4 ms·

Jeb Bush campaign dox citizens

4 points by aceperry 12y ago

paulhauggis 12y ago
"But they did not expect these emails to be released in such a public way." When you email any public figure, expect it to be available publicly. This should be more of a learning exercise for the people that emailed him than anything else. The lesson is that anything you email a government official can and will be available to anyone that asks. Leave it the the media to take more transparency in government (which is what everyone seems to want) and spin it as a bad thing. If someone like Elizabeth Warren did the same thing, would we be seeing the same outcry? I think it would be spun to make it look like better transparency. I remember a couple of years ago Wikileaks released undercover agent information online with no redacted names or information. The majority of people here on HN thought it was no big deal. A more recent example is the Sony hacks. Emails were illegally obtained and published and sites like Gizmodo (and every other media outlet) didn't seem to care about the personal privacy of the people that were involved in these emails. They were too busy speculating on the content of the messages. I'm sick of the hypocrisy and spin to make your political opponents look bad. You don't care about privacy Gizmodo, so please stop lying.
guiambros 12y ago
The spin of "In the spirit of transparency, I am posting the emails of my governorship here" is a dick move. Not because emails weren't redacted, but because emails were already public [1]. In practice he just created a better search interface, and worded the story in such a way that it sounded as if he was being "transparent" and "publicizing it" for the first time. Not really. Everything was already public and available - including email addresses, name, and even some SSNs. But if you pick his words apart, he didn't say anything wrong. Just misleading. As Feynman said [2]: In summary, the idea is to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another. The easiest way to explain this idea is to contrast it, for example, with advertising. Last night I heard that Wesson oil doesn't soak through food. Well, that's true. It's not dishonest; but the thing I'm talking about is not just a matter of not being dishonest; it's a matter of scientific integrity, which is another level. The fact that should be added to that advertising statement is that no oils soak through food, if operated at a certain temperature. If operated at another temperature, they all will--including Wesson oil. So it's the implication which has been conveyed, not the fact, which is true, and the difference is what we have to deal with. [1] https://sunburst.flgov.com/exchweb/bin/auth/owalogon.asp?url=https://sunburst.flgov.com/public&reason=2 https://sunburst.flgov.com/exchweb/bin/auth/owalogon.asp?url... user/pass: sunburst [2] From "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!", transcript here: http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html

4 points by aceperry 12y ago

"But they did not expect these emails to be released in such a public way." When you email any public figure, expect it to be available publicly. This should be more of a learning exercise for the people that emailed him than anything else. The lesson is that anything you email a government official can and will be available to anyone that asks. Leave it the the media to take more transparency in government (which is what everyone seems to want) and spin it as a bad thing. If someone like Elizabeth Warren did the same thing, would we be seeing the same outcry? I think it would be spun to make it look like better transparency. I remember a couple of years ago Wikileaks released undercover agent information online with no redacted names or information. The majority of people here on HN thought it was no big deal. A more recent example is the Sony hacks. Emails were illegally obtained and published and sites like Gizmodo (and every other media outlet) didn't seem to care about the personal privacy of the people that were involved in these emails. They were too busy speculating on the content of the messages. I'm sick of the hypocrisy and spin to make your political opponents look bad. You don't care about privacy Gizmodo, so please stop lying.

guiambros 12y ago

The spin of "In the spirit of transparency, I am posting the emails of my governorship here" is a dick move. Not because emails weren't redacted, but because emails were already public [1]. In practice he just created a better search interface, and worded the story in such a way that it sounded as if he was being "transparent" and "publicizing it" for the first time. Not really. Everything was already public and available - including email addresses, name, and even some SSNs. But if you pick his words apart, he didn't say anything wrong. Just misleading. As Feynman said [2]: In summary, the idea is to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another. The easiest way to explain this idea is to contrast it, for example, with advertising. Last night I heard that Wesson oil doesn't soak through food. Well, that's true. It's not dishonest; but the thing I'm talking about is not just a matter of not being dishonest; it's a matter of scientific integrity, which is another level. The fact that should be added to that advertising statement is that no oils soak through food, if operated at a certain temperature. If operated at another temperature, they all will--including Wesson oil. So it's the implication which has been conveyed, not the fact, which is true, and the difference is what we have to deal with. [1] https://sunburst.flgov.com/exchweb/bin/auth/owalogon.asp?url=https://sunburst.flgov.com/public&reason=2 https://sunburst.flgov.com/exchweb/bin/auth/owalogon.asp?url... user/pass: sunburst [2] From "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!", transcript here: http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html