public servant privacy

[deltorto at aol.com]

In response and affirmation of Eric Fogleman's note on Communications Policy,
I have to concur. ALL documents produced by a public official operating an
email system on public time and in pursuit of public policy (e.g. a White
House official) should be subject to scrutiny and should not be considered as
that person's private property. If such a person wants to have private
communications with other private citizens, they should do it on their OWN
time and with their OWN money. HOWEVER, if such persons then turn around and
abuse this freedom by abusing the public trust in those contexts (i.e. if
Ollie North started communicating with NSA officials through CompuServe to
order illegal shipments of money to CIA agents in Peruvian cocaine cartels),
they should, by virtue of their positions of public trust be subject to the
same (presumably high) levels of scrutiny as they are now - Congressional,
OMB, GSA, FBI investigations, etc.

>>The burden should not be on individuals to constantly be open to scrutiny
to
>>demonstrate their innocence, but on those with the power to suspend
individual
>>rights.

Yes, private citizens should not be subject to the same sorts of
investigations unless there is direct evidence of criminal intent or activity
in which case there should be a search warrant and notification of intent to
search.

Tim May notes (appropriately) that:
>>Strong crypto means even Ollie North can fully protect his records.

Yes, but shouldn't he be _required_ to "open" his files if he is under
criminal investigation just like a drug-dealer who's required to open the
locked trunk of his car?

I'm sure my opinion is open to development, but this is my gut-level
response.

  dave