White House Morning Meeting

Visitor Logs

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs called the White House decision to release visitor logs "as important a transparency mechanism as has been instituted in decades" and said that for future administrations it would be "difficult if not impossible to walk away from." He said that visits will not be included in the release if they fall into one of three categories: family visits, such as friends of Malia and Sasha; national security exceptions, such as covert operatives; and meetings with people like potential Supreme Court nominees. Gibbs said that all decisions to withhold records under the national security exception will be reviewed by the White House Counsel's office each month. He also said that visit logs "held back" for people such as nominees will be later released, and the White House will disclose how many records are being held back.

Gibbs cited the number of records—70–100 thousand per month—as a reason for not releasing the visit logs for the entire administration. Gibbs said that he would check with the Counsel's office about whether the same disclosure policies would apply to Camp David and Air Force One. The records will include the visitor's full name, whom he or she met with, and the time of entry and departure.

School Address

Gibbs said the upset over President Obama's address to school kids is "a little bit of the silly season," and that if telling kids to study hard and stay in school is a political message, someone should tell the NBA. Gibbs noted that Presidents Reagan (in 1988) and H. W. Bush (in 1991) also addressed school children. Responding to schools that are not going to be showing the address, Gibbs said that "there are school districts that won't let you read Huckleberry Finn," but he also said there could be logistical reasons for some schools refusals.

Jobs Report

On the new jobless numbers out this morning, Gibbs said that the country is "continuing to see a slowing of the pace of job loss," pointing out that new jobless claims are about one-third what they were in January. He attributed the slowing to manufacturing numbers being up, new home sales being up, and consumer confidence being up.

Van Jones

Gibbs refused to discuss the Van Jones allegations, saying only that the "Truther" statements are not something the president agrees with and confirming that Van Jones continues to work in the administration.

Supreme Court may rule against drug buy-bust technique

Pearson v. Callahan

The "consent-once-removed" is a doctrine which allows multiple police officers to enter a home once one police officer (generally an undercover officer) is invited in. The question in this case is whether the same doctrine applies to an undercover informer. In this case, an informant told police that Callahan was selling methamphetamine. Police set the informant up with money, a wire, and a signal for officers to enter. The informant went to Callahan's home and bought some meth, then signaled police to come in and arrest Callahan. Callahan argued at trial that his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures had been violated.

The lower courts agreed, and the Supreme Court today indicated it might uphold those decisions. Justice Souter took the lead in questioning, pointing out that exceptions to the warrant requirement for searches have in the past been granted due to necessity of some kind; in this case, police had two hours between the informant's contact and when they returned to the house, plenty of time to obtain a warrant. The officers claimed they suspected the meth might be sold or destroyed, so they didn't have probable cause to get a warrant, but Justice Souter incredulously said that was "not a serious answer." While Callahan's lawyer argued that the "consent-once-removed" rule was unconstitutional even in the case of undercover police, the Justices were hesitant to accept that view: Justice Alito in particular expressed concern that police going into a house to protect an undercover office would have to violate the Constitution to do so. Justice Breyer, on the other hand, expressed some doubt about the correctness of the consent-once-removed doctrine, indicating the Court may end up with a 3-way split: some Justices invalidating the rule for police and informants, some keeping it for police but not informants, and some expanding it to informants.

The fight for privacy in the digital age

A full committee hearing on “Protecting Personal Information: Is the Federal Government Doing Enough?” was led by Chairman Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) and Ranking Member Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). Lieberman said that the United States needs to be concerned because new types of personal information and technology have led to justified concerns about privacy. Collins agreed and said that the battle for privacy is one worth waging in the digital age.

Lieberman explained that new technologies to gather, share, and store huge amounts of information have dramatically altered the privacy landscape. These new technologies and data practices that go along with them have overtaken some of the core definitions of the Privacy Act of 1974, and Lieberman said that revisions need to be made. Collins explained that the government needs to be diligent as technology develops rapidly. She said that Congress should build on the success of the original law and inspire confidence of the American public that the U.S. government is protecting their privacy.

Linda Koontz, the Director of Information Management Issues in the U.S. Government Accountability Office, agreed with both senators and said that the Privacy Act does need to be revised. She explained that the systems of records are too narrow and not all methods protect privacy. Hugo Teufel, the Chief Privacy Officer of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, said that the government needs to focus on five different areas when dealing with the protection of personal information: policy, process, incidence and breeches, education, and outreach.

Ari Schwartz, the Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Center for Democracy and Technology, asked “how can privacy be improved?” He said that the structure of the Privacy Act is solid but, as technology improves, not all areas of privacy are covered. Schwartz said that some agencies are becoming “promiscuous with data,” losing track of and giving away vital, personal information. Peter Swire, a Professor of Law at the Moritz College of Law at The Ohio State University, explained the importance of good leadership when dealing with privacy issues. He said that a privacy official would allow for coordination across agencies, would act as a source of expertise, would be available for special projects, and serve as a single point of contact. Everyone urged for the Committee to act this year and draft a bill of recommendations to improve the Privacy Act.