get caught in order to demonstrate the injustice.
      - rdl 14y ago
        That's a whole lot more feasible when you're worried about misdemeanor being-black-and-on-a-bus-or-drinking-from-a-fountain, vs. 10+ year federal felony convictions (and thus ~lifetime ban on ~most employment).
        mpyne 14y ago
        Yes, because black people in America certainly only had to worry about which seat was reserved for them on the bus, and not lynchings, beatings, rapes, flaming crosses, police dogs, high-pressure fire hoses, or white juries as peers of their white attackers. P.S. Felony convictions are not a lifetime employment ban, especially for "white-collar" felonies.
waterlesscloud 14y ago
Sorry, but this misses the point entirely. The White House does in fact owe a response to the petition. That's the deal they set up themselves. They owe it to the people to live up to it.
- tadfisher 14y ago
  And that response will be as meaningless as most of the responses they've given. So what? What will it do or change? Will this response prevent another Aaron Swartz incident?
  - mcherm 14y ago
    You miss the point. Getting the law (or even policies on prosecutorial practices) changed to prevent another such incident is a VERY HARD task. Taking small steps toward that task is NOT "meaningless". The victory to be celebrated here is NOT that the problem has been solved. It is not even that the White House now has to help work to solve the problem. The victory to be celebrated here is that the White House actually has to say something. (And they DO have to... if not, then the press coverage will increase until reporters demand an answer on their own. Heck, refusing to comment would be GREAT for our cause.) Do you have any idea how difficult it is to make the White House at least make a statement about your issue? It is something powerful lawmakers and world-spanning corporations often find themselves unable to accomplish. Now, that's not much: the White House's response may consist of meaningless blather. But it is not nothing: the White House has been forced to respond. And it helps to increase the momentum toward taking some kind of REAL action. The petitions at WhiteHouse.org don't fix problems, but when something is NOT being discussed by lawmakers, this kind of thing can help get that conversation started. Belittling it isn't helping.
    - chii 14y ago
      I suspect that _just signing_ a petition almost creates no impetus for change. The whitehouse response, while it might get some attention, is just that - a PR response. if everyone who signed the petition instead wrote a letter to their respective congressman/woman , it might've affected some more changes. I don't want to belittle the petition, but it makes it look like change is being afected, while in actual fact, it is nothing more than managing PR for the whitehouse.
politician 14y ago
The White House says they established this petition system to increase the level of communication between them and the public. Shouldn't we take them at their word? If they fail to come through, then call them out on it (as some other threshold-breaching petitions already have). Now, they've said that they are swamped with petitions and so have increased the threshold to 100,000. That's not an impossible number, it just requires a broader base of participation - more than say, just the readership of HN and Reddit. I realize this petition system is widely seen as a gimmick, but it's a public gimmick. As the WH fails to properly respond per its own rules, the independent (and perhaps, foreign, but probably not mass-) media can easily write obnoxious stories calling them out. As for the other calls to action: certainly.
- philwelch 14y ago
  The White House is like any political body--they want to give the illusion of listening to the people without having to actually do what anyone else wants of them. Online petitions are perfect for this. Their "word" is that 100,000 people sign an online petition, and some junior staffer writes an official response restating the administration's position. So in exchange for 100,000 people getting their slacktivism on and having a false sense of accomplishment, the White House gives up maybe an hour of time from their staff. It effectively reduces their accountability to the public by encouraging this false sense of accomplishment.
- betterunix 14y ago
  "Shouldn't we take them at their word?" Is there some reason we should trust the Obama administration to follow through on its promises? They have repeatedly failed or only half-kept their promises. Like most of America's high-ranking major party politicians, Obama and his administration will say whatever they need to say in order to get votes, and will then turn around and do whatever their wealthy corporate sponsors demand. "As the WH fails to properly respond per its own rules, the independent (and perhaps, foreign, but probably not mass-) media can easily write obnoxious stories calling them out." The media outlets that actually matter are too busy promoting the illusion that the Democrats are a liberal party and that Obama is a liberal president to bother with such things.
philwelch 14y ago
Nice job, HN. The one person who gives a realistic, grounded response gets downvoted.
mrbarrett84 14y ago
Agreed. We owe it to ourselves not to worry about what the government is going to feed us. Every one of us is smart enough to know what needs to change. Back away from the keyboard for a second. Take a deep breath. Get out there and work for change until you are exhausted. Don't ask any system a question you already know the answer to. It will break your heart.
woodhull 14y ago
Actually, the petition site is a clever way to harvest email addresses which the administration can then use to market it's policies back to constituents.
drunkenmasta 14y ago
If what you write is true, then it would be in their best interest to respond so that they could maintain the "illusion." So while maybe the "White House doesn't owe you shit," that does not mean that it is not in their best interest to keep their promise.
lukifer 14y ago
Much of what you say is correct, but I see no reason not to use every tool in the toolbox. Public perception is a powerful weapon, and these petitions can be used effectively to that end.
n3rdy 14y ago
> because if the White House petition system actually changed anything, it wouldn't exist. Reminds me the saying "If voting made a difference, it would be illegal". > If you want to change the system, don't ask the system to change. Change it yourself. I'm a fan of Bucky too.
cardine 14y ago
"Let the people think they govern and they will be governed." - William Penn One of my favorite quotes, and completely true in this situation.

NathanKP 14y ago

Yeah I'm afraid this may just go the way of several other petitions regarding judicial cases, in which the response was basically "here is why we aren't going to respond". In this case I feel some sort of real response is deserved even if I think it is highly unlikely that they can or will do anything as serious as firing people.

tadfisher 14y ago
Why do we deserve a response from the White House? What can the White House possibly say to appease us if they cannot or will not do what we ask?
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Uh, we deserve a response because they agreed to give us one? I am not expecting a response that pleases me. We nevertheless deserve what they have agreed to give.
  - tadfisher 14y ago
    "What happened was a tragedy. We cannot comment further as the investigation into the incident is ongoing." There, I saved you all the anguish and the time wasted writing up Forbes articles on how we deserve a "response" from the White House. Now what?
    - politician 14y ago
      I realize you're annoyed by what you perceive as a farce, but it's already had an important effect: some politicians are moving to tap into a fresh source of voters by proposing legislation to "get tough" on a heretofore unrecognized group of offenders, namely prosecutors.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      I know you don't believe it, but that would be better than silence. I don't think we deserve a good response, just a response. Also, nobody thinks the response is the end game...
- xaa 14y ago
  Er, because the White House works for us and is theoretically accountable to us for the decisions it makes?
- betterunix 14y ago
  They could explain why they cannot or will not do what we want, on the record. I have little hope that they actually will though.

scarmig 14y ago

You miss the point: the White House isn't going to govern by petition, but the petition provides a useful organizing nexus. And these petitions have, if nothing else, put a serious damper on the prosecutors' professional goals and potential political aspirations. Not nearly enough, but I don't think anyone's argument is that "all we need to do is get one or two prosecutors fired and then we're done." The only question is, what's next?

tadfisher 14y ago
Then why not skip the farce and actually organize a movement? You know, like they used to do when "separate but equal" was a thing?
- rdl 14y ago
  What's the potential civil disobedience movement? Refusing to participate in the federal court system?
  - philwelch 14y ago
    There's the type where you disobey unjust laws, and then actually go to prison when you get caught in order to demonstrate the injustice.
    - rdl 14y ago
      That's a whole lot more feasible when you're worried about misdemeanor being-black-and-on-a-bus-or-drinking-from-a-fountain, vs. 10+ year federal felony convictions (and thus ~lifetime ban on ~most employment).
      - mpyne 14y ago
        Yes, because black people in America certainly only had to worry about which seat was reserved for them on the bus, and not lynchings, beatings, rapes, flaming crosses, police dogs, high-pressure fire hoses, or white juries as peers of their white attackers. P.S. Felony convictions are not a lifetime employment ban, especially for "white-collar" felonies.

waterlesscloud 14y ago

Sorry, but this misses the point entirely. The White House does in fact owe a response to the petition. That's the deal they set up themselves. They owe it to the people to live up to it.

tadfisher 14y ago
And that response will be as meaningless as most of the responses they've given. So what? What will it do or change? Will this response prevent another Aaron Swartz incident?
- mcherm 14y ago
  You miss the point. Getting the law (or even policies on prosecutorial practices) changed to prevent another such incident is a VERY HARD task. Taking small steps toward that task is NOT "meaningless". The victory to be celebrated here is NOT that the problem has been solved. It is not even that the White House now has to help work to solve the problem. The victory to be celebrated here is that the White House actually has to say something. (And they DO have to... if not, then the press coverage will increase until reporters demand an answer on their own. Heck, refusing to comment would be GREAT for our cause.) Do you have any idea how difficult it is to make the White House at least make a statement about your issue? It is something powerful lawmakers and world-spanning corporations often find themselves unable to accomplish. Now, that's not much: the White House's response may consist of meaningless blather. But it is not nothing: the White House has been forced to respond. And it helps to increase the momentum toward taking some kind of REAL action. The petitions at WhiteHouse.org don't fix problems, but when something is NOT being discussed by lawmakers, this kind of thing can help get that conversation started. Belittling it isn't helping.
  - chii 14y ago
    I suspect that _just signing_ a petition almost creates no impetus for change. The whitehouse response, while it might get some attention, is just that - a PR response. if everyone who signed the petition instead wrote a letter to their respective congressman/woman , it might've affected some more changes. I don't want to belittle the petition, but it makes it look like change is being afected, while in actual fact, it is nothing more than managing PR for the whitehouse.

politician 14y ago

The White House says they established this petition system to increase the level of communication between them and the public. Shouldn't we take them at their word? If they fail to come through, then call them out on it (as some other threshold-breaching petitions already have). Now, they've said that they are swamped with petitions and so have increased the threshold to 100,000. That's not an impossible number, it just requires a broader base of participation - more than say, just the readership of HN and Reddit. I realize this petition system is widely seen as a gimmick, but it's a public gimmick. As the WH fails to properly respond per its own rules, the independent (and perhaps, foreign, but probably not mass-) media can easily write obnoxious stories calling them out. As for the other calls to action: certainly.

philwelch 14y ago
The White House is like any political body--they want to give the illusion of listening to the people without having to actually do what anyone else wants of them. Online petitions are perfect for this. Their "word" is that 100,000 people sign an online petition, and some junior staffer writes an official response restating the administration's position. So in exchange for 100,000 people getting their slacktivism on and having a false sense of accomplishment, the White House gives up maybe an hour of time from their staff. It effectively reduces their accountability to the public by encouraging this false sense of accomplishment.
betterunix 14y ago
"Shouldn't we take them at their word?" Is there some reason we should trust the Obama administration to follow through on its promises? They have repeatedly failed or only half-kept their promises. Like most of America's high-ranking major party politicians, Obama and his administration will say whatever they need to say in order to get votes, and will then turn around and do whatever their wealthy corporate sponsors demand. "As the WH fails to properly respond per its own rules, the independent (and perhaps, foreign, but probably not mass-) media can easily write obnoxious stories calling them out." The media outlets that actually matter are too busy promoting the illusion that the Democrats are a liberal party and that Obama is a liberal president to bother with such things.

philwelch 14y ago

Nice job, HN. The one person who gives a realistic, grounded response gets downvoted.

mrbarrett84 14y ago

Agreed. We owe it to ourselves not to worry about what the government is going to feed us. Every one of us is smart enough to know what needs to change. Back away from the keyboard for a second. Take a deep breath. Get out there and work for change until you are exhausted. Don't ask any system a question you already know the answer to. It will break your heart.

woodhull 14y ago

Actually, the petition site is a clever way to harvest email addresses which the administration can then use to market it's policies back to constituents.

drunkenmasta 14y ago

If what you write is true, then it would be in their best interest to respond so that they could maintain the "illusion." So while maybe the "White House doesn't owe you shit," that does not mean that it is not in their best interest to keep their promise.

lukifer 14y ago

Much of what you say is correct, but I see no reason not to use every tool in the toolbox. Public perception is a powerful weapon, and these petitions can be used effectively to that end.

n3rdy 14y ago

> because if the White House petition system actually changed anything, it wouldn't exist. Reminds me the saying "If voting made a difference, it would be illegal". > If you want to change the system, don't ask the system to change. Change it yourself. I'm a fan of Bucky too.

cardine 14y ago

"Let the people think they govern and they will be governed." - William Penn One of my favorite quotes, and completely true in this situation.