4 ms·

America is a country where you can read Hillary's emails (via wikileaks, that you won't get in trouble for visiting) but she can't read yours. (Nor can Trump.)

malnourish 10y ago
We can really only read those emails due to leaks. Public officials' communications should be in the domain of the public by default unless there is a real urgent need to keep something secret.
- logicallee 10y ago
  Wow, that is a pretty extreme position. (I can't dismiss it outright as obviously the senate can debate things and come to conclusions and make policy, even if all the debates and hearings are public.) In your opinion should politicians be allowed to meet each other and talk privately (about politics) at all? Or should there be no private meetings allowed? (Or at least no talking politics if they do meet.)
- a_humean 10y ago
  I would actually strongly disagree with that. Officials need to be able to exchange ideas freely amongst themselves and within confidence in a non-media environment. They need to be able to say things to each other in person, on phones, and in email communications in less discrete terms that otherwise would need to be crafted to appease their political coalitions and oppositions. They need to be able to ask and say stupid things. If you take that away from officials they lose their ability to actually deliberate and think about policy in terms of the merits of the policy. There is a balance to strike in terms of transparency and public accountability, but a transparency free for all in which no communication is private can easily lead to bad policy and outcomes. Its not too different from not having a client see your business's internal communications. 99% of the time you aren't trying to screw your client and are trying to do a good job for them, but you really don't want to show them the sausage factory in any case because it will make it harder to do a good job for them if everything you do or say is presented to the client.
  - legostormtroopr 10y ago
    However, the public should have the ability to request through Freedom of Information channels access to emails or documents about particular topics. Not necessarily in real time or in short time frames, but being about to oversee the political sphere is important too.
- westbywest 10y ago
  The impossible grey area would be what defines 'urgent.' Nevertheless, I would welcome less abuse of state secrets privilege.
awalton 10y ago
> but she can't read yours. (Nor can Trump.) Lol, how quickly we forget: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A They can read your email at their discretion, via a warrant from a secret court whose proceedings you can neither contest nor attend, and order companies to comply without exposing who for or why they are doing said orders. Only truly off-the-record end-to-end encrypted communications are safe channels in the United States. And email ain't one of them.

malnourish 10y ago

We can really only read those emails due to leaks. Public officials' communications should be in the domain of the public by default unless there is a real urgent need to keep something secret.

logicallee 10y ago
Wow, that is a pretty extreme position. (I can't dismiss it outright as obviously the senate can debate things and come to conclusions and make policy, even if all the debates and hearings are public.) In your opinion should politicians be allowed to meet each other and talk privately (about politics) at all? Or should there be no private meetings allowed? (Or at least no talking politics if they do meet.)
a_humean 10y ago
I would actually strongly disagree with that. Officials need to be able to exchange ideas freely amongst themselves and within confidence in a non-media environment. They need to be able to say things to each other in person, on phones, and in email communications in less discrete terms that otherwise would need to be crafted to appease their political coalitions and oppositions. They need to be able to ask and say stupid things. If you take that away from officials they lose their ability to actually deliberate and think about policy in terms of the merits of the policy. There is a balance to strike in terms of transparency and public accountability, but a transparency free for all in which no communication is private can easily lead to bad policy and outcomes. Its not too different from not having a client see your business's internal communications. 99% of the time you aren't trying to screw your client and are trying to do a good job for them, but you really don't want to show them the sausage factory in any case because it will make it harder to do a good job for them if everything you do or say is presented to the client.
- legostormtroopr 10y ago
  However, the public should have the ability to request through Freedom of Information channels access to emails or documents about particular topics. Not necessarily in real time or in short time frames, but being about to oversee the political sphere is important too.
westbywest 10y ago
The impossible grey area would be what defines 'urgent.' Nevertheless, I would welcome less abuse of state secrets privilege.

awalton 10y ago

> but she can't read yours. (Nor can Trump.) Lol, how quickly we forget: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A They can read your email at their discretion, via a warrant from a secret court whose proceedings you can neither contest nor attend, and order companies to comply without exposing who for or why they are doing said orders. Only truly off-the-record end-to-end encrypted communications are safe channels in the United States. And email ain't one of them.