7 ms·

Gov. Abbott's office redacts pages of emails about Elon Musk

131 points by pavel_lishin 1y ago

kelseyfrog 1y ago
What I'm reading is that if you want to preserve confidentiality, you can mix trade secrets into your communication. Sounds like an easy thing with no downside.
- teeray 1y ago
  sigh and it should be the opposite. Divulging trade secrets into records that can be FOIA-ed should be tantamount to publicly releasing them.
  - notahacker 1y ago
    I mean, without the trade secret exemption that's basically any written exchange with government.... I'm not seeing much to be gained by making it impossible for governments to do due diligence with many suppliers because they'd rather turn down the contract than broadcast such information to their competitors (not sure it'd jive particularly well with public company control over what is and isn't public information either)...
    - cogman10 1y ago
      The upside is it stops corruption. The fact is, spacex does not have any "trade secrets" that they should be dropping into communication with a government official when speaking about policy or a future contract. It's not like Musk would be dropping in things like vendors or material composition when talking to Abbott. The upside of working with the government for a contract is that usually means a lot of money. The price should be full transparency as that's our tax dollars. Secret government communications should pretty much always be seen as highly suspicious.
      - notahacker 1y ago
        I mean, it doesn't 'stop corruption' because you can arrange to send money to secret bank accounts verbally, which is not subject to FOIA. Anyone considering emailing about something actually illegal needs to worry about subpoenas far more than freedom of information anyway. But it does mean that the answer to "can you disclose more about the functioning of technology X" or "can you tell us more about your expansion plans in Texas" will be "no". I don't think businesses being less transparent (or setting the price of the contract at greater than the value of open sourcing every part of their IP that isn't patentable or copyrightable) is a win.
        cogman10 1y ago
        I agree. I should have said "It makes corruption harder". Forcing communication about illegal things to be done verbally is highly inconvenient for both Musk and Abbott. They have to take the time to connect which limits the other work they can be doing. They need a private time and to find a location to avoid someone overhearing their communications. Not an impossibility, but definitely makes everything just a bit harder.
        notahacker 1y ago
        If Elon emails "call me", Abbott picks up the phone. Doing illegal things over email is already risky from the point of view of not being able to redact when supplying it to an investigator. The people actually inconvenienced by "public by default" are government departments trying to run a fair selection process involving detailed technical audits, or to provide support to companies that don't wish for their business plan to be public information. That's just a new hurdle that people proposing stuff which is completely legal have to cross when deciding whether to share any information with any public official ever.
- inerte 1y ago
  Yes, unfortunately... the right outcome here should be corporate lawyers saying "companies should NOT add trade secrets when talking to the government because it will leak", but instead the public can't know what the government is doing because it might hurt a company. US 101, doing what's best for business over its people.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- perihelions 1y ago
  Epstein's email footer throws the whole spaghetti at the wall—confidentiality, attorney-client privilege, securities regulations, and copyright law, too. > "The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of JEE" > "Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com, and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved"
  - flowerthoughts 1y ago
    The kind of disclaimer that does nothing for "evil" people, and does nothing good for good people.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
ares623 1y ago
The prisoners are absolutely running the prison now
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
johnea 1y ago
I'm sure it would be embarrassing, if the public discovered just how much the state of texas, and governor abbot, were kissing elon's ass...
criddell 1y ago
> potentially “intimate and embarrassing” exchanges What kinds of things could Musk and Abbott be discussing that could lead to an exchange of intimate messages? The only (non-jokey) thing I can think of would be discussions about the kinds of accommodations Abbott might need at SpaceX or Tesla events due to being paralyzed.
- notahacker 1y ago
  Elon's a large employer in Texas in industries with legal hurdles so it's unsurprising he ends up in email exchanges with senior politicians there, even more so since he's decided he's a political figure. He also has a... interesting line in quips, opinions and personal remarks which I imagine Abbott is happy to play along with when he's thinking more how much a friendlier relationship with Elon can boost his personal profile, state employment figures and bank balance and less about what other people reading it might think. So yeah, there's probably some genuinely not-for-public consumption stuff about Tesla/SpaceX future business initiatives and a whole lot of racism and snarky comments about people that are supposed to be political allies... Edit: wondering if the downvote brigade are supposed to be signalling that Elon doesn't have any legitimate reason to start conversations about his companies with Texas politicians or that private conversations with Elon would never end up segueing into something that might be embarrassing. Not sure which of those opinions is more ridiculous really...
  - normie3000 1y ago
    > industries with legal hurdles so it's unsurprising he ends up in email exchanges with senior politicians Why are politicians involved with legal issues? Is this correct?
    - myrion 1y ago
      Because politicians make laws, and those affect the "legal hurdles" that companies need to deal with.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      Who do you imagine writes laws?
nis0s 1y ago
Intimate and embarrassing, Musk, and trade secrets makes me think it’s about sex dolls.
- BurningFrog 1y ago
  Might say more about you...
sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
> Abbott’s and Musk’s lawyers fought their release, arguing they would reveal trade secrets, potentially “intimate and embarrassing” exchanges or confidential legal and policymaking discussions Maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't have used your government email account to have intimate and embarrassing exchanges? That thought come to mind, Mr. Abbott?
- RankingMember 1y ago
  Yep, fuck that- government email = public record. Redaction should require a damn higher bar than "oh that's too intimate/embarrassing".
SilverElfin 1y ago
Is there any avenue to validate the claims of the governor’s office, that these things must be protected? Are there for example, firms that will look at the unredacted content as a third party with confidentiality agreements, to certify that it is correctly being redacted? Otherwise it feels like they could easily be hiding any number of unethical or outright criminal activities this way.
- m-hodges 1y ago
  > Are there for example, firms that will look at the unredacted content as a third party with confidentiality agreements, to certify that it is correctly being redacted? No. But there are investigative reporters.
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    Not entirely accurate. The government uses "special masters" or "taint teams" if there's a scenario like this, at times. One was involved in the Trump Mar-a-Lago case. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/resources/newsletters/criminal/taint-team-or-special-master-one-recent-analysis/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/resources/news...
- cogman10 1y ago
  There actually is a legal process for just this sort of situation. It's called an "In camera review". Assuming someone sues Abbott over this, then a judge can take the documents in question, look over them, and make a determination on whether or not Abbott's claims are true. That ruling can be appealed to higher courts.
  - qingcharles 1y ago
    Exactly this. I've used this on many FOIA cases where the defendant public body has argued for redaction. One was an 800 page manual on jail procedures which the body said was 100% subject to redaction. On the first round we got them to concede the table of contents, after that it wasn't worth arguing further, so sadly we had to file a motion for in camera review and the judge had to take it home and read all 800 pages. The final determination was that only the locations and operations of the keys, how knives were stored in the kitchen, and how the armory operated were actually redactable. Of course, then the public body appeals it and the appellate justices then have to read the 800 pages all over again. But eventually you should get a half-decent result.
Drunkfoowl 1y ago
[dead]

131 points by pavel_lishin 1y ago

What I'm reading is that if you want to preserve confidentiality, you can mix trade secrets into your communication. Sounds like an easy thing with no downside.

teeray 1y ago
sigh and it should be the opposite. Divulging trade secrets into records that can be FOIA-ed should be tantamount to publicly releasing them.
- notahacker 1y ago
  I mean, without the trade secret exemption that's basically any written exchange with government.... I'm not seeing much to be gained by making it impossible for governments to do due diligence with many suppliers because they'd rather turn down the contract than broadcast such information to their competitors (not sure it'd jive particularly well with public company control over what is and isn't public information either)...
  - cogman10 1y ago
    The upside is it stops corruption. The fact is, spacex does not have any "trade secrets" that they should be dropping into communication with a government official when speaking about policy or a future contract. It's not like Musk would be dropping in things like vendors or material composition when talking to Abbott. The upside of working with the government for a contract is that usually means a lot of money. The price should be full transparency as that's our tax dollars. Secret government communications should pretty much always be seen as highly suspicious.
    - notahacker 1y ago
      I mean, it doesn't 'stop corruption' because you can arrange to send money to secret bank accounts verbally, which is not subject to FOIA. Anyone considering emailing about something actually illegal needs to worry about subpoenas far more than freedom of information anyway. But it does mean that the answer to "can you disclose more about the functioning of technology X" or "can you tell us more about your expansion plans in Texas" will be "no". I don't think businesses being less transparent (or setting the price of the contract at greater than the value of open sourcing every part of their IP that isn't patentable or copyrightable) is a win.
      - cogman10 1y ago
        I agree. I should have said "It makes corruption harder". Forcing communication about illegal things to be done verbally is highly inconvenient for both Musk and Abbott. They have to take the time to connect which limits the other work they can be doing. They need a private time and to find a location to avoid someone overhearing their communications. Not an impossibility, but definitely makes everything just a bit harder.
        notahacker 1y ago
        If Elon emails "call me", Abbott picks up the phone. Doing illegal things over email is already risky from the point of view of not being able to redact when supplying it to an investigator. The people actually inconvenienced by "public by default" are government departments trying to run a fair selection process involving detailed technical audits, or to provide support to companies that don't wish for their business plan to be public information. That's just a new hurdle that people proposing stuff which is completely legal have to cross when deciding whether to share any information with any public official ever.
inerte 1y ago
Yes, unfortunately... the right outcome here should be corporate lawyers saying "companies should NOT add trade secrets when talking to the government because it will leak", but instead the public can't know what the government is doing because it might hurt a company. US 101, doing what's best for business over its people.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
perihelions 1y ago
Epstein's email footer throws the whole spaghetti at the wall—confidentiality, attorney-client privilege, securities regulations, and copyright law, too. > "The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of JEE" > "Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com, and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved"
- flowerthoughts 1y ago
  The kind of disclaimer that does nothing for "evil" people, and does nothing good for good people.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

ares623 1y ago

The prisoners are absolutely running the prison now

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

johnea 1y ago

I'm sure it would be embarrassing, if the public discovered just how much the state of texas, and governor abbot, were kissing elon's ass...

criddell 1y ago

> potentially “intimate and embarrassing” exchanges What kinds of things could Musk and Abbott be discussing that could lead to an exchange of intimate messages? The only (non-jokey) thing I can think of would be discussions about the kinds of accommodations Abbott might need at SpaceX or Tesla events due to being paralyzed.

notahacker 1y ago
Elon's a large employer in Texas in industries with legal hurdles so it's unsurprising he ends up in email exchanges with senior politicians there, even more so since he's decided he's a political figure. He also has a... interesting line in quips, opinions and personal remarks which I imagine Abbott is happy to play along with when he's thinking more how much a friendlier relationship with Elon can boost his personal profile, state employment figures and bank balance and less about what other people reading it might think. So yeah, there's probably some genuinely not-for-public consumption stuff about Tesla/SpaceX future business initiatives and a whole lot of racism and snarky comments about people that are supposed to be political allies... Edit: wondering if the downvote brigade are supposed to be signalling that Elon doesn't have any legitimate reason to start conversations about his companies with Texas politicians or that private conversations with Elon would never end up segueing into something that might be embarrassing. Not sure which of those opinions is more ridiculous really...
- normie3000 1y ago
  > industries with legal hurdles so it's unsurprising he ends up in email exchanges with senior politicians Why are politicians involved with legal issues? Is this correct?
  - myrion 1y ago
    Because politicians make laws, and those affect the "legal hurdles" that companies need to deal with.
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    Who do you imagine writes laws?

nis0s 1y ago

Intimate and embarrassing, Musk, and trade secrets makes me think it’s about sex dolls.

BurningFrog 1y ago
Might say more about you...

sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago

> Abbott’s and Musk’s lawyers fought their release, arguing they would reveal trade secrets, potentially “intimate and embarrassing” exchanges or confidential legal and policymaking discussions Maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't have used your government email account to have intimate and embarrassing exchanges? That thought come to mind, Mr. Abbott?

RankingMember 1y ago
Yep, fuck that- government email = public record. Redaction should require a damn higher bar than "oh that's too intimate/embarrassing".

SilverElfin 1y ago

Is there any avenue to validate the claims of the governor’s office, that these things must be protected? Are there for example, firms that will look at the unredacted content as a third party with confidentiality agreements, to certify that it is correctly being redacted? Otherwise it feels like they could easily be hiding any number of unethical or outright criminal activities this way.

m-hodges 1y ago
> Are there for example, firms that will look at the unredacted content as a third party with confidentiality agreements, to certify that it is correctly being redacted? No. But there are investigative reporters.
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  Not entirely accurate. The government uses "special masters" or "taint teams" if there's a scenario like this, at times. One was involved in the Trump Mar-a-Lago case. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/resources/newsletters/criminal/taint-team-or-special-master-one-recent-analysis/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/resources/news...
cogman10 1y ago
There actually is a legal process for just this sort of situation. It's called an "In camera review". Assuming someone sues Abbott over this, then a judge can take the documents in question, look over them, and make a determination on whether or not Abbott's claims are true. That ruling can be appealed to higher courts.
- qingcharles 1y ago
  Exactly this. I've used this on many FOIA cases where the defendant public body has argued for redaction. One was an 800 page manual on jail procedures which the body said was 100% subject to redaction. On the first round we got them to concede the table of contents, after that it wasn't worth arguing further, so sadly we had to file a motion for in camera review and the judge had to take it home and read all 800 pages. The final determination was that only the locations and operations of the keys, how knives were stored in the kitchen, and how the armory operated were actually redactable. Of course, then the public body appeals it and the appellate justices then have to read the 800 pages all over again. But eventually you should get a half-decent result.

Drunkfoowl 1y ago

[dead]