7 ms·

This is the correct move -- having their communications publicly accessible undermines legislator's ability to do their job.

nerdponx 4y ago
How so?
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  I'll try to steelman it. Legislation is all about compromise (or at least it was, back when legislators worked). There's a lot of give and take, of people modifying positions they didn't hold all that tightly in order to gain on the positions that they really care about. That means that people say one thing on day 1, say something differently on day 5, and vote still a third way on day 10. If you're going to "expose" all of that, you can make every one of them look like a hypocrite with zero principles. In many cases that may be true, but you can make it look far worse than it is. And if you do that, then nobody can work with any give and take, for fear that the press will destroy them. As I said, I think that's the steelman. That doesn't necessarily mean that I believe it...
dekken_ 4y ago
You may state whatever you like, it doesn't mean it's true
guelo 4y ago
Only legislators but no other government entity? They are supposed to work for us. Your boss has access to your emails.
- SamReidHughes 4y ago
  The executive branch needs its records accessible, at least to the legislature, so that the legislature can see what it's doing. FOIA laws are an extension of this concept to the general public. They are the ones carrying the stick, and they need visibility. When we negotiate treaties, private conversations between leaders are useful and productive. The same goes when negotiating laws. Voters already have the most important visibility into legislative output: the laws that get passed and how their representative voted.
  - sonotathrowaway 4y ago
    You’re missing the one activity that you know it will be used for - planning a coup to deny people the freedom to choose their government.
    - hgsgm 4y ago
      Coupers can coup on their private email accounts.
  - Jtsummers 4y ago
    > When we negotiate treaties, private conversations between leaders are useful and productive. For the most part these aren't truly "private", they become part of the public record but at a classification level that may or may not permit immediate or easy access. This is very sharp contrast to what's being discussed in this article which is the deliberate exclusion of communications from the public record and their destruction.
miguelazo 4y ago
LOL-- did you forget sarcasm tags? Their JOB is to represent the PUBLIC. Ensuring that the public can go back and look at how decisions were arrived at is critical.
- SamReidHughes 4y ago
  Like, no, it actually is not critical. Duh. Try screeching "public" louder and harder. Put your back into it. You can expect legislators to operate better when every word they speak and write is not recorded for the political opposition to quote against them.
  - miguelazo 4y ago
    Yes, clearly they would have "operated better" at trying to subvert the will of Arizona voters by abetting Trump's failed coup attempt. If only they didn't have to worry about their communications being read later, maybe they could have really let loose!
hmaxwell 4y ago
how?
anigbrowl 4y ago
Good speech, I have wired the money to your account. Let's just avoid being seen together for the next 3 months ;-)
inetknght 4y ago
> having their communications publicly accessible undermines legislator's ability to do their job. I find this argument dubious in general (with very limited exceptions for safety/security which should be clearly marked). Can you provide specific examples? A legislator's job is specifically to serve the public. Hiding their communications from the public undermines public trust.
- kneebonian 4y ago
  Actually I've thought about this a lot, and I can see where things are coming from. An important part of representing a pluralistic society is compromise, if everyone can criticize every move a politician makes it then to populist and idealistic politicians getting elected rather than moderate politicians that can achieve things. I think we can see an example of this happening today where demoguages are making headway over more rational actors.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  Forcing legislators' communication to be public will just push them to hide more in ways that makes it harder to find and track. It will only punish honest legislators while doing nothing to stop dishonest legislators. It's exactly the same incentive scenario as guns, drugs, and regulations.
babypuncher 4y ago
Yes, it makes it way harder for them to get away with corrupt activities
woodruffw 4y ago
The legislators in question are public legislators. I think there's a reasonably strong argument to be made that being transparent to the public is a large part of their job. (Nothing about this seems to indicate that it's meant to protect correspondence between legislators and their friends or family. It seems aimed primarily at obscuring political correspondence.)
- hgsgm 4y ago
  Their votes are public. Why do you need to see their conversations?
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    Because we generally hold elected officials (and public servants, more generally) to a higher standard of behavior. Apply the Nixon test: should the public have been given access to the tapes that conclusively established Nixon’s involvement in the Watergate break-in? Most people think yes, despite them being “just” conversations.
    - bluGill 4y ago
      What if Nixon hadn't recorded his conversations at all though? What if spies had wiretapped his office and recorded it? Those are important nuances to consider as well and different people will change their answer with those changes even though all 3 cases we have potential access to his conversations.
      - woodruffw 4y ago
        This is a weird tangent: how do spies introduce nuance into whether public servants are subject to the public’s interest?
    - kneebonian 4y ago
      > Because we generally hold elected officials (and public servants, more generally) to a higher standard of behavior Do we? We've got a guy named Wiener that has been involved in multiple sex scandals and is still in office, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
sonotathrowaway 4y ago
Brilliant thinking - sometimes too much sunlight is damaging. Better to make sure that the people supposedly using the public power they were given be allowed to act without accountability.
jfengel 4y ago
It is remarkable how many HN readers have strong opinions, strongly held about how to do a job that they haven't done, nor ever seen done. The job of a legislator is famously sausage-making: something that's gross even if the final product is acceptable. If it was done the way an outsider demanded it be done, it wouldn't be done at all. There's legitimate disagreement on whether legislators' communications are viable public records. But I'd think that disagreement would be a lot more meaningful if it were held among people who had at least some idea what the job entailed.
- rahimnathwani 4y ago
  "But I'd think that disagreement would be a lot more meaningful if it were held among people who had at least some idea what the job entailed." You know what would help me get such an idea? Access to emails, calendars and other records.
  - jfengel 4y ago
    None of that is likely to mean much without the context. It's like reading a cutting edge journal article without having taken high school science.
    - rahimnathwani 4y ago
      What is the minimum level of knowledge you think I need, before I can understanding the meaning of a legislator's records?

nerdponx 4y ago

How so?

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
I'll try to steelman it. Legislation is all about compromise (or at least it was, back when legislators worked). There's a lot of give and take, of people modifying positions they didn't hold all that tightly in order to gain on the positions that they really care about. That means that people say one thing on day 1, say something differently on day 5, and vote still a third way on day 10. If you're going to "expose" all of that, you can make every one of them look like a hypocrite with zero principles. In many cases that may be true, but you can make it look far worse than it is. And if you do that, then nobody can work with any give and take, for fear that the press will destroy them. As I said, I think that's the steelman. That doesn't necessarily mean that I believe it...

dekken_ 4y ago

You may state whatever you like, it doesn't mean it's true

guelo 4y ago

Only legislators but no other government entity? They are supposed to work for us. Your boss has access to your emails.

SamReidHughes 4y ago
The executive branch needs its records accessible, at least to the legislature, so that the legislature can see what it's doing. FOIA laws are an extension of this concept to the general public. They are the ones carrying the stick, and they need visibility. When we negotiate treaties, private conversations between leaders are useful and productive. The same goes when negotiating laws. Voters already have the most important visibility into legislative output: the laws that get passed and how their representative voted.
- sonotathrowaway 4y ago
  You’re missing the one activity that you know it will be used for - planning a coup to deny people the freedom to choose their government.
  - hgsgm 4y ago
    Coupers can coup on their private email accounts.
- Jtsummers 4y ago
  > When we negotiate treaties, private conversations between leaders are useful and productive. For the most part these aren't truly "private", they become part of the public record but at a classification level that may or may not permit immediate or easy access. This is very sharp contrast to what's being discussed in this article which is the deliberate exclusion of communications from the public record and their destruction.

miguelazo 4y ago

LOL-- did you forget sarcasm tags? Their JOB is to represent the PUBLIC. Ensuring that the public can go back and look at how decisions were arrived at is critical.

SamReidHughes 4y ago
Like, no, it actually is not critical. Duh. Try screeching "public" louder and harder. Put your back into it. You can expect legislators to operate better when every word they speak and write is not recorded for the political opposition to quote against them.
- miguelazo 4y ago
  Yes, clearly they would have "operated better" at trying to subvert the will of Arizona voters by abetting Trump's failed coup attempt. If only they didn't have to worry about their communications being read later, maybe they could have really let loose!

hmaxwell 4y ago

how?

anigbrowl 4y ago

Good speech, I have wired the money to your account. Let's just avoid being seen together for the next 3 months ;-)

inetknght 4y ago

> having their communications publicly accessible undermines legislator's ability to do their job. I find this argument dubious in general (with very limited exceptions for safety/security which should be clearly marked). Can you provide specific examples? A legislator's job is specifically to serve the public. Hiding their communications from the public undermines public trust.

kneebonian 4y ago
Actually I've thought about this a lot, and I can see where things are coming from. An important part of representing a pluralistic society is compromise, if everyone can criticize every move a politician makes it then to populist and idealistic politicians getting elected rather than moderate politicians that can achieve things. I think we can see an example of this happening today where demoguages are making headway over more rational actors.
kelseyfrog 4y ago
Forcing legislators' communication to be public will just push them to hide more in ways that makes it harder to find and track. It will only punish honest legislators while doing nothing to stop dishonest legislators. It's exactly the same incentive scenario as guns, drugs, and regulations.

babypuncher 4y ago

Yes, it makes it way harder for them to get away with corrupt activities

woodruffw 4y ago

The legislators in question are public legislators. I think there's a reasonably strong argument to be made that being transparent to the public is a large part of their job. (Nothing about this seems to indicate that it's meant to protect correspondence between legislators and their friends or family. It seems aimed primarily at obscuring political correspondence.)

hgsgm 4y ago
Their votes are public. Why do you need to see their conversations?
- woodruffw 4y ago
  Because we generally hold elected officials (and public servants, more generally) to a higher standard of behavior. Apply the Nixon test: should the public have been given access to the tapes that conclusively established Nixon’s involvement in the Watergate break-in? Most people think yes, despite them being “just” conversations.
  - bluGill 4y ago
    What if Nixon hadn't recorded his conversations at all though? What if spies had wiretapped his office and recorded it? Those are important nuances to consider as well and different people will change their answer with those changes even though all 3 cases we have potential access to his conversations.
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      This is a weird tangent: how do spies introduce nuance into whether public servants are subject to the public’s interest?
  - kneebonian 4y ago
    > Because we generally hold elected officials (and public servants, more generally) to a higher standard of behavior Do we? We've got a guy named Wiener that has been involved in multiple sex scandals and is still in office, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

sonotathrowaway 4y ago

Brilliant thinking - sometimes too much sunlight is damaging. Better to make sure that the people supposedly using the public power they were given be allowed to act without accountability.

jfengel 4y ago

It is remarkable how many HN readers have strong opinions, strongly held about how to do a job that they haven't done, nor ever seen done. The job of a legislator is famously sausage-making: something that's gross even if the final product is acceptable. If it was done the way an outsider demanded it be done, it wouldn't be done at all. There's legitimate disagreement on whether legislators' communications are viable public records. But I'd think that disagreement would be a lot more meaningful if it were held among people who had at least some idea what the job entailed.

rahimnathwani 4y ago
"But I'd think that disagreement would be a lot more meaningful if it were held among people who had at least some idea what the job entailed." You know what would help me get such an idea? Access to emails, calendars and other records.
- jfengel 4y ago
  None of that is likely to mean much without the context. It's like reading a cutting edge journal article without having taken high school science.
  - rahimnathwani 4y ago
    What is the minimum level of knowledge you think I need, before I can understanding the meaning of a legislator's records?