3 ms·

Many government officials just avoid using e-mail at all for sensitive subjects, thus side-stepping the issue entirely. I remember Janet Napoletano (Secretary o

by nickff 6y ago

Many government officials just avoid using e-mail at all for sensitive subjects, thus side-stepping the issue entirely. I remember Janet Napoletano (Secretary of Homeland Security) saying that she did most of her business over the phone or in-person to avoid having it on record.

munk-a 6y ago
We have a real issue with partisan politics in the US and one of the pieces of fallout is that making a statement like that doesn't end your career. Laws on the public record exist to serve the general good and skirting them is indicative of taking actions you know will be met with general criticism and can't be justified.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  > Laws on the public record exist to serve the general good and skirting them is indicative of taking actions you know will be met with general criticism and can't be justified. Well, the counterargument is that it's indicative of taking actions that you know will be met with general criticism and can be justified.
  - munk-a 6y ago
    Hrm - I'll have a go at being less vague. By actions met by general criticism and can't be justified I meant actions that would both be met with criticism and, given enough surrounding information, wouldn't remove the majority of criticism. National security positions will need to execute actions that are pretty opaque and distasteful to the general public but, with that additional information in hand, would be reasonable to most people. So arresting some fellow who looks like a family man but was actually organizing an attack would be generally criticized but justifiable - on the other hand most forms of torture tend to be ineffective at information gathering and cause excessive pain and suffering and are less justifiable. For politicians I'm going to guess that a lot of stuff they don't want on record is specifically related to their self-betterment by somehow (even minorly) compromising their duty.
- amalcon 6y ago
  To be fair, we also have an epidemic of partial statements being taken out of context and used against their speaker. Often, when contextualized, the quote most likely means the opposite of what it's being used to claim. I can easily think of examples of this being done to politicians of both major US political parties, and a handful of foreign politicians as well. A policy of staying off-record by default is not an unreasonable countermeasure to that problem.
ashtonkem 6y ago
This is generally advice in the private sector too, in case a lawsuit happens.
hntrader 6y ago
This is often part of compliance training in financial services. Don't communicate anything that even remotely seems sensitive or questionable over email or chat. It doesn't matter if it's totally innocent, all that matters is whether it can be taken out of context by the SEC or another body.
fl0wenol 6y ago
I mean, this is just plain common sense in the workplace, government or otherwise. Email is on record because of SOX or HIPAA or FISMA, so treat it accordingly.
- LeifCarrotson 6y ago
  Common sense would be not saying or thinking or acting on reprehensible things that someone would be afraid of having on record. An email that, for example, threatens bad performance reviews if an employee doesn't show up at an optional after-hours company fundraiser, is something someone wouldn't want on record. That doesn't mean you should say it in-person in the break room where you're not on record instead of emailing it. It means you shouldn't use performance reviews as a weapon to coerce things you can't or won't contractually demand from employees. Two tools are great for combating this sort of malfeasance: First, slip an acknowledgement for the verbal request in an email. Something like "Hey, the company event Friday night which you mentioned was critical to my performance review. Is that business casual?" or "You told me to get this internal request for your project done before taking care of my urgent customer tickets, here it is." can help you keep a paper trail with implicit acknowledgement. Second, as long as you're not in California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, or Washington, and you have an Android, install a call recorder app: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.callrecord.auto https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.callrecord... was an app I used for a while in a sensitive situation. Even if you never use it, it's nice to have if something was to blow up.
blululu 6y ago
William Brown - former mayor of San Francisco - was once asked why he didn’t have an email address. His response: “You know what the E in email stands for? Evidence.” Not that it really matters. His predecessors have all had plenty of evidence of corruption, have never been as productive as him and they still kept their jobs, so he probably just didn’t want to deal with checking his inbox.

by nickff 6y ago

munk-a 6y ago

We have a real issue with partisan politics in the US and one of the pieces of fallout is that making a statement like that doesn't end your career. Laws on the public record exist to serve the general good and skirting them is indicative of taking actions you know will be met with general criticism and can't be justified.

thaumasiotes 6y ago
> Laws on the public record exist to serve the general good and skirting them is indicative of taking actions you know will be met with general criticism and can't be justified. Well, the counterargument is that it's indicative of taking actions that you know will be met with general criticism and can be justified.
- munk-a 6y ago
  Hrm - I'll have a go at being less vague. By actions met by general criticism and can't be justified I meant actions that would both be met with criticism and, given enough surrounding information, wouldn't remove the majority of criticism. National security positions will need to execute actions that are pretty opaque and distasteful to the general public but, with that additional information in hand, would be reasonable to most people. So arresting some fellow who looks like a family man but was actually organizing an attack would be generally criticized but justifiable - on the other hand most forms of torture tend to be ineffective at information gathering and cause excessive pain and suffering and are less justifiable. For politicians I'm going to guess that a lot of stuff they don't want on record is specifically related to their self-betterment by somehow (even minorly) compromising their duty.
amalcon 6y ago
To be fair, we also have an epidemic of partial statements being taken out of context and used against their speaker. Often, when contextualized, the quote most likely means the opposite of what it's being used to claim. I can easily think of examples of this being done to politicians of both major US political parties, and a handful of foreign politicians as well. A policy of staying off-record by default is not an unreasonable countermeasure to that problem.

ashtonkem 6y ago

This is generally advice in the private sector too, in case a lawsuit happens.

hntrader 6y ago

This is often part of compliance training in financial services. Don't communicate anything that even remotely seems sensitive or questionable over email or chat. It doesn't matter if it's totally innocent, all that matters is whether it can be taken out of context by the SEC or another body.

fl0wenol 6y ago

I mean, this is just plain common sense in the workplace, government or otherwise. Email is on record because of SOX or HIPAA or FISMA, so treat it accordingly.

LeifCarrotson 6y ago
Common sense would be not saying or thinking or acting on reprehensible things that someone would be afraid of having on record. An email that, for example, threatens bad performance reviews if an employee doesn't show up at an optional after-hours company fundraiser, is something someone wouldn't want on record. That doesn't mean you should say it in-person in the break room where you're not on record instead of emailing it. It means you shouldn't use performance reviews as a weapon to coerce things you can't or won't contractually demand from employees. Two tools are great for combating this sort of malfeasance: First, slip an acknowledgement for the verbal request in an email. Something like "Hey, the company event Friday night which you mentioned was critical to my performance review. Is that business casual?" or "You told me to get this internal request for your project done before taking care of my urgent customer tickets, here it is." can help you keep a paper trail with implicit acknowledgement. Second, as long as you're not in California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, or Washington, and you have an Android, install a call recorder app: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.callrecord.auto https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.callrecord... was an app I used for a while in a sensitive situation. Even if you never use it, it's nice to have if something was to blow up.

blululu 6y ago

William Brown - former mayor of San Francisco - was once asked why he didn’t have an email address. His response: “You know what the E in email stands for? Evidence.” Not that it really matters. His predecessors have all had plenty of evidence of corruption, have never been as productive as him and they still kept their jobs, so he probably just didn’t want to deal with checking his inbox.