3 ms·
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 em
by notahacker 11mo 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 11mo agoI 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 11mo agoIf 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.