4 ms·

Not quite. His argument is that she had the option to achieve privacy (by complying with the request and simply keeping her private emails). Instead they decid

Not quite. His argument is that she had the option to achieve privacy (by complying with the request and simply keeping her private emails). Instead they decided to not let anyone ever have the possibility to verify if she complied. She chose to achieve privacy by making any future investigation impossible. Is it legal? I guess, assuming she told the truth (and made no mistakes) about which emails were relevant. But personally I would like to hold people in office to a higher transparency and ethics standard than "strictly legal".

snowwrestler 10y ago
If I came on here and said that Google should keep a copy of every email ever written or received in Gmail, just in case the police wanted to look at it later, how many folks here would think that is a good privacy policy? I'd guess not many. But that is what you're suggesting Clinton should have done with her personal email. If a piece of information is stored so that it can be given to someone else later, that's not really very private. Privacy means the right to keep things away from others, and it includes the right to delete things. Now maybe you want to argue that certain public officials should not permitted to have privacy while they are in office. That's fine, make that argument, but it's not the state of things now, legally or culturally. And consider that there might be unintended consequences. It might deter some great people from considering public service. And it might put a hole in the legal concept of privacy that others will try to widen later. I would argue that if we're going to be serious about legally protecting privacy, we need to be consistent. "Protect privacy, except for politicians I don't like" is not a particularly strong legal framework.
- ars 10y ago
  The problem is you are taking her word for it. I think she's a liar, and her actions just reinforce that. I do NOT demand she hand over personal email! No. Only that she make it possible for a 3rd party to sort her emails into private/public. She has the right to delete personal email - but only if it's actually personal, and I don't trust her to be the one to decide that. She brought this on herself by mixing them in the first place. Want to maintain your privacy when you know you job requires publicity? Keep your public and private lives separate. She chose not to.
- mkohlmyr 10y ago
  You're bordering on the absurd here. I don't even need to argue that certain public officials should not be permitted to have privacy while in office. She has a right to privacy. I am not arguing she doesn't. I am arguing she made a series of poor choices that led to a situation where the only way she can live up to the standards we should expect from a public official (a verifiable paper trail for business pertaining to office) is by keeping a record of her private communications as well. This is why you don't use your private email address for official business. If you want privacy while in office you don't use your private email server for official business. You aren't supposed to anyway. It's very simple and very reasonable.

snowwrestler 10y ago

If I came on here and said that Google should keep a copy of every email ever written or received in Gmail, just in case the police wanted to look at it later, how many folks here would think that is a good privacy policy? I'd guess not many. But that is what you're suggesting Clinton should have done with her personal email. If a piece of information is stored so that it can be given to someone else later, that's not really very private. Privacy means the right to keep things away from others, and it includes the right to delete things. Now maybe you want to argue that certain public officials should not permitted to have privacy while they are in office. That's fine, make that argument, but it's not the state of things now, legally or culturally. And consider that there might be unintended consequences. It might deter some great people from considering public service. And it might put a hole in the legal concept of privacy that others will try to widen later. I would argue that if we're going to be serious about legally protecting privacy, we need to be consistent. "Protect privacy, except for politicians I don't like" is not a particularly strong legal framework.

ars 10y ago
The problem is you are taking her word for it. I think she's a liar, and her actions just reinforce that. I do NOT demand she hand over personal email! No. Only that she make it possible for a 3rd party to sort her emails into private/public. She has the right to delete personal email - but only if it's actually personal, and I don't trust her to be the one to decide that. She brought this on herself by mixing them in the first place. Want to maintain your privacy when you know you job requires publicity? Keep your public and private lives separate. She chose not to.
mkohlmyr 10y ago
You're bordering on the absurd here. I don't even need to argue that certain public officials should not be permitted to have privacy while in office. She has a right to privacy. I am not arguing she doesn't. I am arguing she made a series of poor choices that led to a situation where the only way she can live up to the standards we should expect from a public official (a verifiable paper trail for business pertaining to office) is by keeping a record of her private communications as well. This is why you don't use your private email address for official business. If you want privacy while in office you don't use your private email server for official business. You aren't supposed to anyway. It's very simple and very reasonable.