3 ms·

> I think anonbcpolitics was ignoring DMs. Yes, because there's no evidence of anyone using DMs to govern. We don't know if a politician uses Signal, Twitter

> I think anonbcpolitics was ignoring DMs. Yes, because there's no evidence of anyone using DMs to govern. We don't know if a politician uses Signal, Twitter/IG DM, or other 1:1 communication apps, we have to handle those cases when we catch them, like Hillary was caught with her private email server. If she was actually punished it may have deterred people from circumventing FOIA. I would be directly opposed to such communication the same way I'm opposed to a private email server being used. Communicating in public tweets is entirely different though.

EvanAnderson 6y ago
In my jurisdiction, at least, the intent "to govern" doesn't make much of a difference in whether an item is a public record or not. My public records training would cause me to assume that Twitter DMs created or received by the government entity I work for, irrespective of their intent, are public records. It would be nice if elected leaders at all levels of government were held to the law w/ respect to public records. I was absolutely outraged at the lack of law enforcement response for Clinton's private email server, just as I was outraged at the lack of response on the private email server that George W. Bush's administration allegedly maintained.
- anonbcpolitics 6y ago
  You focused on the wrong part, I could have left out "to govern". My point was there's no evidence of anyone using DMs, we're talking about public tweets. And there's no use talking about private communications because the scope expands from Twitter to the individual's actions (sneaking around using Signal or similar, etc.).
  - EvanAnderson 6y ago
    I work in IT in local government. Even with the public records and ethics training our employees receive we still encounter plenty of times when we must advise other offices re: the public records-related concerns associated with their employees using personal phones, email, and third-party hosted services in the course of their job duties (let alone "sneaking"). I would assume that, at every level of government, significant numbers of public records are being lost to free third-party hosted services.

EvanAnderson 6y ago

In my jurisdiction, at least, the intent "to govern" doesn't make much of a difference in whether an item is a public record or not. My public records training would cause me to assume that Twitter DMs created or received by the government entity I work for, irrespective of their intent, are public records. It would be nice if elected leaders at all levels of government were held to the law w/ respect to public records. I was absolutely outraged at the lack of law enforcement response for Clinton's private email server, just as I was outraged at the lack of response on the private email server that George W. Bush's administration allegedly maintained.

anonbcpolitics 6y ago
You focused on the wrong part, I could have left out "to govern". My point was there's no evidence of anyone using DMs, we're talking about public tweets. And there's no use talking about private communications because the scope expands from Twitter to the individual's actions (sneaking around using Signal or similar, etc.).
- EvanAnderson 6y ago
  I work in IT in local government. Even with the public records and ethics training our employees receive we still encounter plenty of times when we must advise other offices re: the public records-related concerns associated with their employees using personal phones, email, and third-party hosted services in the course of their job duties (let alone "sneaking"). I would assume that, at every level of government, significant numbers of public records are being lost to free third-party hosted services.