Reason Writers Around Town: Shikha Dalmia on Conservative Abuse of the Freedom of Information Act

In her latest Daily column, Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia takes conservative groups to task for their misuse of the Freedom of Information Act. Controversy erupted in March when the Republican Party in Wisconsin and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Michigan requested access to the emails of pro-labor professors in public universities in Wisconsin and Michigan, respectively. There is plenty of hypocrisy on all sides of this blowup, Dalmia notes, including the University of Wisconsin history professor who started the whole thing on his blog, by breathlessly excavating the vast right-wing conspiracy allegedly driving Wisconsin governor Scott Walker's anti-union legislation.

"But if conservatives are interested in protecting individual liberty, they sure have a weird way of going about it," she writes. "Not only do the means they are deploying not justify their ends—they actually impair those ends."

Read the whole thing here, or for the full multimedia experience read it on your iPad.

Comments

[Neu Mejican]

Ohh Fredonia...

[kilroy]

exacavating?

[Editor in absentia]

You are welcome.

[unhyphenatedconservative]

It is a publicly funded professor using publicly funded e-mail bitching that public wants to know for what it was used. This in no way violates anyone's liberty but instead reeks of the liberal notion that actions should have no consequences, especially for the favored classes like professors.

Get a straw and suck it up.

[?]

Seriously?

...

Seriously?

[TheZeitgeist]

I'm not agreeable with the tactics here. And its not some revelation a professor in Wisconsin loves him some socialism.

But I'm paying for his ass to sit there in his utterly secure job to spout this shit and mount up on co-eds for six-figures a year. Damn right I get to read his emails when I want to, for any reason I want to, if he wants my check like the whore for money he is.

[TrickyVic]

Which tactic do you not agree with?

[zoltan]

Whores don't force people to pay them, asshole.

[cynical]

Good point. Pimps force people to pay whores.

[Jim]

I'd be interested to see how much of the university is publicly funded, v. how much they fund themselves through athletics and tuition, etc.

If it's a small amount, then the "the public has a right to read their emails" argument falls short IMO, because just about everybody uses tax-subsidized services in some form or another. For example, Chase bank used a gov't bailout. Does that mean everyone in the United States is now entitled to read every email sent by everyone at Chase? And what about all the businesses that used Chase lines of credit, essentially meaning they were using gov't lines of credit. Where does this end?

[Pip]

Using the school's computers for politic purposes is a crime. I believe the technical term is transference.

[Nick]

Maybe that kind of ass-fucking would get them not to take bailouts. As long as these companies take government money or special benefits, yes, make them feel the pain. If you make dealing with the government worse than whatever benefit they can get out of it, they'll cease to petition for special benefits.

[Mo]

You could extend it to government contractors. Should we get to read all of the emails of every employee of Lockheed Martin or Booz Allen Hamilton, or parent Carlyle Group, because of the amount of government cheese they get. My guess is BAH and Lockheed get a much higher percentage of revenue from the government than most public universities.

[John]

So I can be a public employee using a publicly owned email system at my job and it is "offensive" for people to file a FOIA on it? This has to be the dumbest thing Reason has ever published. Every public employee knows that their e-mails are not private and the they are FOIAble. There is a big banner that says so every time you log on to the network.

You have to be kidding me. Does the stache or whatever the fuck Gillespie is going by these days do any editing? Or does he just put up whatever the staff writes no matter how fucking stupid and inane?

If these people want their emails to be private, use their home computers or don't work for the state.

[Nick]

Agreed. Same is true for me sitting here at work cursing up a storm on reason.com. If my employer wants to remote into my comp to see what I'm doing including reading my work account emails, they can. It was the first thing they told me when I finally got to my desk on my first day here. When the government is your employer, The People are your employer, so you can't expect privacy, Professor Dickwad.

[John]

Yup. They generally won't do that unless you are not doing your job or they have some other reason to look. But they could if they wanted to. And everyone knows that.

[TrickyVic]

""When the government is your employer, The People are your employer, so you can't expect privacy, ""

Right, which would extend to the work said employee did.

[Nick]

If the public employee is handling the confidential information of private citizens as part if his or her work, that information shall remain private (or at least redacted) unless that citizen gives consent. Otherwise, everything that public employee touches should be fair game.

[libertarian pedant]

"If the public employee is handling the confidential information of private citizens as part if his or her work"

Of course, the government has no business handling confidential information.

[TrickyVic]

""If these people want their emails to be private, use their home computers or don't work for the state.""

That they should.

Does the content matter though? That seems to be the arugment on another thread about a list of gun owners created and held by public officials.

[John]

That seems to be an entirely different issue. If I work for the state and am using the state's email system, I am agreeing that anything I write on the system is FOIAble. I have very little expectation of privacy. That is totally diferent than information about the gun ownership of people who don't work for the state or use a state run computer system.

You could probably make the arguement that since people send personal emails on their work computers those are probably private. I would agree that it would be a bit much to FOIA emails someone sent to their wife about their private life. But, this is not that. This is a professor conducting private political activities on state time using state resources. He has no expectation of privacy for that.

This really is the dumbest article I have ever read on Reason. And Dalmia really seems to want to hold the "Dave Weigel Chair for dumbass annoying writing" at Reason.

[Dave Weigel]

"This really is the dumbest article I have ever read on Reason"

How quickly John has forgotten me.

[TrickyVic]

HA!!!!

[TrickyVic]

""That is totally diferent than information about the gun ownership of people who don't work for the state or use a state run computer system.""

No, but the people who compile that list and what they do is. If you were a gun owner in IL, you're content of the taxpayer funded work and that work is subject to FOIA.

[kilroy]

So by this logic you wouldn't want any government funding of an abortion clinic for fear of FOIA issues.

[TrickyVic]

Medical information is protected by law.

[omg]

Fair enough - as the employees of the government choose to work for their employer (and therefore they can get their emails snooped on) any info on gun owners should be FOIAable if the gun owners agree to go on the list.

[Nick]

It may be classless to use FOIA to read the husband to wife (or mistress) emails sent using public property email servers, but I don't see what legal objection the public employee could have. He should know better. Use your private email if you expect privacy. The media and your potential political opponents don't care about you or being classy.

[John]

It is an interesting question about expectation of privacy. The explicitly allow people to send personal e-mails on those accounts. Since they allow you to do it, I think you could at least make a colorable argument you have at least some expectation of privacy on those personal e-mails. Contrast that with classified email systems where you are not allowed to send personal e-mails. On those you have absolutely no expectation of privacy.

I am not sure if I buy the argument. But it at least could be made with a straight face, unlike Dalmia's argument.

[David Weigel]

Who endows that chair?

[Joshua Corning]

I think we were hoping that it would remain unfilled.

Or at least have a contrite version of you come back and fill it.

[Joshua Corning]

This is a professor conducting private political activities on state time using state resources. He has no expectation of privacy for that.

I am wondering how this is even remotely legal.

[Joshua Corning]

This really is the dumbest article I have ever read on Reason. And Dalmia really seems to want to hold the "Dave Weigel Chair for dumbass annoying writing" at Reason.

Eh Dalmia does not seem to be agenda driven. I think she likes "privacy rights" or at least her version of them. Her weird interpretation is not ra ra ra Team Blue or booo team red it is simply she is wrong about the exceptions she wants to cut out of government transparency for the sake of the privacy of tax payer funded employees.

As a libertarian I fail to see how burdening public employees with a lack of privacy for when they are at work is even remotely a bad thing.

How could discouraging employment in the public sector be a bad thing?

[Nick]

I think there's a difference between a government employee's use of public property being private and the confidential information of private citizens the government possesses by force.

[TrickyVic]

""I think there's a difference between a government employee's use of public property being private and the confidential information of private citizens the government possesses by force.""

One could argue almost everything the government possesses is by force.

The only diffence is being the employee vs the being in the content of the employee's work.

[Nick]

The public employee has no expectation of privacy while on govt time and resources. Private citizens information held by the government, especially information the government doesn't even have a right to, should not be open to all without consent.

[TrickyVic]

""Private citizens information held by the government, especially information the government doesn't even have a right to, should not be open to all without consent.""

Who says that information is private?

Look, I think the issue is the list it's self. But if the government starts creating lists, they need to add privacy protection to that list, else it might be subject to an FOIA request.

[prolefeed]

One could argue almost everything the government possesses is by force.

FTFY. If the government were to do something by consent, with no restrictions hindering private competitors, it would quickly cease to be a government function.

[yonemoto]

TrickyVic is right, there are definitely means to give government money of your own will, and especially for state run universities which take money from, alumni, eg.

[yonemoto]

eg: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/0.....-debt.html

[Joshua Corning]

""If these people want their emails to be private, use their home computers or don't work for the state.""

That they should.

Does the content matter though? That seems to be the arugment on another thread about a list of gun owners created and held by public officials.

No. The state has no business issuing gun permits in the first place. The solution is simply. Legalize guns without the need for permits then take the gun permit records and shred them.

[Citizen Nothing]

Jesus H. Christ. I'm extremely disappointed to see this coming from Dalmia.
Jack Shafer's take, however, is the nuts.

[Neu Mejican]

Not unrelated...entirely.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....nny06.html

[Joshua Corning]

Neu Mejican|4.7.11 @ 4:11PM|#

Not unrelated...entirely.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....nny06.html

I fail to see why this in anyway helps you New Mex?

Are you making the argument that Washington State is not a deep deep deep Blue? and that it is not democrats that are blocking Washington residents from attending public schools?

[Neu Mejican]

Helps me?

Making the argument?

What are you going on about?

[Tony]

if conservatives are interested in protecting individual liberty

I wonder why anyone would have this impression.

[prolefeed]

Some conservatives are interested in protecting economic liberty. Some liberals are interested in protecting social liberties. Most of Team Red and Team Blue are awful at both.

[prolefeed]

It kind of makes my head hurt to say this, but John is absolutely right about the stupidity of this article.

If you are employed by the government, and using government computers on government time to send emails, the taxpayers have an absolute right to see everything that you are doing with the resources bought with the money that was coerced from them without their consent.

I worked as a session employee for the Hawaii state government before I turned into an anarchist from observing the daily clusterfuck that is the government at work, and my boss made it clear to all of us that every email sent on those state computers could be requested by any citizen under the state's Open Records law -- so don't send anything you didn't want read.

If you don't want your emails to be FOIA'd, do it on your private computer on your own time. And even then you shouldn't have an expectation of privacy.

[Tony]

Why are "libertarians" constantly looking for ways they can get around their supposed love of freedom and privacy if it means smacking liberals?

Seems like you guys are more pragmatic than you let on. The ends (keeping liberals out of power) seem to justify the means (political witch-hunts). Government employees, even public university professors who really have nothing to do with government, are by virtue of their employment completely at the mercy of anyone who wants to invade in their lives?

[prolefeed]

Tony, you need to brush up on your reading and comprehension skills.

First, the arguments above apply to liberals and conservatives alike.

Second, having your purported "employers", i.e., the taxpayers, being able to check up on what their purported "employees" are doing with the computers and time paid for with extorted money is not rendering the employees "completely at the mercy of anyone who wants to invade their lives". That is just an asinine interpretation of what was said above.

Now, if someone was demanding the "right" to know what the professor was doing on his private computer on his own time, I'd be on the side of those telling the requester to fuck off because private emails are private.

[Tony]

To quote Shikha again:

The crusade may be legal, but it is also offensive.

So I ask again, why are libertarians constantly looking for pedantic justifications for invading people's privacy or otherwise denying their liberties? Forget what's allowed--you are supposed to be the liberty guys!

[DesigNate]

You don't have the liberty to look at porn while you're at work do you? NO? Then shut the fuck up.

[DesigNate]

Aren't you the one always saying how WE are the government? Well if I'm the government then that motherfucker works for me. As his employer I have the right to know if he's on the up and up, as long as he's using MY resources. This is no different than people in the private sector being at the whim of their employers.

[Tony]

I differ from libertarians in that I don't think employees should be slaves to employers.

But I'm just a freedom-hating statist.

[DesigNate]

That's right Tony, it's anti-liberty to protect my property (my company).

[Tony]

How is paying a decent wage and offering sick leave a threat to your property?

This is one of the most fundamental ironies in libertarian thought, to me. It's where freedom becomes a joke. A bumper sticker. We're all free! Except 8 hours a day when we're under the autocratic whim of our employer. Did I say 8 hours? Oops, we don't get any of those fancy union-fought workers' rights in libertopia. Because workers are no different from servants. For freedom!

[DesigNate]

Because you entered into a voluntary contract with your employer.

And let me get this straight. You are actually coming from the position that an employee should be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want, with no reaction from the employer...for freedom? There is no way you are that fucking retarded.

[Tony]

Nope. But I don't see a lot of support around here for unions or worker rights enshrined in law.

For that matter, I see more concern for the liberties of racist business owners than for minority business patrons.

It's as if you think freedom consists of finding ways to make the list of rights people have as short as possible.

[DesigNate]

Freedom of association means you can hang out with whoever you want. Only in your crazy world does forcing someone to associate with someone else = freedom.

[Tony]

Nobody is suggesting we force people to hang out with anyone against their will. But enjoying the privileges of engaging in commerce in this society means you have to abide by its rules. You can't poison people and you can't racially discriminate. Boohoo.

[Citizen Nothing]

even public university professors who really have nothing to do with government
Priceless!

[Tony]

What I mean is they aren't policymakers. I just find it odd that you're perfectly OK with a level of scrutiny and squeezing of rights for people that you'd never tolerate for yourself, just because government might be responsible for their paycheck.

[Citizen Nothing]

I find it odd that you can't understand the basic, rudimentary difference between public and private spheres, employment and dollars.
No, wait. I don't find it odd. I understand it completely.

[prolefeed]

I suspect Tony would totally grasp that rudimentary difference if it was a conservative government employee trying to use government computers to, say, plan political activities trying to block gay marriage or reinstate DADT.

[Tony]

And you demonstrate why Shikha might have a point when she writes:

Going after professors' private correspondence on the pretext that it is taking place on government-funded computers through government-provided email accounts, without credible evidence that they are engaged in anything more than expressing their own opinions, is not just petty but dangerous. It turns FOIA into a weapon one private citizen can use to harass another private citizen.

[zoltan]

The professor is not a private citizen while working on taxpayer dimes.

[zoltan]

Government isn't responsible for their paycheck, I am. As boss and stakeholder, I get to see what they're doing on company time.

[Tony]

Sorry, the idea of hordes of conservative assholes digging through professors' emails rubs me the wrong way.

Maybe it's legal. But to refer to another era of ugly anti-intellectual partisan witch hunts, is it decent?

[prolefeed]

Would you find it decent if it was hordes of civic-minded liberals checking up on the nefarious doings of conservative arseholes?

If so, just fucking admit you're a TEAM BLUE partisan tool with no principles.

[yonemoto]

to his credit, Tony was honest enough to admit this some weeks ago.

[Joshua Corning]

Sorry, the idea of hordes of conservative assholes digging through professors' emails rubs me the wrong way.

Then the Professors should get jobs in the private sector.

But I do like how you want conservatives to have less rights, and less access to the government then other poeple.

Only more proof that you are a hack.

[Tony]

Conservative idiots combing through emails of academics smacks of McCarthyism and is not a good thing. They don't have objectivity and truth as an agenda, because they never have.

[Tony]

Conservative idiots combing through emails of academics smacks of McCarthyism and is not a good thing. They don't have objectivity and truth as an agenda, because they never have.

[DesigNate]

Yeah, cause liberal idiots have objectivity and truth.

[cynical]

So, maybe they should use personal email for personal shit and work email for work shit? I mean, it seems like a really simple fucking thing to do. Is a little gorram professionalism too much to expect?

[DesigNate]

But don't you know, that makes them your slave. Just as I am a slave to my corporate master.

[Joshua Corning]

just because government might be responsible for their paycheck.

Just because?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Anyway I have a question: What do you call a left winger who thinks the government can keep secrets from its citizens?

Answer: a fascist.

[Tony]

College professors are not government.

[Tony]

College professors are not government.

[Joshua Corning]

Republican Party in Wisconsin and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Michigan requested access to the emails of pro-labor professors in public universities in Wisconsin and Michigan, respectively.

Would a society that requires all information produced by and correspondence of its government employees to be made public be better or worse then one that does not?

I fail to see how it would be worse, and a democratic government that can keep no secrets from its voters would be a hell of a lot better.

sorry Shikha Dalmia but if Professors who receive public funds want to keep their union activities and cooking recipes secret then they can do it on their own fucking time and their own fucking dime.

[Joshua Corning]

How again is it ok for state employees to organize political rally's using government resources?

And how again is it bad for citizens to audit the use of those resources for political purposes?

The question is not why are the republicans allowed to do this the question is why is it the republicans doing it and not the prosecuting attorney?