SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
California's top court agreed Friday to decide whether government employees' personal texts and e-mails are subject to disclosure under public records law. At least one other state high court, Alaska's, has already required disclosure and preservation of those communications if they deal with government business. Arizona's highest court has ruled that private communications with a "substantial nexus" to government activity are subject to disclosure.
Still, there's been a hodgepodge of lower-court state rulings nationwide on the topic, leaving much of the country's public officials across the 50 states to conceal their official communications ( http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/05/15/when-are-public-officials-calls-and-emails-public-records/ ) from public review. Federal officials' private electronic communications, however, are subject to the Freedom of Information Act ( http://informationrightsandwrongs.com/2012/04/12/when-are-emails-subject-to-foia/ ) if they concern government business.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by frojack on Sunday June 29 2014, @07:49PM
With both Alaska and the Arizona approach, you have to have some evidence that the private communication had a "substantial nexus" to government business just to demand copies.
So if someone (with some believable evidence, or in a position to know) doesn't make such an allegation there is no way to know.
If some random journalist makes such a claim, and can back it up with something believable, a judge is usually appointed to look over the communications and rule on their content. I personally know about this happening on at least three different cases when I lived in Alaska. In at least the cases I recall, nothing of public interest was found and the Judge ruled them private, and the press promptly accused the Judge of a coverup.
Working for government shouldn't automatically strip people of their constitutional rights.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by frojack on Sunday June 29 2014, @07:59PM
Oh, and I forgot to mention, I currently know several public employees that refuse to admit ownership of a smartphone, even though I know they have one.
My business with these people is an official (contractual) one, and whether or not their department issues them a phone, they refuse to accept calls, texts, or email on their private phone from contractors or other government employees.
Which is really weird in a small town like the capitol of Alaska to see so many employees running around with two smartphones when they travel or are on-call for government purposes.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 30 2014, @07:38AM
One phone for your official business, one for your unofficial one, one for family and friends and one per lover.
Can't claim politicians do nothing to help the economy.