3 ms·

If you ask me to pay for your research, how can you claim that I'm not entitled to see the communications you've done in the process of that research? I paid f

If you ask me to pay for your research, how can you claim that I'm not entitled to see the communications you've done in the process of that research? I paid for the email server (or for its usage), for your computer and its software, and for your time. I've got every right to see how it's used. In particular, with publicly-funded research, where we've got an extra step (or several) between the voters and those working on their behalf, the public has a right to know in order to tell their representatives whether they want the government to continue spending their money this way. UPDATE: I do not believe that those writing the emails had any legitimate expectation of privacy to begin with. It seems that employees don't generally have a right to privacy in their work emails. For example: Courts have found that employers are generally free to read employee email messages, as long as there's a valid business purpose for doing so. -- http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/email-monitoring-can-employer-read-30088.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/email-monitoring-can-... It seems to me that support of FOIA laws is a valid "business" purpose.

arrrg 14y ago
You seem to be arguing that making e-mails public in the future would be good. Maybe. But making e-mails written in the past with the expectation of privacy public? That seems ill-advised to me. Update response: The employer is the university, certainly not the public. (I’m also not sure why you are so quick to dismiss the importance of private communication channels. To me it seems important that people who work together can talk together privately, without the public knowing.)
- talmand 14y ago
  I think his point is that there shouldn't have been an expectation of privacy in the first place.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Maybe there should not be, but there was.
gjm11 14y ago
"Privacy" means more than one thing in this context. Mann did not have (and shouldn't have expected) a right to privacy over his employer, the university. If they wanted to read his emails then they could. But he might have had (and expected) a right to privacy over the general public, or more specifically organizations like the American Tradition Institute. You can only get from "the university were entitled to read his email" to "the ATI were entitled to read his mail" by assuming that the ATI had that right over the university -- and that's pretty much exactly what the court case was about, which has just been decided in favour of Mann and the University. So, yeah, support of FOIA laws is doubtless a valid business purpose, but support of FOIA laws did not require the university to hand over Mann's emails. And this has nothing to do with the question of the university's right to read Mann's email.

arrrg 14y ago

You seem to be arguing that making e-mails public in the future would be good. Maybe. But making e-mails written in the past with the expectation of privacy public? That seems ill-advised to me. Update response: The employer is the university, certainly not the public. (I’m also not sure why you are so quick to dismiss the importance of private communication channels. To me it seems important that people who work together can talk together privately, without the public knowing.)

talmand 14y ago
I think his point is that there shouldn't have been an expectation of privacy in the first place.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Maybe there should not be, but there was.

gjm11 14y ago

"Privacy" means more than one thing in this context. Mann did not have (and shouldn't have expected) a right to privacy over his employer, the university. If they wanted to read his emails then they could. But he might have had (and expected) a right to privacy over the general public, or more specifically organizations like the American Tradition Institute. You can only get from "the university were entitled to read his email" to "the ATI were entitled to read his mail" by assuming that the ATI had that right over the university -- and that's pretty much exactly what the court case was about, which has just been decided in favour of Mann and the University. So, yeah, support of FOIA laws is doubtless a valid business purpose, but support of FOIA laws did not require the university to hand over Mann's emails. And this has nothing to do with the question of the university's right to read Mann's email.