How NY Gov. Cuomo Sidesteps Freedom of Information Requests With His Blackberry 306
New submitter wrekkuh writes "The Daily News is reporting that if aides of New York's Governor Andrew Cuomo cannot speak in person or by telephone with the Governor, they are told to use BlackBerry's PIN-to-PIN messaging system — a function that leaves no lasting trail because it bypasses data-saving email servers. Consequently, a Freedom of Information request for all e-mails to and from Governor Cuomo's office resulted in an empty reply from the Records Access Officer: 'Please be advised that the New York State Executive Chamber has conducted a diligent search, but does not possess records responsive to your request.'"
freedom of Rim (Score:5, Insightful)
Droids/iStuff can run apps, but none of them could do exactly what a BB does, although perhaps that gap is narrowing. Too bad RIM is so far behind on the game nowadays no one will buy their devices and market share is plunging. 10% of value 1 year ago? Madness.
Democrats (Score:0, Insightful)
Do as they say, not as they do.
If this were a Republican Gov, Kieth, Rachel, and all the other left wing loudmouths would be engaged in a quasi-journalistic orgy of condemnation and gnashing of teeth.
Not a surprise (Score:4, Insightful)
There will always be unrecorded means for government officials to communicate, unless it becomes illegal, and still even then.
They don't want Jefferson's informed populace. Go back to watching the Kardasians please.
Using personal email is an old dodge (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything needs to be on record. It has to be a criminal offense to systematically use systems with no log. These people are public officials with enormous power. The ability to find out who knew what when is vital to the public trust.
What public officials are effectively saying is that we need to make this a felony for them to take it seriously. A felony conviction amongst other things would invalidate them from public service ever again. So indifferent to whether they actually served any jail time it would be the irrevocable end to their political career.
I don't see any reason to bother even sending them to jail for it. Just give them a felony conviction with a 1000 dollar fine for court fees.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
This kind of practice is what a modern, intelligent, proactive administration needs to do to make sure the government works.
So, the only way for a government of the People, by the People, and for the People to work... is to keep the People from knowing what's going on?
You, sir or madam, are the ultimate jackass.
Re:Good. (Score:4, Insightful)
He's a career politician, what did you expect?
FTFY.
Only a blind fool would think there's any real difference between D and R, aside from their location in the seating chart.
Re:What usually happens (Score:5, Insightful)
The "pick any two" canard is for when there are actual constraints making all three impossible. There's no reason beyond corruption that we can't have all three of those.
Re:Good. (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is the the Public is really stupid.
They will take a public statement play it out of context, and they will think that guy is pure evil, or grossly out of touch. To run a government you need to work with your competition, and with groups who you are not a big fan of.
Re:I think this is reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
How else can they sit down with their legislative friends and reach a compromise
You misspelled cronies and scam.
if they can't discuss things that the special interests or their own party would attack them for
They can. They just need the balls to explain why the public interest trumps the special interest.
If we want compromise, people need to be free to talk privately.
And if we want accountability, politicians must never talk privately.
You are aware that public shaming is a deterrant for some politicans to do the right thing. Can you understand that it is also a deterrent for politicans to do the wrong thing? Give them the power to keep secrets, and they will keep the wrong kinds of secrets. Sunlight, as always, is the best disinfectant.
Re:I think this is reasonable (Score:4, Insightful)
FOI requests take time and have to be for something specific.
Which is a serious problem. All official communications from any government office should be public, and available in real time. There should be no expectation of privacy, at any time, for any public official.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
It was a big issue here too (Score:5, Insightful)
The Bush administration was raked over the coalsby the press for Blackberry use, and Sarah Palin was nailed for occasionally using private email as governor. Currently the press is complaining about Romney deleting information when he left as governor.
Note the common denominator: They're all Republicans. I'll be surprised if the press inflates this to the scale of a national scandal since Cuomo is a Democrat.
The mainstream press didn't care much when the Clinton administration "lost" thousands of emails under subpoena, even with a Democrat operative threatening contractors who were knew about the loss, and the fact that person got promoted out of the mess. I hear the Obama administration has hired her for a sensitive post at Cyber Command, *chirp* *chirp*.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is the the Public is really stupid.
No - the problem is that mentality right there. The pervasiveness of the idea that "the Public is stupid" and therefore undeserving of honest, open government, is exactly why we have the dishonest, corrupt, secretive government you see today.
Try giving people credit for once, instead of just instantly assuming that everyone [who doesn't share your particular point of view] is an abject moron - they will surprise you with their intelligence, given the opportunity to express it.
I'm always amazed at how smart individual hillbillies can be, once you get them to actually think for themselves and stop parroting FOX News talking points. I assume the same can be said for coastal elites, save the substitution of "MSNBC" in place of "FOX News"
Re:Democrats (Score:2, Insightful)
Only a Republican would assume that Democrats approve of Democrats acting like Republicans.
Re:Executive Branch sidestepping Legislative Branc (Score:4, Insightful)
Activist judge actually to me means.
Judge whom for what he perceives as a need decides to attempt to interpret the constitution in a way that solves a problem.
Once a judge goes from "What did they mean?" to "What could it mean?" he is an activist judge.
Me wanting the decision to go that way or not.
Re:Not a surprise (Score:4, Insightful)
Nicely stated. I think that the one thing Kwame Kilpatrick taught all politicians is not to use text messaging.
Food for thinking: If a Public official working on behalf of the public has nothing to hide, why are they hiding? It should be illegal for them to do business with no trail in my opinion. The whole idea of "Public" official and "Public" offices are that these people work for the "Public".
Re:Democrats (Score:4, Insightful)
So I take it that you think the only people here posting that this is wrong are Republicans?
Re:freedom of Rim (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Democrats (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Executive Branch sidestepping Legislative Branc (Score:3, Insightful)
A law says that no motor vehicles are allowed to operate inside a city park. A hiker, deep in the park, has a cardiac arrest. Someone calls an ambulance, but at the entrance to the park there's a sign that says, "motor vehicles not allowed; punishable by $500 fine and up to 6 months in prison".
Ambulance driver proceeds anyhow and saves the man. The district attorney, wanting to look tough crime, has a zero tolerance policy for all law breakers, and indicts the ambulance driver.
The poor driver is brought before a judge for a preliminary hearing. The judge can
a) Allow the trial to proceed, because he clearly broke the letter of law
b) Use common sense--and a 1000 years of AngloAmerican judicial precedent--to "read into" the rule an exception for public safety to the benefit of this criminal defendant.
If the judge chooses (a), he's not a judge. If the conservatives had their way (that is, the way according to the party platform, not what actual politicians believe), we would lose the third and coequal branch of our government. Judges can and should have some degree of "law making" powers.
Anything else is absurd and a road to tyranny. Most judges have far more experience and wisdom when it comes to the analysis, application, and understanding of law in society. Politicians are complete idiots compared to a seasoned judge. Obviously there are democratic issues with giving judges too much leeway. But some leeway they should have. We wouldn't have a free society without powerful, independent, and decidedly "political" judges.