Open Gov't Advocates Fear that Private Messaging Apps Are Being Misused by Public Officials To Conduct Business in Secret (pbs.org)

The proliferation of digital tools that make text and email messages vanish may be welcome to Americans seeking to guard their privacy. But open government advocates fear they are being misused by public officials to conduct business in secret and evade transparency laws. From a report: Whether communications on those platforms should be part of the public record is a growing but unsettled debate in states across the country. Updates to transparency laws lag behind rapid technological advances, and the public and private personas of state officials overlap on private smartphones and social media accounts. "Those kind of technologies literally undermine, through the technology itself, state open government laws and policies," said Daniel Bevarly, executive director of the National Freedom of Information Coalition. "And they come on top of the misuse of other technologies, like people using their own private email and cellphones to conduct business." Some government officials have argued that public employees should be free to communicate on private, non-governmental cellphones and social media platforms without triggering open records requirements.

Comments

You can’t have it both ways

[Anonymous Coward]

People don’t want the government spying on them but cry foul when the government uses the same tools.

Re:You can’t have it both ways

[mrbester]

Yes, because government is accountable to the people, not the other way around.

Re:You can’t have it both ways

[Anonymous Coward]

People don’t want the government spying on them but cry foul when the government uses the same tools.

Bullshit! Personal integrity does not extend to the government as it is not a personal being.

Also, WE, the people have given the government the power so we should be able to look into what business it conducts. It is our tax money that they spend and in order to prevent corruption, transparency and openness is a must. But just because they should be under open records requirement does not mean that the records are handled carelessly and handed out willy-nilly.

Re:You can’t have it both ways

[king neckbeard]

This isn't me wanting to spy on my neighbor, but not wanting my neighbor to spy on me. This is the relationship between a people and their government, which is by it's very nature, asymmetrical.

Re:You can’t have it both ways

[Holi]

No, this is wanting governments to follow the laws they passed. Open government laws require that records are kept and trying to get around that is illegal.

What we need are stronger punishments for this activity as we already have decided that these acts are against the law.

Re: You can’t have it both ways

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely this. The issue isn't the existence of these tools, it is the lack of laws banning government officials from using them.

Re:You can’t have it both ways

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahahaha, Good one. Without accountability of law enforcement it does not matter who you elect. Democracy is meaningless without accountability and standards of law enforcement.

Re:You can’t have it both ways

[Anonymous Coward]

People who enter public service must be held to a different standard. They are being temporarily given a large amount of power over other citizens along with the opportunity to personally profit by that power. That requires trust, and the only way to assure trust is making all their communications and actions subject to public review.

If someone doesn't like that, fine. They don't have to be a public servant, they can be a private citizen like everyone else. Traditionally, going into politics was understood to be a sacrifice, rather than a lifelong career, so giving up certain things was expected.

Re:You can’t have it both ways

[apoc.famine]

I concur. Jail plus a lifetime ban on participating in politics or lobbying. I think that last bit would dissuade a lot of politicians planning to move to the lucrative lobbying sector after they get out of office.

Re:You can’t have it both ways

[Anonymous Coward]

You can’t have it both ways

Actually we can. We can expect privacy in our private dealings while requiring the people granted state powers have their governance scrutinized. The only dichotomies one can imagine here are false.

Sorry if that means using government to enforce your will on ignorant subjects is less feasible.

Commence spouting off about corporations and rich people now. We know how you've been trained.

Re:You can’t have it both ways

[arth1]

Oh, I think public servants also need to be allowed the right of being private citizens when they don't work, except for the few positions that really are 24/7, like president.

But the lines between the two need to be fairly firm - a private encrypted e-mail to your cousin is one thing, and a "private" encrypted e-mail to your cousin who runs a company that bids on government business is a different thing.

Re: You can’t have it both ways

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck getting politicians to pass a law that restricts the political class

Re:You can’t have it both ways

[nonBORG]

They don't need these tools. They just setup a personal email server and then delete 30,000 emails.

Re: You can’t have it both ways

[Anonymous Coward]

So is it wrong for the government to conceal.thier communications, or is it only wrong if Hilary does it?

Pick a lane you fucking hypocrite.

Re:You can’t have it both ways

[Anonymous Coward]

In most areas you are correct. However, any communication deemed classified is not available to the pubic without going through a well defined legal process to verify content. Even the FOIA has faces hurdles every time someone files a FOIA request. It all depends on the classification level attached. This could mean having to wait x number of years, heavy redaction of the content, or the content could never see the light of day. The government may be accountable to the public but who is the public accountable to? And it seems like today's public operate on an collective IQ of 50. People who express hate toward the government policies and regulations think adding more government policies and regulations will fix the problem? The government is already up everyone's ass and the publics solution to bad government is adding more government control. The US has all the local, state, and federal laws, statutes, and regulations it needs. The federal government has usurped more power than they were ever allotted in the Constitution. All at the request of the public. The last US Civil War was not about slavery it was about states rights. At the time the decision to declare slavery illegal at the federal level was just one example of the federal government trying to dictate laws that the states believed was a matter to decided at the state by state level. Lincoln used the slavery issue to rally support for the war. He could use the inhumane treatment of people because the vast majority of people at the time saw this and agreed something had to be done. And in the north people could ignore the slavery problem but they could not openly defend slavery in any form or fashion. However after the early Union defeats where thousands of white soldiers from places up north were killed and maimed people started to ask why their sons were dying for the "darkies". Had it not been for the mass immigration of Europeans at the time the Union army would have withered on the vine.

Re:You can’t have it both ways

[e3m4n]

they really seem to like 'three strikes' type laws. How about 3 strikes and they remove you from office.

Re: You can’t have it both ways

[Anonymous Coward]

Try policing that idea. The government will just take your freedom.

Re:You can’t have it both ways

[Anonymous Coward]

Stronger punishments mean nothing if the law is never enforced.

Re:You can’t have it both ways

[oldgraybeard]

"People who enter public service must be held to a different standard"

They are held to a different standard. Laws and regulations never apply to them!

Just my 2 cents ;)

Re:You can’t have it both ways

[Jesus H Rolle]

The last US Civil War was not about slavery it was about states rights. At the time the decision to declare slavery illegal at the federal level was just one example of the federal government trying to dictate laws that the states believed was a matter to decided at the state by state level.

The US Civil War was over the right of States to secede, and the States that seceded made it very clear that the "State's Right" over which they seceded was the right of a State to permit slavery.

Re:You can’t have it both ways

[OYAHHH]

The US Civil War was over the right of States to secede, and the States that seceded made it very clear that the "State's Right" over which they seceded was the right of a State to permit slavery.

No, the US Civil War was about States rights which is only tangentially related to succession at best.

Re:You can’t have it both ways

[Anonymous Coward]

But a publicly elected official should go to jail for keeping secrets from the people who elected him or her.

Re:You can’t have it both ways

[dj245]

I concur. Jail plus a lifetime ban on participating in politics or lobbying. I think that last bit would dissuade a lot of politicians planning to move to the lucrative lobbying sector after they get out of office.

How would you define lobbying in a way that wouldn't be full of loopholes? And how could that possibly be enforced?

Re:You can’t have it both ways

[Dread_ed]

Government officials have been refining their tactics in this arena since Nixon hung himself with those tapes.

If it isn't one thing it will be another. Or, in other words, it's not the technology that creates the clandestine act, and even without it, the clandestine acts will continue. Focusing on the tech is another way to scapegoat the whole conversation and avoid the hard questions about how to eliminate this kind of behavior by our elected officials.

Sadly, I get the feeling that partisan people are in favor of this kind of behavior, as most of them see government as a blunt instrument with which to strike at the heads of anyone who believes differently than they do.

Re:You can’t have it both ways

[terrycarlino]

Define lobbying in a way without loopholes?

Easy.

If you talk to a politician about an issue that is important to you it's legal.

If somebody pays you to talk to a politician about anything you should both go to jail.

Make that the law and 95% of our troubles in the U.S. would go away.

Re: You can’t have it both ways

[rickb928]

The law already exists. Enforce it.

Re: You can’t have it both ways

[rickb928]

It is wrong in both instances. Enforce the law in all circumstances.

Oh, and it has been done before.

Ironic, isn't it?

[quonset]

We have the government saying encryption is thwarting their efforts to gather information on people, while at the same time (some) government folks are saying it's perfectly reasonable for them to use apps which thwart the public's effort to gather information on them.

Re:Ironic, isn't it?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, not ironic.

And rest assured: they will still have strong encryption long after you've lost your ability to use it

Re: Ironic, isn't it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not ironic at all, TFA isn't talking about encryption.

Re:Ironic, isn't it?

[originalGMC]

Welcome to the Ministry of Truth, or MiniTruth. How may we be of service?

Re: Ironic, isn't it?

[Anonymous Coward]

> TFA isn't talking about sealed communications
Pedantry.

Re: Ironic, isn't it?

[sChatwin]

So if the issue is accountability for government actions, how about the corridor conversation between Sen X (R) and Sen Y(D) exchanging commitments for votes. Shouldn't that be part of the public record; shouldn't that be available under the FOIA? The fact that they're not using technology does not change the issue, they're still doing things that should be exposed under the rule of "transparent government". I'd like to all representives of the people to wear permanently on body camps and that the video from those is part of the "government record" and thus exposable. Maybe we'd see a rise in honesty? I doubt it!

Install spyware

[Anonymous Coward]

So install spyware, keyloggers, and back doors on the phones of public officials

Re:Install spyware

[RandomFactor]

Until we get public officials that don't believe Microsoft Support wants them to install VNC on their computer to resolve a virus issue, this will be continue to be done for us at no charge by benevolent third parties.

Before the digital age ...

[El Cubano]

But open government advocates fear they are being misused by public officials to conduct business in secret and evade transparency laws.

Before the digital age, the government employees would have meetings in person and just not write down what was said. That doesn't make restaurants and bars somehow complicit or instrumental in government officials' malfeasance.

Face it, there is generally a de facto expectation that private meetings and discussions in person are not automatically subject to transparency requirements. I mean, should a government official be required to record every single meal they have and with whom and what, if anything, was discussed?

Granted, there is a blurring of the lines with things like Twitter. Everyone wondered whether President Obama would blur that line, though he did a very good job separating himself from his personal social media presence once he became president. On the other hand, President Trump has not done the same and Hillary Clinton most definitely acted wrongly with her private email setup (she was not the only, but by far the most willful and egregious example). In any event, the discussion needs to be had because of the nature of social media and other technological means of communication.

Re:Before the digital age ...

[apoc.famine]

Before the digital age, the government employees would have meetings in person and just not write down what was said. That doesn't make restaurants and bars somehow complicit or instrumental in government officials' malfeasance.

The difference is that you could camp out a favorite restaurant and see who went into the private back room. You lack even that transparency with IM apps.

Re:Before the digital age ...

[Anonymous Coward]

They can still meet in person and do that.

There are companies that will journal and archive IM and email, because of SOX compliance. There is nothing wrong with government officials conducting business through private, encrypted electronic messaging to prevent 3rd party eavesdropping. The messages still must be recorded for future FOIA requests. The can still make them top secret and avoid release for many years, if it is in fact a secret that must be kept for national security. They just have to be recorded as official record, because it is for government business.

If they don't want an official record, they need to meet in person as they have always done in the past. Nothing prevents them from doing just that.

Re:Before the digital age ...

[Anonymous Coward]

" I mean, should a government official be required to record every single meal they have and with whom and what, if anything, was discussed?"

If they want to deduct the meal from their taxes or avoid being accused of being bribed, fuck yes!

Re:Before the digital age ...

[arth1]

President Trump has not done the same and Hillary Clinton most definitely acted wrongly with her private email setup (she was not the only, but by far the most willful and egregious example).
It could be argued that Kushner's private e-mail was an even more wilful and egregious example, especially as it came after the Clinton debacle, so there wasn't even a question of ignorance.

Re:Before the digital age ...

[avandesande]

There's nothing illegal about a government official buying a burner phone to call people with.

Re:Before the digital age ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... and Hillary Clinton most definitely acted wrongly with her private email setup (she was not the only, but by far the most willful and egregious example).

Only problem I have with that statement is the most willful and egregious part. Politicians at every level and of every stripe are still doing this crap to one extent or another. Every time they conduct official business on non-official accounts it’s willful. It just doesn’t get as much attention until there is some other scandal involved.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

Re:Before the digital age ...

[apoc.famine]

We have transparency laws. Are you unfamiliar with this fact?

Re:Before the digital age ...

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Mail, etc. was recorded. In the digital age, much more is being done via mail equivalents. And?

Re:Before the digital age ...

[ShanghaiBill]

There's nothing illegal about a government official buying a burner phone to call people with.

But it is illegal to use that phone for government business.

Re:Before the digital age ...

[kenh]

Only problem I have with that statement is the most willful and egregious part

You are falsely equating random cabinet officials occasionally using personal emails for government work with an individual that never, in her 4 year stint as Secretary of State, ever logged in to a government provided email account - 100% of her work email was sent to/from her private server, which she hired consultants to set up for her.

Hillary's 100% exclusive use of private (AKA non-gov't) email is, by definition, the most egregious example mathematically possible - at least until some clever politician can find a way to exceed 100% of emails.

Your link to the so-called "email controversy" includes this line:

On December 14, 2009, CNN reported[14] that all 22 million missing emails had been found on backup tapes

The so-called "missing" emails were all found, no so with Hillary's 30,000 "missing" personal emails she and her staff decided the public had no right to see.

Oh, and before we go too far down the road of the Bush email controversy, let's remember, the RNC email server (just like the DNC email server) was set up to avoid breaking the law (Hatch Act), not to avoid compliance with federal records retention regulations...

Re:Before the digital age ...

[drinkypoo]

Hillary Clinton most definitely acted wrongly with her private email setup (she was not the only, but by far the most willful and egregious example).

And also refusing to use an officially provided phone because it didn't work the way she was used to, in fact. Of course, she got her own email server on the advice of Colin Powell, who was speaking specifically about its utility in keeping things you didn't want seen out of other people's hands. Sadly, too many Trumpanistas will declare that it's OK when their side does it, while frothing about Clinton, for anything to improve.

Re:Before the digital age ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Progressives will never ever concede that Hillary was a hideous monster.

Re:Before the digital age ...

[Dread_ed]

One major US party has come out recently and quite vociferously in opposition to transparency in government officials communications. They have what seems to be universal support from their adherents.

Sentiments like "I may not agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it," that show dedication to the principles that America was founded on, are being eroded by the same party. Similarly, the idea of a government that serves the people and is responsible to them, rather than one that the people live under and who they are beholden to, is being eradicated at an alarming rate. The Constitution was specific in circumscribing the federal government's powers, and yet, we see the American people continually transferring their freedoms to the domain of government control and then grousing and whinging when they can't get them back.

Maybe it's just time to be true to who we are as a people and admit that we are too distracted by the necessity of ever increasing work hours, infinite diversions, and self centered arrogance to participate properly in the Great Experiment. Just give up and let the freedoms this country was founded on disappear into the history books not as a failure, but as an indictment of our culture. I'm pretty sure it will work eventually, if we can ever conjure it again. It just doesn't work with American culture. It requires an understanding that our ignorant and selfish culture is now firmly opposed to.

I mean really, encouraging illegal immigration? Saying you are standing for the freedom of other people by encouraging them to come to the US illegally so they can live in perpetual fear as second class citizens? That belies a self-centered callousness to other human beings I can't even begin to rationalize. Instead of taking responsibility for the laws we have on the books, holding their own leaders accountable when they are in office, and changing the laws in our own country to promote freedom and liberty for all, these people try to place blame, point fingers, dissemble, and agitate. Then they use the human suffering they created through their refusal to hold their own government accountable, their own inaction, and their encouragement of illegal activity to push their political agenda and to empower their political party.

It is, without a doubt, the intentional creation of human suffering to manipulate political policy. I call that terrorism, YMMV. Whatever it is, it's not congruent with the America I want to live in, nor with the principles that created our Constitution. We do it with our drug laws too, our prison policies, or "justice" system....There is no compassion, no love, no understanding, no respect for freedom or self determination.

Sure, the debate is couched in relationship to those terms. Pejoratives are dispensed by the differing groups that appeal to these principles and point out their opponents lack of them. However, if dedication to those principles was really what was at stake, and they were really the most important thing to people, their actions would not include, among many other horrific things, turning the US into a honeypot where we torture, incarcerate, and abuse people who have already left intolerable circumstances and endured immeasurable hardship to come here.

So yeah, let's call the time of death on this thing and just get on with the overt oppression. I want a real enemy to fight. There are so many of you misguided and deluded former Americans sucking on the government's appendages and orifices that I can't get in a clear shot.

Same as most american parents:

[Anonymous Coward]

Do as we say, not as we do, even if it is contradictory, or places all the burdens on you but all the rewards on us. Just look at that kid from Home Alone for a more egregious example of it.

...and they're correct.

[RyanFenton]

Ever since the founding of the nation, everyone has had conflicting agendas.

Personal, business, family, religion, township, state, nation - they all have different optimal outcomes.

Folks become politicians because they think they can work out something that will work for most, if not all of those levels - and yeah, often, those motivations are corrupt.

Like in science though - the answer should be that matching up to reality should be the goalstick - and conflicting motivations should bow towards that.

The problem is that when we allow motivations to become too corrupt, reality itself becomes the enemy of those motivations.

Open government is an important motivation because it prevents folks from straying too far too long from being compared with reality.

That's the role of the press in recent centuries - to take conflicting biases, and hold them against reality, one story at a time. Even in the yellow journalism eras, and now in the Fox news and social media era - it made it difficult to operate too far away from reality as a politician.

But it's not an infinite effect - it can be washed away by enough motivation against reality.

And to folks that love science and honest study of reality, it's something of a disgusting transformation of a nation.

Especially in the sense of what's going to happen when reality reasserts itself after the current illusion wears thin.

Ryan Fenton

Wait. What?

[CaptainDork]

Throw away everything except:

Public Officials Conduct Business

HOW isn't important.

Re:Wait. What?

[El Cubano]

HOW isn't important.

How is important. In fact, it is probably more important than what.

For example, would you be OK with the state department of transportation awarding highway maintenance contracts based on who the current secretary's best friends were in college? Or should criminal sentences be "adjusted" based on sexual favors granted by or coerced from the defendant to the judge? Of course not. Those things are ridiculous. Yet, they have happened and they demonstrate the great need for transparency in so many functions of government.

Re:Wait. What?

[apoc.famine]

So you're going to throw away the part where they're avoiding transparency laws, and claim how isn't important?

Are you a fucking dumbass, or a corrupt government official?

Re: Wait. What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he means that public officials conducting any business need to be on the up and up regardless of the how. Correct me if I'm wrong, GP.

Re:Wait. What?

[BlueStrat]

Are you a fucking dumbass, or a corrupt government official?

But then, you repeat yourself...:)

Strat

Re: Wait. What?

[CaptainDork]

Precisely. Thanks.

I keep saying this

[rsilvergun]

But given how openly corrupt the current admin is does it really matter? I mean, the head of the EPA was ousted for petty things like buying furniture with government funds, meanwhile the EPA is ignoring large scale pollution while working to roll back the endangered species act so that rich guys can go hunting (seriously, look it up). We've got a president who refuses to release tax returns and at least 20% of the population (and 42% of the voting pop) is perfectly OK with that as though they'd forgotten why we make presidential candidates with obvious conflicts of interest release those.

I just saying that knowing the particulars of corruption is pointless when you can see the effects of it right out in the open. If you want to see this crap stop start showing up to your primaries and demanding politicians who refuse corporate PAC money. Guys like these. Why anyone would vote for someone who openly accepts PAC money is beyond me.

Re:I keep saying this

[Anonymous Coward]

politicians who refuse corporate PAC money

Including Hillary, Bernie, Obama, John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Mike Dukakis, etc and so on and so on.

If you're not condemning Democrats along with Republicans, you are a shill and liar.

Re:I keep saying this

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you seriously think all of that?

You do realize the one tax return they got was from him. He leaked it. Turns out he pays more in taxes than all of the rest put together.

If anything we now have a president the media is willing to pay attention to. Instead of slurping his jizz. If you think 'your team' is any better *think* *again*. They are *all* corrupt with a very small handful not being so. The non-corrupt ones you can identify by how they do not always vote with the crowd. This 'corrupt admin' has shown exactly how corrupt it is top to bottom. You have ignored it because of your bias. Has it occurred to you that he now sits upon a mountain of 'classified' information? That shows exactly how corrupt it is and he is calling them out on it? Think your bias is not being manipulated? Think back to before he was elected. Then walk your memory forward on all of the manufactured scandals. How pretty much all of them have turned out to be false. How all of them use the same rhetoric. How all of them have the same nay-sayers saying nay? How at NO point have the democrats stepped up to the plate and said 'hey lets work with him'. Do you not find that interesting? Maybe you can 'resist' more.

Re:I keep saying this

[joe_frisch]

I agree, and I think the problem is that the public (media?) has knee-jerk responses to what looks like misuse of funds without really paying attention to the relative scale. I remember the complaints when a GSA conference had an expensive sushi dinner in Las Vegas - when the per-person cost wasn't actually out of line with typical conference food. Yet that got as much media attention as 10s of billions of overruns on a F35 project, and those got more attention that the question of whether a multi $100B fighter plane project made any sense in the first place.

The public / media will jump all over a government official who makes an unguarded comment that some find offensive, but not pay nearly so much attention to someone who always is careful to use the right words, but who's policies cause widespread harm to the same group.

It creates a difficult situation where there is good reason for complete government transparency, but where detailed public scrutiny can result in a wild misdirection of public concerns.

Re:I keep saying this

[OldFart53]

There is no such law. You're just another leftie who doesn't let the facts get it the way and why anybody would listen to YOU is beyond me.

Re:I keep saying this

[McFortner]

Yeah, because it wasn't like HIllary had a private email server with 30,000 government emails on them or anything....

Re:I keep saying this

[Anonymous Coward]

The only difference between Trump and any past President is that Trump isn't smart enough to keep his corruption somewhat under wraps. He'll just blatantly state his corruption because he plain old don't give a fuck.

Obama talked a really great game, while sneakily upping the ante on the worst of the worst of Bush's policies.

Bush had the good ol' boy persona, while Cheney did all the grunt work to keep the corruption flowing like water in the rain forests.

And it's been that way since forever. We just finally elected someone that's so outright with it that even people that always thought the government was working for us are starting to wake up and go, "hang on, what now?"

Exactly. The states and people delegated power to

[raymorris]

Exactly, the US government is expressly empowered by the people to act for the people, in specific ways. We don't have the Divine Right of Kings here.

The Constitution explicitly delegates certain specific powers to the federal government, and reserves all other powers to the states and the people. Powers are preserved with the people because that's where they come from. Washington politicians work for us, at our pleasure not the other way around.

Simple solution

[nehumanuscrede]

Any Official caught using said systems to circumvent the rules ( by accident or intentionally ) are to be removed
from office immediately. None of this " I didn't know " bullshit.

They are to be stripped of any retirement or pension benefits they have accrued, any assets they own in any form
are to be confiscated and they are to be blacklisted from holding any office. In addition, no book deals, no " speaking
fees ", no movie deals, nothing about their period where they held an elected position can be utilized to make money.
( All of this bullshit is merely bribery delayed to avoid suspicion while in office anyway )

Offer a high dollar reward for information / evidence of an Official engaging in such activities and done.
They'll be afraid to talk to anyone out of fear of being turned in for said reward.

In other words, make the punishment severe enough and they will shy away from such conduct all on their own.

If this seems unfair, these folks are in heightened positions of power. As such, they SHOULD be held to a higher standard
than the common citizen. As such, the price for abusing that power should also come with heavier penalties.

.. and they are whom??

[Anonymous Coward]

Never heard of them before, why is this news? From what little I can gather or care to spend time finding, they are a lobbying group which targets requests under FOIA. Lofty goals but perhaps a bit out of touch with reality.

"Public Officials" should NOT BE using anything but agency issued electronic devices while conducting themselves as agents of said agencies. Period. Any official using something like Facebook messenger for offiicial business should be terminated.

What is the point of this article again?...

Re:.. and they are whom??

[kenh]

"Public Officials" should NOT BE using anything but agency issued electronic devices while conducting themselves as agents of said agencies. Period.

Unless, of course, you are Secretary of State, right?

Re: .. and they are whom??

[Anonymous Coward]

Still on about condaleeza rice?

Like a private email server?

[jfdavis668]

Fear that it is being abused? Hasn't it been uncovered already?

Re:Like a private email server?

[PopeRatzo]

Like a private email server?

Or a private cell phone. Or a super-secret Cone of Silence that was built into the office of the EPA administrator at taxpayer expense.

Re:Like a private email server?

[Anonymous Coward]

All valid, but only 1 of them lost their job because of it.
The other got to run for president and was given a pass on all accountability by you because "she lost".
So next time you plan on committing a major crime, run for State Attorney General. If you win, just don't prosecute yourself, if you lose that is a valid defense.

Brought to you by the idiotic, intolerant left.

Re:Like a private email server?

[Holi]

Wait, but at the time she had the email server, there was no law against it. That came later.

Re:Like a private email server?

[Holi]

modded down by the Hillary haters. Isn't it awesome that the truth no longer matters.

Re: Exactly. The states and people delegated powe

[Anonymous Coward]

DID YOU KNOW:

That the Constitution holds more authority than the president?

In other news, sky blue!

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Water wet!
Politicians dishonest, corrupt shysters!

Re:In other news, sky blue!

[Agripa]

Water wet!
Politicians dishonest, corrupt shysters!

The definition of a good politician in the US is the same as any other country; once they are bought, they stay bought.

Odd

[Archfeld]

I fear that government officials are using the telephone and the USPS to cheat, lie, steal and otherwise abuse the system they are supposed to be supporting. I think messaging apps are just the latest tool in the hands of some of the worst crooks on the planet, our elected officials. I could of course be wrong, but I'd not bet my lunch money on it.

Re:Odd

[Bing Tsher E]

They are some of the worst crooks on the planet, in terms of them being pretty bad at it. The slick crooks don't go to Washington much. Just enough to make certain it's a district run by bumbling idiots.

Re: Exactly. The states and people delegated powe

[Anonymous Coward]

looks like someone failed us history 101, the part about where they talk about the constitution.

The problem with the public media

[rsilvergun]

is that it's owned lock, stock & barrel by the same mega-corporations that are buying off politicians.

I just read an article talking about "moderate" Democrats (e.g. the right wing) opposing Bernie Sanders and it made the point that single payer health care is popular but threw in the phrase "government run". Bernie and his ilk aren't talking about government run-healthcare. Nobody except a very tiny number of loons is (roughly the same as the number of Republicans talking about expelling black Americans and fewer than the number of Republicans in favor of child labor). Single Payer != Government Run, as anyone in Canada, the UK, Australia, Germany, France, the Netherlands or Sweden will tell you.

When I talk about a right wing media bias this is what I mean.

Re: The problem with the public media

[Anonymous Coward]

People used to think the earth was the center of the universe. That the sun and all the stars went around the earth. They were wrong.
Then they thought the sun was the center of the universe. That was also wrong.

But these two are not the SAME level of wrong. There is a difference in the degree to which those two views were wrong.

Republicans and Democrats and everyone else are all corrupt and greedy. They are NOT corrupt to the same degree though. If you want to know which side is more corrupt, look for "whataboutism". The team ignoring their own evils and deflecting to "what about the other person" bullshit is the more corrupt side.

Dems demanded Al Franken resign over an obviously intended to be humorous photo from before he was in office. Meanwhile Trump endorsed an accused child molester.

There is a difference between these two groups.

Re: The problem with the public media

[Anonymous Coward]

Accusations do not imply guilt. Waiting to report on accusations until after a primary but before the general election increases the chances that those accusations are politically motivated; and therefore suspect.

Worth mentioning

[PopeRatzo]

For the record, with the exception of Kansas Gov. Jeff Colyer, who chose for some reason to do this via an executive order, which leaves it open to challenge and other forms of circumvention, all of these new laws requiring all government communications to be public were proposed by Democrats.

Re:Exactly. The states and people delegated power

[Anonymous Coward]

And the people have given power to the government to intercept communications when a warrant has been issued. Except strong encryption prevents that.

What do the people really want? Law enforcement to gather evidence and prosecute criminals or privacy from the government? Can't have both, it seems.

Of cousrfe they are

[Anonymous Coward]

Its about impossible to stop, but if you get caught doing ANY government business on any non-governmental device you should be fired and charged with a crime, and banned from holding any government position for life. ( perhaps even lobbying..)

Only if you make the stakes high enough will you reduce it to a minimum.

Re: Exactly. The states and people delegated powe

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because they took Russian History 101. They also failed at English.

You're missing the point entirely

[rsilvergun]

everyone knew exactly how Hilary was corrupt. The emails didn't matter. Her corruption was right out in the open. We knew she gave Wallstreet speeches for money. We knew she sold access to the state department, we knew her foundation was sketchy and we knew she manipulated the DCC to stop Bernie. All the emails did was fill in a few blanks. The email servers we there not to hide corruption, there were to keep her opponents from knowing her strategies.

We know our public officials are corrupt because they're making no real effort to hide it. We need a litmus test for all politicians. If you take corporate & PAC money you don't get elected. You don't even make it past primary season. Nobody, and I mean nobody, can serve two masters.

Re:You're missing the point entirely

[Bing Tsher E]

When Bill and Hill left the White House they were loud about the fact that they were 'dirt poor.'

And since then they're now three figure millionaires?

That doesn't pass any sort of smell test.

Re:You're missing the point entirely

[kenh]

And since then they're now three figure millionaires?

We call that 9-figure wealth.

That doesn't pass any sort of smell test.

unless you consider they gave speeches for mid-six figure fees ($500K) because Hillary was going to be the next President.

Re:You're missing the point entirely

[Anonymous Coward]

unless you consider they gave speeches for mid-six figure fees ($500K) because Hillary was going to be the next President.

Ok, let me consider that.

...

It's bullshit. Even if they got that kind of money for their speeches [citation needed], they got it because that was the going rate for that kind of speaker.

So yes, we know how Hillary was corrupt: she wasn't.

Re:You're missing the point entirely

[Agripa]

When Bill and Hill left the White House they were loud about the fact that they were 'dirt poor.'

And since then they're now three figure millionaires?

That doesn't pass any sort of smell test.

If you are not rich after being elected to high office, then you are doing it wrong.

Re:Exactly. The states and people delegated power

[Anonymous Coward]

Strong encryption does not interfere with the Government's ability to collect the information, only their ability to decrypt it. Two different things.

This just in...

[kenh]

This just in - "Open Gov't Advocates Fear that Private Rooms Are Being Misused by Public Officials To Conduct Business in Secret" - Open Gov't Advocates are calling fro the immediate removal of all doors and walls in all government buildings. In addition, every government worker must register every cellphone, email and social media account, as well as accept a GPS microchip to allow workers locations to be tracked to ensure no gov't business is conducted in secret.

Laughable

[Anonymous Coward]

Half of the country voted for Hillary Clinton, who as Secretary of State was avoiding all oversight and dodging all government archives and subpoenas and FOIA requests by doing ALL her government work on a series of private personal servers, using 13 different phones, then having her people wipe the servers and smash all her devices with hammers. When congress tried to do its Constitutional duty of oversight and issued subpoenas, Hillary's State Department replied that there were no emails (a lie, and part of a felony). When outside watchdog groups filed FOIA requests, her State Department replied that there were no related materials (a lie, and a criminal act). When her crimes were threatening her candidacy and her party did not want her replaced with Bernie as the nominee, FBI director Comey protected her from prosecution (obstruction of justice).

When this is brought up, her supporters call it "old news" and scream "Russia! Russia! Russia! Homophobe! Islamophobe! Sexist! Racist!"

I'm sorry but when the leader of a party, the person 93% of journalists and 96% of the voters in the Capitol city supported for President is doing these things while committing numerous felonies and taking hundreds of millions of dollar from foreign interests and being supported by the DOJ, the FBI and the CIA, we have FAR more urgent problems in government "openness" and the basic rule-of-law than messaging apps. Just as with "gun control", the problem is NOT the technology - it's the souls of the people using the technology, and rotten people will abuse ANY technology. Decent, responsible, self-regulating people can be trusted with any technology.

Re:Laughable

[kenh]

Half of the country voted for Hillary Clinton

No, about 20% of the country voted for Hillary Clinton - nearly 66 Million voters voted for HRC, but the population of the country is closer to 330 Million.

More voting-age Americans chose not to vote in 2016 than voted in the election.

Re:Laughable

[Anonymous Coward]

... and less than that 20% voted for the scary clown that is now in the Whitehouse.

I sure hope that the roughly 60% that didn't vote learned their lesson.

Re:Laughable

[Agripa]

... and less than that 20% voted for the scary clown that is now in the Whitehouse.

I sure hope that the roughly 60% that didn't vote learned their lesson.

Do you mean the lesson that they were right about not having a choice as shown by what the DNC did to Bernie Sanders?

Re: Exactly. The states and people delegated powe

[murdocj]

DID YOU KNOW:

That the Constitution holds more authority than the president?

At the moment.

What we need

[Snotnose]

is for public officials to be forced to use "private" apps that include a backdoor, like the fibbies want. Soon as these "public" oficials realize that not only can some pimple farm in Sumfukistan access that backdoor, but so can some reporter looking for a story, maybe things will change.

Nahh, I'm kidding myself. Soon as they realize the plebes can access the security backdoor they'll demand encryption without that backdoor. Only available to them of course, the plebes don't need that kind of privacy.

The only reason they wouldn't share the info

[Anonymous Coward]

I because they were basing it on "fixing problems over time" for people who wanted "problems fixed now".

That seems fine, but without a "budget per problem" I don't know how anyone would trust it.

Take for example having payments due and not being able to pay them.

Re:Worth mentioning - nah.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it isn't

Like invasive population explosion, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like invasive population explosion, right?

You are referring to the scientifically proven reality that allowing unrestricted immigration of an invasive element into an area will result in devastating effects on the local population, right?

Is that the kind of scientific reality you are referring to, the kind ignored by Democrats calling for open borders and eliminating agencies like the TSA?

I didn't think so.

To Late!

[oldgraybeard]

Most public servants are already using various technical methods and tools to manage and hide their illegal activities.

Talking about closing the barn door now is irreverent the cows are already out of the barn!

Just my 2 cents ;)

Scott Pruitt

[Anonymous Coward]

What did he need the cone of silence for?

Re:Scott Pruitt

[kenh]

Why does the Department of Education need a SWAT team?

Re: Exactly. The states and people delegated power

[c6gunner]

Encrypted data is not information.

Re: Exactly. The states and people delegated powe

[Anonymous Coward]

You mismispelled loosers!

WA Rules Cover This

[Anonymous Coward]

As an elected official in Washington State -- our rules (and training for new electeds) covers this. It's medium-agnostic. I kid you not, the training says if you get a tattoo of a public record you'd better have a plan for how to cough it up if someone asks for a copy. And metadata counts as part of the record, or your response isn't complete and compliant.

I'm careful to only use separate hardware and accounts for official business, but the assumption in Washington is that it really doesn't matter what the platform is. We get nightmares about Snapchat because it's impossible to make it comply with the law. Happy to discuss more: elabrant@portvanusa.com.

Look up "the Border States" from the Union

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you know that the so-called Border States were SLAVE STATES which remained in the Union?

Did you know that this remained legal throughout the war?

Did you know that the Emancipation Proclamation was a PR stunt that only claimed to affect the southern states, and did not affect the northern states where slavery continued?

Did you know that Lincoln once proposed deporting all black people back to Africa so as to keep America preserved for whites?

Did you know that the vast majority of southerners did not own slaves?

No way

[Anonymous Coward]

[s]Government officials will NEVER use private email servers for government business. No official will be that irresponsible.[/s]

Re: Exactly. The states and people delegated power

[Anonymous Coward]

The the funniest thing I've hear for a long time! Nice one. I'll have to remember that :)))

Re: Exactly. The states and people delegated power

[AntronArgaiv]

Encrypted data is not information.

As long as you know the key, it is.

It's only random bits (and therefore, not information, if you've forgotten the key)

Re: Exactly. The states and people delegated powe

[Dread_ed]

DID YOU KNOW:

The American people now beg their government for limited access to their "inalienable rights?"

Omg omg

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because prior to txt messaging there was no way for two people to have a conversation in private. Who writes this trash?

Re: Exactly. The states and people delegated powe

[c6gunner]

That's the point. Encrypted data is not information. Decrypted data is. If the government is collecting encrypted data then they are, by definition, not collecting information. It only becomes information once they have the ability to decrypt it.

Re: Exactly. The states and people delegated power

[mrbester]

Depends on your definition of "information". For example, what comes out of an evaporating black hole is information. That we don't understand it makes it analogous to encrypted data...

Re:Exactly. The states and people delegated power

[ilsaloving]

Exactly, the US government is expressly empowered by the people to act for the people, in specific ways. We don't have the Divine Right of Kings here.

At this point, I'm pretty sure that that's exactly what politicians think now. Especially the career ones.

Re:Exactly. The states and people delegated power

[KingBenny]

or read as : we need to revoke that damned encryption in the name of what about the people ... that also goes both ways :)