Slashdot Mirror
How NY Gov. Cuomo Sidesteps Freedom of Information Requests With His Blackberry
New submitter wrekkuh writes "The Daily News is reporting that if aides of New York's Governor Andrew Cuomo cannot speak in person or by telephone with the Governor, they are told to use BlackBerry's PIN-to-PIN messaging system — a function that leaves no lasting trail because it bypasses data-saving email servers. Consequently, a Freedom of Information request for all e-mails to and from Governor Cuomo's office resulted in an empty reply from the Records Access Officer: 'Please be advised that the New York State Executive Chamber has conducted a diligent search, but does not possess records responsive to your request.'"
Why do sysmgr geeks love RIM? Above is one of many reasons, along with enterprise integration, remote administration, custom device policies. For years nothing could compete.
Droids/iStuff can run apps, but none of them could do exactly what a BB does, although perhaps that gap is narrowing. Too bad RIM is so far behind on the game nowadays no one will buy their devices and market share is plunging. 10% of value 1 year ago? Madness.
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
Next thing you know the Legislative Branch will start writing laws to sidestep the Judicial!!
Do you think all his phone conversations have been recorded?
There will always be unrecorded means for government officials to communicate, unless it becomes illegal, and still even then.
They don't want Jefferson's informed populace. Go back to watching the Kardasians please.
Silence is a state of mime.
"Never write if you can speak; never speak if you can nod; never nod if you can wink." - Martin Michael Lomasney
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
We have a classic problem with the freedom of information requests:
1) We want accurate historical records maintained of how decision were made, by whom and why.
2) We want a have an open press and legal system to have access to those records so our legal processes and our political processes are based on accurate information.
3) We want to have an open campaign system where all available information is discussed as part of the process of choosing leaders.
Pick any 2.
Had a former employer demand that I get an iPhone so he could text me the instructions on everything he wanted me to do, much of which was either illegal or leading me to suspect that he was basically building up an elaborate scam. But then of course he demanded emails that would show evidence that I was the one at fault for providing false information to him the whole time (me being the programmer). I cursed him out and quit for insulting my intelligence, and made sure the rest of the company employees got wind of it so they'd know better too. Younger less experienced employees might not have caught on to this, but I sure did....real fast.
Everything needs to be on record. It has to be a criminal offense to systematically use systems with no log. These people are public officials with enormous power. The ability to find out who knew what when is vital to the public trust.
What public officials are effectively saying is that we need to make this a felony for them to take it seriously. A felony conviction amongst other things would invalidate them from public service ever again. So indifferent to whether they actually served any jail time it would be the irrevocable end to their political career.
I don't see any reason to bother even sending them to jail for it. Just give them a felony conviction with a 1000 dollar fine for court fees.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
These aren't written. They're texted.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
This kind of practice is what a modern, intelligent, proactive administration needs to do to make sure the government works.
So, the only way for a government of the People, by the People, and for the People to work... is to keep the People from knowing what's going on?
You, sir or madam, are the ultimate jackass.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
bullshit. Back room secrets is NEVER good for democracy.
Our current lobbying system is example 0.
He's a career politician, what did you expect?
FTFY.
Only a blind fool would think there's any real difference between D and R, aside from their location in the seating chart.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Next thing you know the Legislative Branch will start writing laws to sidestep the Judicial!!
As long as the Judicial Branch doesn't start declaring that "Up" really means "Sideways" in the Constitution or just start making stuff up from the bench, we'll be OK. I mean, sheesh, will we ever be in trouble if that happens.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Am I the only one who thinks this is completely reasonable and acceptable?
FOI requests take time and have to be for something specific. You can't ask for 'what's the governor up to today?' So only after the dealmaking has been done can you get at documentation about the process. By that time, it's a done deal and the parties involved can present a complete picture of what the compromise was and how it was reached. If a political leader is making deals that even after the fact are something that they should be attacked for, why would you want to hide it?
Governor Cuomo is a Registered Democrat.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The problem is the the Public is really stupid.
They will take a public statement play it out of context, and they will think that guy is pure evil, or grossly out of touch. To run a government you need to work with your competition, and with groups who you are not a big fan of.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
How else can they sit down with their legislative friends and reach a compromise
You misspelled cronies and scam.
if they can't discuss things that the special interests or their own party would attack them for
They can. They just need the balls to explain why the public interest trumps the special interest.
If we want compromise, people need to be free to talk privately.
And if we want accountability, politicians must never talk privately.
You are aware that public shaming is a deterrant for some politicans to do the right thing. Can you understand that it is also a deterrent for politicans to do the wrong thing? Give them the power to keep secrets, and they will keep the wrong kinds of secrets. Sunlight, as always, is the best disinfectant.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
FOI requests take time and have to be for something specific.
Which is a serious problem. All official communications from any government office should be public, and available in real time. There should be no expectation of privacy, at any time, for any public official.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
We still need transparency in government. If that means that we pay extra people to handle FOIA request so what. There are a lot of things the government needs to stop spending money on. IMHO these include wars, oil company tax breaks, running guns to Mexico and the drug war. It is possible your list is different. I happen to agree that I am sick and tired of the Republican / Democrat bickering. They have decided that government is a game they want to win instead of the activity of good governance. But, that does not mean that the answer is to hid the actions of and communication of public officials. That is the same as sticking you head in the ground when the bullets fly.
No sigs in BETA. Beta SUCKS.
FTFA:
"Only members of Cuomo’s inner circle are told his PIN, sources say."
"Internal back-and-forth messages — whether on paper or by email or PIN-to-PIN messaging — are not by law available to the public, said Robert Freeman, of the state Committee on Open Government."
He broke no laws, and nothing he did reduced information available to the public. What's the problem?
Didnt you hear? Any politician that does something the left doesnt like is automatically called a republican. Its like a reverse No True Scotsman.
The Bush administration was raked over the coalsby the press for Blackberry use, and Sarah Palin was nailed for occasionally using private email as governor. Currently the press is complaining about Romney deleting information when he left as governor.
Note the common denominator: They're all Republicans. I'll be surprised if the press inflates this to the scale of a national scandal since Cuomo is a Democrat.
The mainstream press didn't care much when the Clinton administration "lost" thousands of emails under subpoena, even with a Democrat operative threatening contractors who were knew about the loss, and the fact that person got promoted out of the mess. I hear the Obama administration has hired her for a sensitive post at Cyber Command, *chirp* *chirp*.
All Cuomo really had to do was sign an executive order. Everybody knows those overrule legislation now.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
The problem is the the Public is really stupid.
No - the problem is that mentality right there. The pervasiveness of the idea that "the Public is stupid" and therefore undeserving of honest, open government, is exactly why we have the dishonest, corrupt, secretive government you see today.
Try giving people credit for once, instead of just instantly assuming that everyone [who doesn't share your particular point of view] is an abject moron - they will surprise you with their intelligence, given the opportunity to express it.
I'm always amazed at how smart individual hillbillies can be, once you get them to actually think for themselves and stop parroting FOX News talking points. I assume the same can be said for coastal elites, save the substitution of "MSNBC" in place of "FOX News"
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Only a Republican would assume that Democrats approve of Democrats acting like Republicans.
Activist judge actually to me means.
Judge whom for what he perceives as a need decides to attempt to interpret the constitution in a way that solves a problem.
Once a judge goes from "What did they mean?" to "What could it mean?" he is an activist judge.
Me wanting the decision to go that way or not.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
The problem is the the Public is really stupid.
They will take a public statement play it out of context, and they will think that guy is pure evil, or grossly out of touch. To run a government you need to work with your competition, and with groups who you are not a big fan of.
We get the government we deserve... Your notion that elected officials should be competing or playing favorites is exactly what is wrong. Since when did it make sense that in order for government to work there needs to be a constant struggle to prove, using almost exclusively disingenuous means, that the other side should "lose"? How about an elected official working for every person in their district, not just the ones that vote (or buy votes) for them?
The two parties exist because everyone is so eager to see winners and losers. Guess what, politicians are the winners and WE are the losers. Nine out of ten politicians elected to the US House of Representatives did so by being the candidate that raised the most amount of money. What that means in simple terms to contributors, is that if you give a candidate enough money, they have a 90% chance of winning. What that means in simple terms to a candidate, is that if you sell yourself to donors better than the other guy, you have a 90% chance of winning. What that means to voters, is that if you like a candidate there is a 90% chance he is already bought and paid for by someone else and is headed to Washington to do THEIR bidding, and not yours. And if you pick the guy who isn't? Well, they have a 10% chance of winning. Sorry about your luck.
So I take it that you think the only people here posting that this is wrong are Republicans?
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Don't underestimate the deliberate nature of Cuomo's actions. He is acutely aware of technology, what it is, and how it can be used. He has a lot of good advisers who are technologically aware. He also knows a lot of the dangers posed by email and what it can do.
During his time as Attorney General, he learned very quickly how crucial email was to a case. I don't specifically have to name cases, but a reader can easily find landmark investigations he conducted that hinged on getting email, mining it using some very sophisticated tools, and finding the right evidence.
I'm sure as he conducts himself and his staff now, mis-steps are keenly in his mind. This is a man who is not satisfied as Governor and will run for President.
"Draw them in with the prospect of gain, take them by confusion." Sun Tzu
Only Timmy McVeigh and Joe Stack so far.
"Grumbling" /= "Albert Herrhausen bicycle-borne ordnance".
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Once a judge goes from "What did they mean?" to "What could it mean?" he is an activist judge.
Depends who you ask. An originalist interprets the text by "What did they mean?". A strict constructionist goes by "What does it say?". Typically both are more acceptable to conservatives than someone who interprets the text by "What is the most reasonable way to read this in current society and based on other precedents?". But to a strict constructionist, asking "what did they mean?" is irrelevant.
Red slime, blue slime... seriously, the US political system is messed up. The two major parties have so sewn up the political arena, anyone not affiliated with one of them is essentially a joke. That means they can set up a few token points to disagree over and make a big media circus, but on so many issues there is really little choice. They both sell out to the same special interests.
A law says that no motor vehicles are allowed to operate inside a city park. A hiker, deep in the park, has a cardiac arrest. Someone calls an ambulance, but at the entrance to the park there's a sign that says, "motor vehicles not allowed; punishable by $500 fine and up to 6 months in prison".
Ambulance driver proceeds anyhow and saves the man. The district attorney, wanting to look tough crime, has a zero tolerance policy for all law breakers, and indicts the ambulance driver.
The poor driver is brought before a judge for a preliminary hearing. The judge can
a) Allow the trial to proceed, because he clearly broke the letter of law
b) Use common sense--and a 1000 years of AngloAmerican judicial precedent--to "read into" the rule an exception for public safety to the benefit of this criminal defendant.
If the judge chooses (a), he's not a judge. If the conservatives had their way (that is, the way according to the party platform, not what actual politicians believe), we would lose the third and coequal branch of our government. Judges can and should have some degree of "law making" powers.
Anything else is absurd and a road to tyranny. Most judges have far more experience and wisdom when it comes to the analysis, application, and understanding of law in society. Politicians are complete idiots compared to a seasoned judge. Obviously there are democratic issues with giving judges too much leeway. But some leeway they should have. We wouldn't have a free society without powerful, independent, and decidedly "political" judges.
Only a blind fool would think there's any real difference between D and R
I don't think that's quite true. That may have been the case before, but Republicans have since slid into total insanity leaving Democrats behind (in part because Democrats are adopting Republican policy, forcing Republicans to go further right to differentiate themselves). Not to say that D are good, but R are really bad.
Just the fact that someone like Santorum was, for a while, a viable contender for a Republican president, is enough to prove my point.
Unfortunately it is legal what he is doing. I'm trained in FOIL (Sunshine) and it has many loopholes. However, I did learn that you can request email address lists from universities and they have to provide them--so says the AG of Ohio anyway. Their advice was to comply to avoid litigation.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock