4 ms·

It's not a personal conversation if you're working for the government and talking about topics that pertain to government functions. You have no right to privac

It's not a personal conversation if you're working for the government and talking about topics that pertain to government functions. You have no right to privacy in the same way that your average citizen (should) be when your decisions affect the lives of millions. There needs to be a paper trail or power becomes even more opaque than it already is and all accountability goes out the window. There can be no democracy if your government can hide everything they do. The records don't necessarily need to always be public, but they do need to be stored so FOI requests can be served when necessary.

bencollier49 6y ago
Okay, so you believe that all conversations between lawmakers of any sort ought to be recorded?
- Sevaris 6y ago
  Obviously, yes. Nixon would never have been impeached without the tapes. If there's no record, there's no accountability. That's just how it is.
  - evgen 6y ago
    While we are at it lets also mandate that all work-related communications you make are similarly archived. There is a long history of corporate malfeasance leading to catastrophic outcomes for the general public and we need to make sure that people like you are held accountable when your failures and bad decisions lead to poor outcomes. I am sure you will agree that without good record-keeping a lack of accountability for your actions is bound to lead to disaster. We will also expect a written transcript of all work conversations, no matter how innocuous you might think them to be, within 48 hours of the conversation. Thanks!
    - bencollier49 6y ago
      This is what I'm getting at. The reductio ad absurdam is indeed absurd.
iguy 6y ago
We don't only want accountability, we also want good decisions, and good advice, even on delicate topics. IMO this is quite a difficult topic. Suppose you are concerned that some variants of a policy you're thinking about may be legal or illegal. There is a pretty large gray area. You could corner the relevant legal mind after lunch, and ask his opinion. Then there is no recording, only your memory. Or you could email him, and get a more considered opinion. This is likely to lead to better policies. But perhaps some of the options you're considering are a bit controversial, and stating bluntly what you really mean (and what you are concerned about) is risky if your email may be subject to a FOI request. So perhaps you re-write it very carefully avoiding the worst options, or perhaps you run it past the PR people before emailing, or perhaps you give up and ask in the pub instead. These all seem like worse outcomes, and ones we should be careful not to encourage.
- Sevaris 6y ago
  I'm sorry, but if you require the deletion of what you said to protect yourself from the people, then you shouldn't be in a position of power. > and stating bluntly what you really mean (and what you are concerned about) In the end, people aren't judged for this. They're judged for the actions that they take, and then communications like this are used for context. If your decision is so bad that they had to make a FOI request to find out how spurious your reasoning was, then I don't see why you should have the protection of having no paper trail. That's insanity.
  - iguy 6y ago
    > They're judged for the actions that they take I wish that were true, but it more often seems they're judged by the worst dirt that can be made to stick. And they know it.
  - goatinaboat 6y ago
    I'm sorry, but if you require the deletion of what you said to protect yourself from the people, then you shouldn't be in a position of power. In reality if a politician makes a genuine error or prediction that turns out to be wrong he will face demands that he resigns for deliberately misleading the public. The media have created this toxic environment where normal debate and discourse is impossible

bencollier49 6y ago

Okay, so you believe that all conversations between lawmakers of any sort ought to be recorded?

Sevaris 6y ago
Obviously, yes. Nixon would never have been impeached without the tapes. If there's no record, there's no accountability. That's just how it is.
- evgen 6y ago
  While we are at it lets also mandate that all work-related communications you make are similarly archived. There is a long history of corporate malfeasance leading to catastrophic outcomes for the general public and we need to make sure that people like you are held accountable when your failures and bad decisions lead to poor outcomes. I am sure you will agree that without good record-keeping a lack of accountability for your actions is bound to lead to disaster. We will also expect a written transcript of all work conversations, no matter how innocuous you might think them to be, within 48 hours of the conversation. Thanks!
  - bencollier49 6y ago
    This is what I'm getting at. The reductio ad absurdam is indeed absurd.

iguy 6y ago

We don't only want accountability, we also want good decisions, and good advice, even on delicate topics. IMO this is quite a difficult topic. Suppose you are concerned that some variants of a policy you're thinking about may be legal or illegal. There is a pretty large gray area. You could corner the relevant legal mind after lunch, and ask his opinion. Then there is no recording, only your memory. Or you could email him, and get a more considered opinion. This is likely to lead to better policies. But perhaps some of the options you're considering are a bit controversial, and stating bluntly what you really mean (and what you are concerned about) is risky if your email may be subject to a FOI request. So perhaps you re-write it very carefully avoiding the worst options, or perhaps you run it past the PR people before emailing, or perhaps you give up and ask in the pub instead. These all seem like worse outcomes, and ones we should be careful not to encourage.

Sevaris 6y ago
I'm sorry, but if you require the deletion of what you said to protect yourself from the people, then you shouldn't be in a position of power. > and stating bluntly what you really mean (and what you are concerned about) In the end, people aren't judged for this. They're judged for the actions that they take, and then communications like this are used for context. If your decision is so bad that they had to make a FOI request to find out how spurious your reasoning was, then I don't see why you should have the protection of having no paper trail. That's insanity.
- iguy 6y ago
  > They're judged for the actions that they take I wish that were true, but it more often seems they're judged by the worst dirt that can be made to stick. And they know it.
- goatinaboat 6y ago
  I'm sorry, but if you require the deletion of what you said to protect yourself from the people, then you shouldn't be in a position of power. In reality if a politician makes a genuine error or prediction that turns out to be wrong he will face demands that he resigns for deliberately misleading the public. The media have created this toxic environment where normal debate and discourse is impossible