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.
Re:freedom of Rim (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
RIM probably has a record of all email the last 2-3 months. A judge could get them with a warrant.
I'm surprised the FOIA applies to state governments. They are independent governments from the U.S. government, and thus U.S. law only applies to U.S. government and interstate transaction. Not internal state government affairs.
Re: (Score:2)
Since you're a constitutional scholar, can you tell us why the federal wiretap law wouldn't apply here?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm surprised the FOIA applies to state governments. They are independent governments from the U.S. government, and thus U.S. law only applies to U.S. government and interstate transaction. Not internal state government affairs.
The article doesn't specifically say FOIA, just "a freedom of information request". All states have enacted there own version of FOIA.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:freedom of Rim (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:freedom of Rim (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:freedom of Rim (Score:5, Informative)
RIM isn't increasing their share and is falling slightly in terms of sales, but it is not quite that bad.
2010 global sales: 49.6m
2011 global sales: 51.5m
You get the impression from the US market where RIM has gone (users not sales) from 21.9m Sep 2010 to 12.5m in May 2012. But that still does represent sales, the average life of a smart phone is 11.5 months. In the US Apple's share of the computer market is just about about getting to the level of RIM's share of the smartphone market, to help put it in perspective.
RIM is deeply troubled, they aren't dead by any means. They've had a rough few years but they haven't done anything truly tragic like follow LG and later Nokia's lead and go with Windows mobile.
Re: (Score:2)
RIM's margins on phones is 35.7%. The company has been writing down other assets, the last thing they need right now is to be paying taxes. But no they make money on phones. Tablets are a different story.
Executive Branch sidestepping Legislative Branch!? (Score:4, Funny)
Next thing you know the Legislative Branch will start writing laws to sidestep the Judicial!!
Re:Executive Branch sidestepping Legislative Branc (Score:4)
Next thing you know the Legislative Branch will start writing laws to sidestep the Judicial!!
As long as the Judicial Branch doesn't start declaring that "Up" really means "Sideways" in the Constitution or just start making stuff up from the bench, we'll be OK. I mean, sheesh, will we ever be in trouble if that happens.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're behind the times. Up and Sideways are actually a tax now.
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: (Score:3)
Once a judge goes from "What did they mean?" to "What could it mean?" he is an activist judge.
Depends who you ask. An originalist interprets the text by "What did they mean?". A strict constructionist goes by "What does it say?". Typically both are more acceptable to conservatives than someone who interprets the text by "What is the most reasonable way to read this in current society and based on other precedents?". But to a strict constructionist, asking "what did they mean?" is irrelevant.
Re: (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 bef
Re: (Score:2)
Do not let the words you quote get in the way of thinking you have something to add.
Re: (Score:3)
All Cuomo really had to do was sign an executive order. Everybody knows those overrule legislation now.
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.
Re:Not a surprise (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
My kingdom for a mod point.
Re: (Score:2)
Try Netflix.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Cardassians. Please spell it correctly. We wouldn't want someone thinking you were an honorless QuchHa' for your refusal to acknowledge your enemies properly.
Re: (Score:2)
*whoosh*
Re:Not a surprise (Score:5, Funny)
The difference between Cardassian and Kardashians is that one group are a bunch of cold, heartless, reptilian creatures, and the other is an alien race from a Star Trek series.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I could afford it, but they don't want my money:
> Sorry, Netflix is not available in your country... yet
Re: (Score:3)
When Google glasses get good enough, all public sector employees should have to wear them at all times and carry around a battery pack so that they work all day. Anyone can then tap into what they are saying, seeing, or hearing at any moment of any day. I don't even care about the bathroom, allowing them to disable it for periods of time will defeat the purpose. You will still have enough people to fill the positions.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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".
Surely you are joking. Have you never written an email that could be quoted out of context, or exposed your ignorance about a topic? Or even ranted about what a huge PITA somebody was?
If you think government is ineffective and bloated now, wait until you get to a world where every conversation and email has to be treated like a press release.
Repost from 1896 (Score:5, Interesting)
What usually happens (Score:5, Interesting)
We have a classic problem with the freedom of information requests:
1) We want accurate historical records maintained of how decision were made, by whom and why.
2) We want a have an open press and legal system to have access to those records so our legal processes and our political processes are based on accurate information.
3) We want to have an open campaign system where all available information is discussed as part of the process of choosing leaders.
Pick any 2.
Re: (Score:2)
We have a classic problem with the freedom of information requests:
1) We want accurate historical records maintained of how decision were made, by whom and why.
2) We want a have an open press and legal system to have access to those records so our legal processes and our political processes are based on accurate information.
3) We want to have an open campaign system where all available information is discussed as part of the process of choosing leaders.
Pick any 2.
The true problem is that instead of FOIA being used by journalists or investigators for specific issues, they are used by political firms who are trying to dig up dirt on the "other side" (and most of those FOIA requests are overly broad to boot). Throw away #3 and the FOIA process isn't a zoo anymore. Let reputable journalists investigate, not anonymous trolls who get paid to encourage the other side to waste time.
Re: (Score:3)
That means a registered press where certain people have much greater FOIA rights than others. Essentially a group of journalists and/or organizations are registered for insider access and they get accurate information. You are tossing #2. That's essentially what we had in the first term of the Bush administration where access required obedience.
Re: (Score:2)
That means a registered press where certain people have much greater FOIA rights than others. Essentially a group of journalists and/or organizations are registered for insider access and they get accurate information. You are tossing #2. That's essentially what we had in the first term of the Bush administration where access required obedience.
1: Give press creds to anyone who successfully applies for them. 2: Give FOIA responses to any journalist under the stipulation that the request itself is recorded and FOIA-able. 3: Sit back as the press starts watchdogging itself.
Its not a perfect solution but better than what we have now.
Re: (Score:2)
OK I work for XYZ campaign corporation. We provide state level officials with campaign managers, fundraisers.. We have ties to print, radio... and make some extra on referrals.
1) I apply and get it
2) I comply with the FOIA and openly state what I'm requesting and why.
Re: (Score:2)
OK I work for XYZ campaign corporation. We provide state level officials with campaign managers, fundraisers.. We have ties to print, radio... and make some extra on referrals.
1) I apply and get it
2) I comply with the FOIA and openly state what I'm requesting and why.
3) You run the risk that someone on the "other side" or even just a journalist looking to make the front page will dig up FOIA data on YOU specifically, and the elected officials that are associated with you will be implicated in wasteful one-sided political gamesmanship. Sure, it can still happen on both sides, but at least this way the public knows what is going on at that level. Right now they are in the dark thinking that Cuomo (in this case) is trying to hide something from the public when all he is
FOIA is also used by kooks (Score:2)
Conspiracy theorists who think the government is after them, or has some other conspiracy going. Also, you get a lot of people who are just curious and order a huge amount of information just to satisfy it. Let's just say that, even where partisan politics isn't an issue, a large number of FOIA requests really don't serve the common good.
Yes, I knew a FOIA officer.
Re: (Score:2)
The true problem is that instead of FOIA being used by journalists or investigators for specific issues, they are used by political firms who are trying to dig up dirt on the "other side" (and most of those FOIA requests are overly broad to boot). Throw away #3 and the FOIA process isn't a zoo anymore. Let reputable journalists investigate, not anonymous trolls who get paid to encourage the other side to waste time.
Do you have any evidence of this being a systemic problem? And I don't just mean that "anonymous trolls" (whatever that is) make too many (whatever that is) FOIA requests, but that the goal of digging up dirt is ultimately bad for society.
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: (Score:2)
It has nothing to do with politicians being corrupt though that certainly makes the problem worse. If you look at any idealogical breakdown of the voting population it is almost impossible to assemble coalitions of 50%+1 that agree on objectives and means across an array of issues. Politicians to get reelected need to be able to spin. The problem is not one of immorality, the problem is the diversity of the electorate.
Re: (Score:2)
Politicians to get reelected need to be able to spin.
No. If they can't get reelected based on an honest recounting of what they did in office, they should not be reelected. In the case that no one can get elected, the union itself should be abolished.
Re: (Score:2)
No one can get re-elected. And the problem is not just the union. I don't know of a single congressional district where you have 50%+1 agreement on a wide range of issues.
So what do you want to put in place of this system?
Re: (Score:2)
No one can get re-elected. And the problem is not just the union. I don't know of a single congressional district where you have 50%+1 agreement on a wide range of issues.
Am I reading you right? You think that because the majority of the population aren't in full agreement on most issues that politicians need to be able to lie to the population in order to get re-elected? Really? WTF? Do you seriously think that voters are not already aware that the people they vote for don't necessarily match them on each and every issue? That voters already pick the candidate they have the most agreement with, not total agreement?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
There is a way to get beyond corruption? What planet do you live on?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the way I see it, the lawmakers are pushing to have everything we do me monitored and tracked for several years ... we should be starting with them.
Re: (Score:2)
And they don't like it anymore than you do. And just as you try and evade, they try and evade. Hence the story.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and we have an issue where the news media collects 20 year old sound bites or opinions and wants to know why a certain politician changed his mind on an issue. it's OK for people to change their mind but if you're running for public office you are pandering and you are supposed to keep the same opinions on issues for decades no matter what the cultural and technological changes are
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or, the politician needs to give a good reason why their views have changed other than "Because I am more likely to be elected".
I know that makes them sound bad, but isn't part of an elected official's duty to act based on the opinions of their constituents (i.e., promise them what they want to get elected)?
Of course, that would only be valid if they didn't go immediately back to their original stance once in office...
Re: (Score:2)
Politicians are allowed to change their mind. Most of the older Republicans were Democrats when they started their political careers. There are a couple problems:
a) Large numbers of politicians are liar hence the electorate needs to separate out changes in conviction from pandering.
b) Changes in conviction call into question your judgement. If a politician claims he decided the issue improperly before what has caused him to change his mind?
c) Because we have a serious corruption problem. Idealogical p
Re: (Score:2)
It has nothing to do with politicians being immoral though that certainly makes the problem worse. If you look at any idealogical breakdown of the voting population it is almost impossible to assemble coalitions of 50%+1 that agree on objectives and means across an array of issues. Politicians to get reelected need to be able to spin. The problem is not one of immorality, the problem is the diversity of the electorate.
Employers do this too! (Score:2, Interesting)
Had a former employer demand that I get an iPhone so he could text me the instructions on everything he wanted me to do, much of which was either illegal or leading me to suspect that he was basically building up an elaborate scam. But then of course he demanded emails that would show evidence that I was the one at fault for providing false information to him the whole time (me being the programmer). I cursed him out and quit for insulting my intelligence, and made sure the rest of the company employees g
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: (Score:2)
You should not have been modded down for this in my opinion. It's a valid response.
Solution: Request PIn Records (Score:2)
I'm sure they're logged somewhere.
Blair had it nailed (Score:2)
Here in the UK, we learn that during the "cash for honours" scandal, a separate non-government computer was operating in No. 10 specifically for the purpose of doing business without oversight.
The arsehole also shredded all his expense data just before the storm over MPs claiming for duck ponds and tennis courts broke.
Labour, Democrat - it seems they are all in it together.
Re: (Score:2)
Labour, Democrat, Labor, Tory, Republican, Liberal, National - it seems they are all in together.
Just a minor tweak.
Subpoena the Aide's phones (Score:2)
Maybe they have a local history of chat logs.
Completely Reasonable (Score:2)
Am I the only one who thinks this is completely reasonable and acceptable?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If he has something to hide, he must be a terrorist or criminal, according to all the comments from people who want to take our privacy away from us on the basis that it should not matter if we don't have anything to hide!
Re: (Score:3)
I hope so.
Government is supposed to be open, period. The only time it's not is to preserve the privacy of citizens, employees or for bona fide national security purposes.
Which is why most states have open meeting and sunshine laws that require official minutes be kept any time officials meet to discuss policy and to require public notice of meetings so that the public can attend.
Of course, all politicians dislike this. They want to cut sweetheart deals with businesses and contributors, make decisions for
Re:Completely Reasonable (Score:4, Interesting)
Ask for all emails to valdate this... (Score:2)
I would simply ask for every email the Gov. has sent or received and then see if he's circumventing FOIA. If the only emails that come back are fluff crap or none at all then that would provide a pretty good indication of circumvention.
Don't Underestimate Cuomo (Score:3)
Don't underestimate the deliberate nature of Cuomo's actions. He is acutely aware of technology, what it is, and how it can be used. He has a lot of good advisers who are technologically aware. He also knows a lot of the dangers posed by email and what it can do.
During his time as Attorney General, he learned very quickly how crucial email was to a case. I don't specifically have to name cases, but a reader can easily find landmark investigations he conducted that hinged on getting email, mining it using some very sophisticated tools, and finding the right evidence.
I'm sure as he conducts himself and his staff now, mis-steps are keenly in his mind. This is a man who is not satisfied as Governor and will run for President.
Re:A law? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
FTFA:
"Only members of Cuomo’s inner circle are told his PIN, sources say."
"Internal back-and-forth messages — whether on paper or by email or PIN-to-PIN messaging — are not by law available to the public, said Robert Freeman, of the state Committee on Open Government."
He broke no laws, and nothing he did reduced information available to the public. What's the problem?
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)
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: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: (Score:3)
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.
We get the government we deserve... Your notion that elected officials should be competing or playing favorites is exactly what is wrong. Since when did it make sense that in order for government to work there needs to be a constant struggle to prove, using almost exclusively disingenuous means, that the other side should "lose"? How about an elected official working for every person in their district, not just the ones that vote (or buy votes) for them?
The two parties exist because everyone is so eager t
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: (Score:3)
Only a blind fool would think there's any real difference between D and R
I don't think that's quite true. That may have been the case before, but Republicans have since slid into total insanity leaving Democrats behind (in part because Democrats are adopting Republican policy, forcing Republicans to go further right to differentiate themselves). Not to say that D are good, but R are really bad.
Just the fact that someone like Santorum was, for a while, a viable contender for a Republican president, is enough to prove my point.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Governor Cuomo is a Registered Democrat.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He's not saying Cuomo is a Republican (Score:2)
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Killing the purpose of FOIA, (a sunshine provision to enable a well informed public) because of the political equivelent of the paparatzi is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
We instituted FOIA because government needed more public oversight to keep it honest. If politics are getting involved, removing the oversight is the wrong direction. Placing limits on the number of FOIA requests an agency can request per quarter is superior as a remedy.
Re: (Score:3)
bullshit. Back room secrets is NEVER good for democracy.
Our current lobbying system is example 0.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
FOI requests take time and have to be for something specific. You can't ask for 'what's the governor up to today?' So only after the dealmaking has been done can you get at documentation about the process. By that time, it's a done deal and the parties involved can present a complete picture of what the compromise was and how it was reached. If a political leader is making deals that even after the fact are something that they should be attacked for, why would you want to hide it?
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: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.
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: (Score:2)
You know what? It makes it more difficult to have a constructive conversation when you start out with an "I told you so" with no real substance.
I don't remember much coal raking for Bush or "nailing" of Palin other than that I remember that the incidents happened. There were basically no consequences to speak of, so I'm not sure how what they endured was oh-so-much worse than what Clinton did.
The thing is, though, I'd say that all of them are douchebags and should face/have faced criminal prosecution. Ho
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A scumbag politician.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Only a Republican would assume that Democrats approve of Democrats acting like Republicans.
Re:Democrats (Score:4, Insightful)
So I take it that you think the only people here posting that this is wrong are Republicans?
Re:Democrats (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Only Timmy McVeigh and Joe Stack so far.
"Grumbling" /= "Albert Herrhausen bicycle-borne ordnance".