SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
martyb
on Tuesday May 06 2014, @03:55PM
from the you-can-access-the-emails-we-want-you-to-see dept.
from the you-can-access-the-emails-we-want-you-to-see dept.
In 2008, two of Sarah Palin's personal Yahoo email accounts were hacked, revealing the existence of correspondence with other government officials like Alaska's Lieutenant Governor and even California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger outside any sunshine record-keeping requirements of the state government. Palin was eventually cleared of any wrong-doing with the account, despite the account being deleted before the investigation even started.
In what feels like the discovery of another tip of the same iceberg, ProPublica has a report about the Cuomo administration's adoption of similar tactics in New York.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Government Officials Using Private Email
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 34 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
To be a kind of moral Unix, he touched the hem of Nature's shift.
-- Shelley
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday May 06 2014, @07:13PM
Probably the evidence wouldn't hold up in court anyway once the account was hacked. (You know that you would use the same defense in court if it happened to your account.)
Also, much is made of the fact that Palin communicated with others, but the TFA says (and Angry Jesus chose to omit): While in fairness to the governor, many of the e-mails appear harmless and of a personal nature, a few are addressed to state officials.
It is not a public matter when you get wished a happy birthday by a governor.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday May 06 2014, @07:29PM
It should be. All official actions (i.e. actions by officials) should be public unless there is a valid reason to secure them...and in that case they should still be recorded on something that is not under the control of the individual being recorded...including under their control through transitivity or association.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday May 06 2014, @08:57PM
Why should it be?
I knew the Governor of Alaska (not Palin). Fished with him.
When he called me on his private cell, to talk fishing or wish me a happy happy, WHY should that be anyone's business?
It was not an official action. It didn't happen on state Letterhead. It didn't happen on a State phone. It did happen on several occasions during state work hours, but the governor is allowed the same break periods as any other state employee.
There is no law on the books in Alaska or an other state that makes the Governor or any other elected official open to 24 hour surveillance in what little private life they have. The Governor works FOR the people, but since the passage of the Thirteenth amendment slavery and indentured servitude are forbidden in the US.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Tuesday May 06 2014, @11:11PM
> I knew the Governor of Alaska (not Palin). Fished with him.
That's too bad. The guy was in the pocket of big oil. Palin was a fantastic governor while she still had a goal of cutting back that cronyism. Her problems only started after she succeeded and was left with idle hands.
> When he called me on his private cell, to talk fishing or wish me a happy happy,
> WHY should that be anyone's business?
If you aren't politically connected, like working for the state or a major political donor, then no need because as a regular person you are extremely unlikely to be part of any corrupt acts simply because you don't have resources to participate. That should be obvious.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday May 06 2014, @11:35PM
He was not in the pocket of big oil, in fact opposition from big oil was the reason he only served one term.
At the time, I was working as a lowly programmer for the State, and the only interest the two of us had in common was Dolly Varden and old airplane.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Tuesday May 06 2014, @11:48PM
> At the time, I was working as a lowly programmer for the State, and the only interest
> the two of us had in common was Dolly Varden and old airplane.
You seem to be implying that because as an employee of the state you were personally not involved in any corrupt dealings with the governor that keeping a paper trail of all communications between the governor and employees of the state is not an important check on the power of the governor.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday May 07 2014, @12:30AM
It was not official business. We went fishing. Neither of us was acting in any official capacity. Therefore, no records were kept. The law does not require any records of such events, nor should it. No state in the union requires records of such events.
Most states would require a security detail following a governor around. There might be expense account records of that, But this was Alaska, and there was never such a detail on our fishing trips, and it was not uncommon to meet the governor on the street without his Trooper. (Palin almost always had a Trooper or two, but then she was pretty good looking and there would have been stalkers).
(This was a long time ago, I don't live there any more. In Washington state where I now live, getting close to the Governor is almost impossible without an invitation or formal appointment).
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Wednesday May 07 2014, @01:15AM
You seem to really want to make this about your personal experience without regard for how corruption in politics works, or for that matter, how modern communication works.
You went fishing, your communications didn't pass through a naturally recorded medium. While it is certainly possible for corruption to occur in face-to-face meetings, that is waaay less efficient than email. Recording emails means people engaged in corruption don't get the benefit of modern conveniences with no practical detriment to the normal course of state business, or for that matter personal business with people who do not have the means to corrupt the office.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Angry Jesus on Tuesday May 06 2014, @07:39PM
> the TFA says (and Angry Jesus chose to omit): While in fairness to the governor, many of
> the e-mails appear harmless and of a personal nature, a few are addressed to state officials.
I chose to omit it because the important part was redundant. Nobody needs to do a draft of a happy birthday message, even if the recipient is the governor of california.