4 ms·

I'm voting this one up although I have concerns the article could end up in some kind of partisan BS here. So let's be clear about the root of the problem: gov

I'm voting this one up although I have concerns the article could end up in some kind of partisan BS here. So let's be clear about the root of the problem: government regulations demand that public officials have recordable conversations as part of their duties. This allows openness and inspection. (It also allows political shenanigans) It's a very, very similar situation to where we are with government spying on the citizens. The government, for whatever reason, has decided it wants to record everything you do of type X. As a subject of the government, you are not given a choice. To record some information in some contexts might be reasonable, in other contexts it might not, but all we're given is blanket requirements. What we're seeing with Hillary -- and probably with anybody else that has any common sense -- is just blowing off the law and "making things work" without regards to whether it is legal or not. For what it's worth, and I am a member of neither political party, I'd do the same thing. You can try to make this into an election-year deal about Hillary, or stand on a soapbox and talk about government accountability, and you wouldn't be entirely wrong. But the real issue here is that the freaking government is trying to collect too much information about everybody. It's not just limited to public servants. And the proper response to a government that refuses to act in a reasonable manner is non-violent non-participation. Having said all of that, I fully expect that point to be completely lost by folks on both sides of this issue.

jes 12y ago
> And the proper response to a government that refuses to act in a reasonable manner is non-violent non-participation. I couldn't agree more.
- fche 12y ago
  Try "non-participating" by not paying taxes....
  - msandford 12y ago
    It's really too bad that not paying your taxes isn't thought of as a valid way to voice your opposition to what's going on in Washington. I realize why it's that way, but it's a real bummer to me. Not because I'm a greedy bastard who doesn't want to pay a dime, but because elections aren't that great of a feedback mechanism now that career politicians and parties and etc have developed into neigh unstoppable powers that put people into office. It seemingly has been in the past, but for some reason isn't now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_resistance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_resistance
  - anon-24681012 12y ago
    As an individual, you are correct. But what do you think would happen if 100,000 people made a public commitment online to report their taxes but not pay them? What about 500K? A million? Remember: using the net, it would be possible not to disclose any of those people until all of them made the commitment. Would the government throw all of those people out on the street? Put them all in jail? Because this is where we're headed. I doubt you'll see mass protests about the NSA tracking cell phones, but at some point in the next 50 years the tax burden will become high enough that people will openly revolt. Future generations will protest the idea that the majority of their taxes are going for debt service on money borrowed by people who aren't even still alive. That's a great "taxation without representation" argument. Non-participation is always a matter of degree. As the government closes its fist, more and more people will slip through, either openly or not.
twoodfin 12y ago
So let's be clear about the root of the problem: government regulations demand that public officials have recordable conversations as part of their duties. This allows openness and inspection. (It also allows political shenanigans) It's a very, very similar situation to where we are with government spying on the citizens. I don't find those cases to be similar at all. Government officials are public servants granted a public trust. While there are certainly circumstances and topics that require confidentiality for some period of time, those officials' conduct of government business has to be subject to oversight, whether by Congress or the public. There's a case to be made that record-keeping requirements are overly onerous, and encourage difficult-to-monitor, potentially insecure side channels like this one. But that government communications of our top officials should be private? I don't think so.

jes 12y ago

> And the proper response to a government that refuses to act in a reasonable manner is non-violent non-participation. I couldn't agree more.

fche 12y ago
Try "non-participating" by not paying taxes....
- msandford 12y ago
  It's really too bad that not paying your taxes isn't thought of as a valid way to voice your opposition to what's going on in Washington. I realize why it's that way, but it's a real bummer to me. Not because I'm a greedy bastard who doesn't want to pay a dime, but because elections aren't that great of a feedback mechanism now that career politicians and parties and etc have developed into neigh unstoppable powers that put people into office. It seemingly has been in the past, but for some reason isn't now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_resistance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_resistance
- anon-24681012 12y ago
  As an individual, you are correct. But what do you think would happen if 100,000 people made a public commitment online to report their taxes but not pay them? What about 500K? A million? Remember: using the net, it would be possible not to disclose any of those people until all of them made the commitment. Would the government throw all of those people out on the street? Put them all in jail? Because this is where we're headed. I doubt you'll see mass protests about the NSA tracking cell phones, but at some point in the next 50 years the tax burden will become high enough that people will openly revolt. Future generations will protest the idea that the majority of their taxes are going for debt service on money borrowed by people who aren't even still alive. That's a great "taxation without representation" argument. Non-participation is always a matter of degree. As the government closes its fist, more and more people will slip through, either openly or not.

twoodfin 12y ago

So let's be clear about the root of the problem: government regulations demand that public officials have recordable conversations as part of their duties. This allows openness and inspection. (It also allows political shenanigans) It's a very, very similar situation to where we are with government spying on the citizens. I don't find those cases to be similar at all. Government officials are public servants granted a public trust. While there are certainly circumstances and topics that require confidentiality for some period of time, those officials' conduct of government business has to be subject to oversight, whether by Congress or the public. There's a case to be made that record-keeping requirements are overly onerous, and encourage difficult-to-monitor, potentially insecure side channels like this one. But that government communications of our top officials should be private? I don't think so.