4 ms·

Sorry it seems naive to you. But if someone is going into business with me (a part of the public), I expect to be able to see EVERYTHING that business has commu

by catapart 11mo ago

Sorry it seems naive to you. But if someone is going into business with me (a part of the public), I expect to be able to see EVERYTHING that business has communicated with "the public" (which includes me). Like the other commenter said: I do need to know where the government plans to allow the next gigafactory or falcon 9 launchpad. As far as whistleblowers and other such information, it's a nice deflection, but it's obviously irrelevant to this topic. I didn't claim anything about how the government should publicize everything, I made claims about what the government should share regarding business deals. Steelman, don't strawman. And as far as your fear-mongering about everyone suddenly insisting on off-the-record conversations, A) it's a laughable premise; most people don't mind their business with the government being public on account of knowing what "public" means and B) anyone who tried to use off-the-record interaction as a means to circumvent public scrutiny would leave a trail of their behavior that could be relied upon in trial or legislative debate to evidence a law broken or a loophole to be made illegal. Simple as.

notahacker 11mo ago
You can expect to see it all you like; you won't unless and until you can persuade enough other members of the public to vote for a platform of amending freedom of information legislation to stop redacting sensitive information (unless its a whistleblower identity apparently) I'm sorry you find it "laughable" and "fear-mongering" that people will switch to off the record conversations. Perhaps you are not aware that government officials already spend most of their day talking to people in unrecorded conversations, with many of those conversations being with representatives of business. As it is, companies will also happily follow those questions up with slide decks, projections, technical details and requests for information etc which helps substantiate their pitch or their case for funding or their objection to a bill (unless they're actually doing something dodgy, in which case creating a paper trail is counterproductive). They will not send this information if that is expected to be publicly disclosed because they don't want everybody knowing that they are emailing Texas officials about a Texan location before they've even decided if they actually want one or how much they're spending on widgets from which suppliers. Never mind other intriguing possibilities like NASA circulating all the technical documentation SpaceX has shared with them. If you are truly convinced that 'most people don't mind their business with the government being public on account knowing what "public" means', I advise you to test this hypothesis by emailing some businesses asking them to share unredacted content of emails they have recently exchanged with government officials (a no-effort filter on .gov domains in their own mailbox is sufficient for this experiment). Let us know how many unredacted emails they share with you...
- catapart 11mo ago
  lol It's hilarious that you seem to think that what you suggested is tantamount to what I suggested. You also don't seem to have actually worked with the government or requested any information via foia requests, based on your descriptions. In any case, good luck on whatever you're trying to convince whoever your trying to convince of.
  - notahacker 11mo ago
    Or alternatively maybe I'm the participant in this discussion that's actually raised significant government funding based on sharing sensitive projections and technical detail, met elected officials doing their "we support business and dual use technology for national security" visits and had to reassure VCs that space agency disclosure requirements don't actually jeopardise IP. Reason I'm able to that is precisely because I know full well that transparency legislation acknowledges that commercial sensitivity is a thing, and that parts of some emails made to evaluate us aren't going to be shared under FOIA legislation. And frankly if it wasn't, it would stop the appropriate email exchanges about business impact of policy changes, not inappropriate conversations people might want to have about campaign contributions. If you want FOIA tweaked to work on the sovcit principle that since the public is paying their bills everything shared with public officials is also public, you're the one that needs to do the convincing. Let me know how you get on with those emails "most" businesses are happy to share the unredacted contents of.
    - catapart 11mo ago
      Ah, yeah, bona fides! That oughtta do it! I bet you'll get a few suckers with that one!

notahacker 11mo ago

You can expect to see it all you like; you won't unless and until you can persuade enough other members of the public to vote for a platform of amending freedom of information legislation to stop redacting sensitive information (unless its a whistleblower identity apparently) I'm sorry you find it "laughable" and "fear-mongering" that people will switch to off the record conversations. Perhaps you are not aware that government officials already spend most of their day talking to people in unrecorded conversations, with many of those conversations being with representatives of business. As it is, companies will also happily follow those questions up with slide decks, projections, technical details and requests for information etc which helps substantiate their pitch or their case for funding or their objection to a bill (unless they're actually doing something dodgy, in which case creating a paper trail is counterproductive). They will not send this information if that is expected to be publicly disclosed because they don't want everybody knowing that they are emailing Texas officials about a Texan location before they've even decided if they actually want one or how much they're spending on widgets from which suppliers. Never mind other intriguing possibilities like NASA circulating all the technical documentation SpaceX has shared with them. If you are truly convinced that 'most people don't mind their business with the government being public on account knowing what "public" means', I advise you to test this hypothesis by emailing some businesses asking them to share unredacted content of emails they have recently exchanged with government officials (a no-effort filter on .gov domains in their own mailbox is sufficient for this experiment). Let us know how many unredacted emails they share with you...

catapart 11mo ago
lol It's hilarious that you seem to think that what you suggested is tantamount to what I suggested. You also don't seem to have actually worked with the government or requested any information via foia requests, based on your descriptions. In any case, good luck on whatever you're trying to convince whoever your trying to convince of.
- notahacker 11mo ago
  Or alternatively maybe I'm the participant in this discussion that's actually raised significant government funding based on sharing sensitive projections and technical detail, met elected officials doing their "we support business and dual use technology for national security" visits and had to reassure VCs that space agency disclosure requirements don't actually jeopardise IP. Reason I'm able to that is precisely because I know full well that transparency legislation acknowledges that commercial sensitivity is a thing, and that parts of some emails made to evaluate us aren't going to be shared under FOIA legislation. And frankly if it wasn't, it would stop the appropriate email exchanges about business impact of policy changes, not inappropriate conversations people might want to have about campaign contributions. If you want FOIA tweaked to work on the sovcit principle that since the public is paying their bills everything shared with public officials is also public, you're the one that needs to do the convincing. Let me know how you get on with those emails "most" businesses are happy to share the unredacted contents of.
  - catapart 11mo ago
    Ah, yeah, bona fides! That oughtta do it! I bet you'll get a few suckers with that one!