5 ms·

> but didn't secure themselves against a defector Still a surprisingly amateur move. Once worked for the Federal Government where literally everything you writ

> but didn't secure themselves against a defector Still a surprisingly amateur move. Once worked for the Federal Government where literally everything you write is potentially subject to a FOIA request. The message all new hires were told was, very clearly: "Never put anything into writing you wouldn't be happy to be see published on the front page of the Washington Post" Anything that was even vaguely close to failing this test was handled exclusively by a private phone call or, preferably, in person conversation. And this was for an org that was doing nothing sneaky or underhanded in the slightest. Still if something could be misunderstood in a negative way, don't put it in text. I'm still surprised when I see coworkers say things in slack, which is clearly able to be monitors by admins, that don't pass this test. Far more surprised when people knowingly engage in criminal activity and keep any kind of unnecessary record.

krageon 3y ago
> And this was for an org that was doing nothing sneaky or underhanded in the slightest If public scrutiny is such an issue, it is absolutely doing sneaky and underhanded things. Perhaps you have not seen them, that could be true.
civilitty 3y ago
How does one FOIA request for the written communications of government officials like that? Asking for a friend
- PheonixPharts 3y ago
  The government has done a pretty good job of making the process very easy: https://www.foia.gov/ https://www.foia.gov/ But, just like with ChatGPT, you'll likely have to do a bit of "prompt engineering" to get a specific document. "Give me all the stuff you guys got on UFOS1!!" will likely be less fruitful then "I am requesting the email correspondence between X and Y related to the documented observation of an atmospheric event occurring on ..." In my experience these requests are taken quite seriously.
  - civilitty 3y ago
    How broad can the request get? Can I ask for any communications that are related to a decision made or drafting of something that goes into the CFR? How much should I expect to pay for these requests, especially while figuring out the prompt engineering?
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      The "API" so to speak is the relevant laws in your jurisdiction. You may be looking for a lawyer
    - cavanasm 3y ago
      The cost of the request is often based on how many man hours it will take to fulfill. Different agencies have different rates / different capabilities for performing the document search itself. Some agencies may also reflexively deny requests, which would require a lawyer to sue them to get resolution if you believe the denial doesn't legitimately meet legal exception requirements.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > Can I ask for any communications that are related to a decision made or drafting of something that goes into the CFR? The broader the request, the more expensive it is and the lower the likely signal-to-noise ratio of the response is. Also, on your specific example, there is a broad exemption to FOIA for internal deliberative process-related opinions, conclusions, and recommendations, etc.
    - sbierwagen 3y ago
      https://www.foia.gov/faq.html https://www.foia.gov/faq.html >For a typical requester the agency can charge for the time it takes to search for records and for duplication of those records. There is usually no charge for the first two hours of search time or for the first 100 pages of duplication. >You may always include in your request letter a specific statement limiting the amount that you are willing to pay in fees. If an agency estimates that the total fees for processing your request will exceed $25, it will notify you in writing of the estimate and offer you an opportunity to narrow your request in order to reduce the fees. If you agree to pay fees for a records search, you may be required to pay such fees even if the search does not locate any releasable records. For requests that the receiving agency doesn't like, they will either ask for a lot of money or just sit on the request for years/decades: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/foia-audit/foia/2019-03-08/25-year-old-foia-request-confirms-foia-delays-continue-unabated https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/foia-audit/foia/2019-03-08/25-year...
notahacker 3y ago
Not writing down anything youd be upset another person read is a pretty standard instruction for people doing interactions with ordinary business clients anywhere that data protection legislation theoretically allows them to make a statutory request the company send records you hold about them (Probably other jurisdictions too, if their lawsuits have a discovery process) And that's "dear junior sales team members, please don't put your opinion of the client in writing, in the unlikely event they ask for a data dump they might be a bit miffed", not "dear compliance chief, please don't write confessions to breaking laws our lawyers might be able to argue we attempted to comply with when we inevitably have to defend ourselves in court..."
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > that's "dear junior sales team members, please don't put your opinion of the client in writing, in the unlikely event they ask for a data dump they might be a bit miffed" One of my first moves running a trading team is reducing or eliminating internal chat. I don’t think I’ve gone a week without at least one client receiving an inappropriate nickname. It’s harmless. But it’s not something you want showing up in discovery or a regulatory inquiry.
  - dogmayor 3y ago
    So true. Been on both sides of this coin. Lawyers, judges, jurors will jump on any language that gives the slightest impression of bad acting.
  - dingledork69 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - kasey_junk 3y ago
    I was _shocked_ when I moved from finance to tech and chat retentions (if they weren’t infinite) were set in months. I was used to low single digit days retention. I still think that’s a good policy even without compliance issues. Keeping chat from becoming a de facto document management system.
ABeeSea 3y ago
I’ve heard this referred to as the “green eggs and ham test” for written communication. [0] >Would you like this in the press? >Would you like this at Brand X? >Like to read it on the stand? >Like it in the government's hand? [0]: https://www.legalethicsforum.com/blog/2006/12/over_at_white_c.html https://www.legalethicsforum.com/blog/2006/12/over_at_white_...
- wombatpm 3y ago
  Do you want it to be your word against your employer? Will you employer visit you in jail? Will they pony up and pay your bail?
theGnuMe 3y ago
Right but in court the failure to keep adequate records may mean that the judge may rule that the absence of records is evidence of guilt. I think Google is facing this issue specifically.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> The message all new hires were told was, very clearly: "Never put anything into writing you wouldn't be happy to be see published on the front page of the Washington Post" > And this was for an org that was doing nothing sneaky or underhanded in the slightest I disagree. That culture is one of routinely doing sneaky and underhanded things. If it wasn’t, the rule would be “don’t do anything you wouldn't be happy to be see published on the front page of the Washington Post.” (Outside of things that are legally cobfidential, but those are generally protected from FOIA even if in writing.) If you are actively preventing evidence of your actions from being created, that is itself evidence of consciousness of wrongdoing.
- refurb 3y ago
  Disagree. Plenty of examples of companies that did nothing wrong, but some written comment, by some employee is enough to convince a jury that "something probably happened". I remember one pharmaceutical company was on trial for a drug that was suspected to have a bad side effect (later analysis show it didn't). They had done nothing wrong, all data was provided to the FDA, they diligently collected post-marking data, shared with the FDA, etc. A civil suit was brought and during discovery they found a comment that said "maybe our dose was too high?". The person who made the comment had nothing to do with the trials, didn't have the skills to interpret the data, didn't even have a medical background. Once that was found? Boom, the company settled because that was enough to convince a jury that "they probably knew it was wrong". It's very easy to put something in writing now that has no impact, but in a few years time is a smoking gun. It doesn't matter if you testify that around the circumstances when you wrote it ("oh, I didn't mean that"), the jury won't believe you, the prosecution will just flash that one sentence up and say "see, it obvious the company was hiding the problem".
- idopmstuff 3y ago
  There are plenty of cases where you wouldn't want something perfectly reasonable to be published in the Post. The key is context - some things are complicated and require background and relevant information; if taken without that context, they'll seem bad. Seeing as we live in a world in which people in the other political party are highly motivated to take whatever they can of their opponents (and their opponents' appointees, etc.) and make them sound bad, it's understandable that folks would be cautious of what they write down. If someone emails you a question whose answer is potentially politically sensitive, you might not want to provide a brief answer to that email that you know could be misconstrued. That isn't "evidence of consciousness of wrongdoing" - it's just understanding the reality of politics.
WeylandYutani 3y ago
In person conversation doesn't work because Zhao doesn't want to enter the US.
wpietri 3y ago
> I'm still surprised when I see coworkers say things in slack I was recently talking with a friend who recently left government. They mentioned that they has a special slack emoji, "JK FOIA", so they could clearly mark things as "just kidding" to future FOIA readers.

krageon 3y ago

> And this was for an org that was doing nothing sneaky or underhanded in the slightest If public scrutiny is such an issue, it is absolutely doing sneaky and underhanded things. Perhaps you have not seen them, that could be true.

civilitty 3y ago

How does one FOIA request for the written communications of government officials like that? Asking for a friend

PheonixPharts 3y ago
The government has done a pretty good job of making the process very easy: https://www.foia.gov/ https://www.foia.gov/ But, just like with ChatGPT, you'll likely have to do a bit of "prompt engineering" to get a specific document. "Give me all the stuff you guys got on UFOS1!!" will likely be less fruitful then "I am requesting the email correspondence between X and Y related to the documented observation of an atmospheric event occurring on ..." In my experience these requests are taken quite seriously.
- civilitty 3y ago
  How broad can the request get? Can I ask for any communications that are related to a decision made or drafting of something that goes into the CFR? How much should I expect to pay for these requests, especially while figuring out the prompt engineering?
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    The "API" so to speak is the relevant laws in your jurisdiction. You may be looking for a lawyer
  - cavanasm 3y ago
    The cost of the request is often based on how many man hours it will take to fulfill. Different agencies have different rates / different capabilities for performing the document search itself. Some agencies may also reflexively deny requests, which would require a lawyer to sue them to get resolution if you believe the denial doesn't legitimately meet legal exception requirements.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Can I ask for any communications that are related to a decision made or drafting of something that goes into the CFR? The broader the request, the more expensive it is and the lower the likely signal-to-noise ratio of the response is. Also, on your specific example, there is a broad exemption to FOIA for internal deliberative process-related opinions, conclusions, and recommendations, etc.
  - sbierwagen 3y ago
    https://www.foia.gov/faq.html https://www.foia.gov/faq.html >For a typical requester the agency can charge for the time it takes to search for records and for duplication of those records. There is usually no charge for the first two hours of search time or for the first 100 pages of duplication. >You may always include in your request letter a specific statement limiting the amount that you are willing to pay in fees. If an agency estimates that the total fees for processing your request will exceed $25, it will notify you in writing of the estimate and offer you an opportunity to narrow your request in order to reduce the fees. If you agree to pay fees for a records search, you may be required to pay such fees even if the search does not locate any releasable records. For requests that the receiving agency doesn't like, they will either ask for a lot of money or just sit on the request for years/decades: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/foia-audit/foia/2019-03-08/25-year-old-foia-request-confirms-foia-delays-continue-unabated https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/foia-audit/foia/2019-03-08/25-year...

notahacker 3y ago

Not writing down anything youd be upset another person read is a pretty standard instruction for people doing interactions with ordinary business clients anywhere that data protection legislation theoretically allows them to make a statutory request the company send records you hold about them (Probably other jurisdictions too, if their lawsuits have a discovery process) And that's "dear junior sales team members, please don't put your opinion of the client in writing, in the unlikely event they ask for a data dump they might be a bit miffed", not "dear compliance chief, please don't write confessions to breaking laws our lawyers might be able to argue we attempted to comply with when we inevitably have to defend ourselves in court..."

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> that's "dear junior sales team members, please don't put your opinion of the client in writing, in the unlikely event they ask for a data dump they might be a bit miffed" One of my first moves running a trading team is reducing or eliminating internal chat. I don’t think I’ve gone a week without at least one client receiving an inappropriate nickname. It’s harmless. But it’s not something you want showing up in discovery or a regulatory inquiry.
- dogmayor 3y ago
  So true. Been on both sides of this coin. Lawyers, judges, jurors will jump on any language that gives the slightest impression of bad acting.
- dingledork69 3y ago
  [flagged]
- kasey_junk 3y ago
  I was _shocked_ when I moved from finance to tech and chat retentions (if they weren’t infinite) were set in months. I was used to low single digit days retention. I still think that’s a good policy even without compliance issues. Keeping chat from becoming a de facto document management system.

ABeeSea 3y ago

I’ve heard this referred to as the “green eggs and ham test” for written communication. [0] >Would you like this in the press? >Would you like this at Brand X? >Like to read it on the stand? >Like it in the government's hand? [0]: https://www.legalethicsforum.com/blog/2006/12/over_at_white_c.html https://www.legalethicsforum.com/blog/2006/12/over_at_white_...

wombatpm 3y ago
Do you want it to be your word against your employer? Will you employer visit you in jail? Will they pony up and pay your bail?

theGnuMe 3y ago

Right but in court the failure to keep adequate records may mean that the judge may rule that the absence of records is evidence of guilt. I think Google is facing this issue specifically.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> The message all new hires were told was, very clearly: "Never put anything into writing you wouldn't be happy to be see published on the front page of the Washington Post" > And this was for an org that was doing nothing sneaky or underhanded in the slightest I disagree. That culture is one of routinely doing sneaky and underhanded things. If it wasn’t, the rule would be “don’t do anything you wouldn't be happy to be see published on the front page of the Washington Post.” (Outside of things that are legally cobfidential, but those are generally protected from FOIA even if in writing.) If you are actively preventing evidence of your actions from being created, that is itself evidence of consciousness of wrongdoing.

refurb 3y ago
Disagree. Plenty of examples of companies that did nothing wrong, but some written comment, by some employee is enough to convince a jury that "something probably happened". I remember one pharmaceutical company was on trial for a drug that was suspected to have a bad side effect (later analysis show it didn't). They had done nothing wrong, all data was provided to the FDA, they diligently collected post-marking data, shared with the FDA, etc. A civil suit was brought and during discovery they found a comment that said "maybe our dose was too high?". The person who made the comment had nothing to do with the trials, didn't have the skills to interpret the data, didn't even have a medical background. Once that was found? Boom, the company settled because that was enough to convince a jury that "they probably knew it was wrong". It's very easy to put something in writing now that has no impact, but in a few years time is a smoking gun. It doesn't matter if you testify that around the circumstances when you wrote it ("oh, I didn't mean that"), the jury won't believe you, the prosecution will just flash that one sentence up and say "see, it obvious the company was hiding the problem".
idopmstuff 3y ago
There are plenty of cases where you wouldn't want something perfectly reasonable to be published in the Post. The key is context - some things are complicated and require background and relevant information; if taken without that context, they'll seem bad. Seeing as we live in a world in which people in the other political party are highly motivated to take whatever they can of their opponents (and their opponents' appointees, etc.) and make them sound bad, it's understandable that folks would be cautious of what they write down. If someone emails you a question whose answer is potentially politically sensitive, you might not want to provide a brief answer to that email that you know could be misconstrued. That isn't "evidence of consciousness of wrongdoing" - it's just understanding the reality of politics.

WeylandYutani 3y ago

In person conversation doesn't work because Zhao doesn't want to enter the US.

wpietri 3y ago

> I'm still surprised when I see coworkers say things in slack I was recently talking with a friend who recently left government. They mentioned that they has a special slack emoji, "JK FOIA", so they could clearly mark things as "just kidding" to future FOIA readers.