HOUSE APPROVES BILL TO FORCE PUBLIC RELEASE OF EPA SCIENCE

Furthermore how do you define ignorance? Steve McIntyre has been accused of being ignorant on the topic despite the fact that he limits his focus to the statistical analysis ehere he is more qualified and accomplished than any of the climate scientists whos work he reviews. Yet at the same time the blogger Grant Foster AKA Tamino us considered by your side to be a statistical expert based solely on the fact that he has been published despite lacking any formal training. He is by trade a musician.

Your entire argument is based purely on biased subjective tests.

 

That's Right!

Judicial Watch Sues EPA Over 3rd Party Encryption App Use Against Trump

Obama Dead-enders, EPA officials who may have used the cell phone encryption application “Signal” to thwart government oversight and transparency.

EPA employees began using the ‘Signal’ app shortly after Trump’s inauguration…

The use of Signal by EPA officials to prevent government oversight was reported in a February 2, 2017, Politico article entitled “Federal workers turn to encryption to thwart Trump.” According to the article:

Whether inside the Environmental Protection Agency, within the Foreign Service, on the edges of the Labor Department or beyond, employees are using new technology … to organize letters, talk strategy, or contact media outlets and other groups to express their dissent.
***
Fearing for their jobs, the employees began communicating incognito using the app Signal shortly after Trump’s inauguration.

“This new lawsuit could expose how the anti-Trump ‘deep state’ embedded in EPA is working to undermine the rule of law. Let’s hope the Trump administration enforces FOIA and turns over these records. Given EPA’s checkered history on records retention and transparency, it is disturbing to see reports that career civil servants and appointed officials may now be attempting to use high-tech blocking devices to circumvent the Federal Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act altogether.”

Read more about the EPA’s employees’ history of failing to preserve records here.

Encrypting Scum!

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...epa-3rd-party-encryption-app-use-trump-video/

 

I don't even know who Grant Foster is.

I leave it to scientists themselves to decide who is qualified -- they are far more qualified to make that judgement than I am. Credentials are a factor, but not the only factor: Being published in a peer-reviewed journal can trump lack of credentials. Being a statistical analyst counts as qualification if you intend to use the data for statistical analysis -- and understand the data well enough to conduct such an analysis (statistical analysis requires both understanding of statistical analysis and understanding of the data being analyzed).

McIntyre is hit and miss in that regard -- mostly miss. His criticisms of the hockey-stick graph have been completely shot down. He has found errors in some datasets, but that is hardly surprising, and the effect on the data has been minor. He has, what, one peer-reviewed paper to his credit? If it weren't for people ideologically invested in pretending AGW doesn't exist, he would be a footnote.

 

Um, how is using encryption for personal communication "thwarting government oversight and transparency?". FFS....

 

All records created by government employees are required, by law, to be available when requested.

This is why they do things like set up secret basement servers and use encryption apps on personal devices to hide their illegal actions.

 

There we go with lots if subjective opinion. In what way were his criticism of the hockey stick "shot down". Do you even know? Do you even know of those doing the 'shooting down' are qualified?

Your argument is that

'Yes outsiders can review the "science" as long as they are qualified'

Who decides who is qualified?

'The insiders of course.'

 

You are basically proving that you lack a base understanding to be discussing this.

 

You are wrong. Only things related to official government business needs to be preserved. Private communications do not. Government employees are allowed to have private lives.

If they were using encryption to conduct official business, that would violate the law. That isnt what they are doing.

 

Anything created by a federal worker that applies to their job or the government is a federal document. Anything created on a federal SYSTEM is a government document.

Private communications used to CIRCUMVENT federal systems or federal documents that apply to their job or the government is not legal. Ask me how I know.

If they're using private communication to discuss "thwarting Trump", governmental policy or anything to do with their jobs they are liable. Soz.

 

For the first part, yes -- if it applies to their job, it is a government record. As I said.

For the second part, yes and no. If I use my government email for personal business, it is not subject to record laws.

Correct. But as I understand it, what they were doing was not discussing official business. So therefore legal.

The crux of the matter. Privately discussing how to thwart Trump is not official business, and thus there is no liability. Unless actual official business was conducted during the exchange.

 

Wrong. Any email created on a government system, private/personal or not, becomes part of the government system.

Wrong. The POTUS is the head of the federal government. He is at the top of all chains of command in the federal government.

Oh and just in case.

https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/migrated/ethics/upload/410-DM-2_LIMITED-USE-POLICY-3.pdf

D.E-mail messages (and other electronic information) are Government resources that may be covered by the Federal Records Act, the Freedom
of Information Act, and the Privacy Act.
Further,employees have no expectation of privacy in these communications
resources (e.g.,e-mail,faxes,Internet,cell phones, or computers, whether
or not these resources are authorized for personal uses or are covered by
this policy).
By use of Government communications resources for personal purposes,
employee consent to monitoring and recording with or without cause
isimplied.

 

Sure, it is captured by the system. But personal emails are considered "transitory" and not retained past the standard 90-day period that the government keeps everything. They are not subject to FOIA requests, and open-records laws do not care about them.

Okay. So? His employees discussing him is not official business, any more than it is official business for any employee to gripe about his boss.

Read your own post. It's a generalized warning that anything sent/received on a government system MAY be covered by the Records Act, and that you have no expectation of privacy. Duh.

Please quote the part that says it is illegal to talk about the boss in private communications, or that even personal communications are covered by the Records Act.

 

That's not how it works.

If I receive a request for federal records on an employee, the investigating agency gets EVERYTHING. The investigators decide what is, and is not, relevant. Not the subject of the inquiry or investigation.

A personal email is still a government record, residing and created on a government system by a government employee, and is handed over just like anything else.

There are no federal IT employees combing through mailboxes and deleting yoga emails. It's a government record until someone with the authority to throw it out does so.

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Colluding against the duly elected President is not faithfully discharging the duties of the office they have entered.

Working for the Federal Government isn't like working at Walmart.

 

It's your assertion that the EPA is making decisions based on studies from private companies? What could possibly go wrong there? Yep, open the books boys. It's time we see how you operate.

 

The investigation is to see if they were using it for their work communication, as they claimed, in order to thwart government oversight and transparency.

 

They were using it to discuss how to express their dissent. There is no evidence they used it for official business. And the government does not get to go on fishing expeditions through employees' private communications to see if they conducted official business.

 

Actually, they can look at the emails, even if they are on private devices.

The courts have ruled on this many times. Even California.

http://mrsc.org/getdoc/735289c8-054a-49ac-b792-53f433a4087a/Public-Records-Act-Court-Decisions.aspx

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/03/...ls-sent-on-private-devices-are-public-record/

If any of these communications involve the POTUS and resistance, or even discussion, of his policies or actions, then they are considered to be official government documents. Those discussions are about work they are involved in.

C'mon man you can do better than this.

 

media reports at least a dozen EPA career employees have been using Signal to communicate about work-related issues, including how to prevent President Trump’s political appointees from “undermin[ing] their agency’s mission to protect public health and the environment” or “delet[ing] valuable scientific data.” CoA Institute’s investigation into this matter has been widely discussed in the press, along with Congress’s request for the EPA’s watchdog to independently investigate the matter. To date, the EPA has failed to issue a timely determination on CoA Institute’s FOIA request, let alone produce any responsive records.

 

No matter where you stand on the climate change issue it's good news that they have to release the information. What's the reason for them not releasing it before now?

 

What governments always try to do: rule over you instead of work for you.

 

Precisely what case in that long list do you think allows a fishing expedition into private emails?

Okay, I'm going to lay out a series of facts. You tell me where you agree and disagree.

• The discussions in question did not take place using government email accounts: they took place on a private communication app called Signal
• There is a requirement under public records law that any public document must be produced in response to an FOIA request (or to deliver to government archives), even if it is sent via private email or other private means.
• However, the government does not have the right to search through your private emails just in case there's a public document there.
• As such, the first question here is "What right does the government have to search private email accounts?"
• The answer is "not much." In the context of a court proceeding, the government can demand that all public documents be turned over, even if they originate in a private email.
• However, absent some evidence that official business was being conducted, the government does NOT have the right to the identity of a user in a third-party service, or to open access to all records from that user.
• So was there evidence of "official business" being conducted? That is the next question.
• Federal employees do not give up their free speech rights when they are hired.
• However, anything they do in an official capacity is a government record.
• That does NOT mean, however, that everything they do that is workplace-related is a government record. Bitching about the boss is not a government record. Expressing personal political opinions about the boss or a policy is not a government record. Expressing dissent is not a government record.
• So what did the employees use Signal for? To quote the Politico article:
• "Whether inside the Environmental Protection Agency, within the Foreign Service, on the edges of the Labor Department or beyond, employees are using new technology as well as more old-fashioned approaches — such as private face-to-face meetings — to organize letters, talk strategy, or contact media outlets and other groups to express their dissent. The goal is to get their message across while not violating any rules covering workplace communications, which can be monitored by the government and could potentially get them fired."
• It seems clear to me that this is NOT "official business." It is employees sharing strategies and information for the purpose of expressing dissent. Indeed, the article points out that they are trying to be very careful NOT to violate rules about workplace communications.

So to me, there is no clear evidence that the employees are conducting official business, and thus no justification for the federal government to demand their identities or to see the communications in question.

Let me know where you disagree.

 

Not every workplace-related communication is a government record. To repeat something I've already said, expressing dissent or bitching about the boss or his policies is not a government record. That is protected private expression, even for federal employees.

It can be a fine line sometimes -- getting too specific about a particular policy or case could push something into the "government record" category. But unless there is some evidence of that, there are no grounds for the federal government to demand a user's identity or see their communications. And nothing in the Politico story reaches that level of evidence.

 

That's why there is an investigation, Silly!

 

The article you posted assumed there was official business being conducted. And an investigation doesn't get to start with "turn over all of your private communications". It first has to try to establish the likelihood that official business was conducted. The Trump administration has not even attempted to establish that.

 

Well, that is why we have Grand Juries, depositions under oath and FOI requests.