> potentially “intimate and embarrassing” exchanges
What kinds of things could Musk and Abbott be discussing that could lead to an exchange of intimate messages? The only (non-jokey) thing I can think of would be discussions about the kinds of accommodations Abbott might need at SpaceX or Tesla events due to being paralyzed.
Elon's a large employer in Texas in industries with legal hurdles so it's unsurprising he ends up in email exchanges with senior politicians there, even more so since he's decided he's a political figure. He also has a... interesting line in quips, opinions and personal remarks which I imagine Abbott is happy to play along with when he's thinking more how much a friendlier relationship with Elon can boost his personal profile, state employment figures and bank balance and less about what other people reading it might think.
So yeah, there's probably some genuinely not-for-public consumption stuff about Tesla/SpaceX future business initiatives and a whole lot of racism and snarky comments about people that are supposed to be political allies...
Edit: wondering if the downvote brigade are supposed to be signalling that Elon doesn't have any legitimate reason to start conversations about his companies with Texas politicians or that private conversations with Elon would never end up segueing into something that might be embarrassing. Not sure which of those opinions is more ridiculous really...
Much of the point of transparency laws is to shine light on secret shenanigans between the wealthy and powerful, and the government. Communications that shouldn't be made public, like between crime victims and certain government officials should be treated with clearly delineated special handling. That should be rare. Not part of informal email exchanges. That's why various government bodies have closed sessions for certain meetings. Embarrassment after the fact isn't a good reason to redact. If Elon is unclear on the concept, maybe he shouldn't be doing government work.
My downvote was to indicate that I reject your implication that there are legitimate reasons to keep his communications with government officials private. "Government" is, in most instances, replaceable with "Public". If you don't want your private business to be public knowledge, do not do business with the public. And if you do business with the public, expect that business to be public. There are mechanisms to protect "private" information that do not require government secrecy or redactions. Private businesses use them all the time. They are fallible, sure, but so is everything. More importantly, they are subject to subpoena and other legal remedies so they can be made public if necessary, but they are otherwise private (unlike email). And no, it doesn't matter to me what levels of harm can be done by the lack of secrecy; that's not a reason to be secret, that's a reason to not provide so much harm exposure. Government should be minimizing risk, not providing mechanisms that engender it. Besides, if my refusal to show ID to a cop with no RAS can still get me arrested, obviously the state understands the law as a "do the bad thing, sort it out later" kind of setup. So show us the emails and let's start working to fix the fallout.
> segueing into something that might be embarrassing
Like his support of racist organizations in Europe? Or hiding information about failures of self-driving automobiles? Or unexpected layoffs? There's probably a lot more, involving SpaceX, etc.
Honestly, that first one alone merits a lot of hairy eyeballing, but I despise racists and hate that my home state is associated with them.
Regarding your edit, I upvoted your comment at first, but instantly downvoted once I got to the edit. Whining about imaginary interet points is not a constructive discussion worth having and in my subjective opinion does not belong on HN.
What I'm reading is that if you want to preserve confidentiality, you can mix trade secrets into your communication. Sounds like an easy thing with no downside.
Yes, unfortunately... the right outcome here should be corporate lawyers saying "companies should NOT add trade secrets when talking to the government because it will leak", but instead the public can't know what the government is doing because it might hurt a company. US 101, doing what's best for business over its people.
I mean, without the trade secret exemption that's basically any written exchange with government....
I'm not seeing much to be gained by making it impossible for governments to do due diligence with many suppliers because they'd rather turn down the contract than broadcast such information to their competitors (not sure it'd jive particularly well with public company control over what is and isn't public information either)...
Epstein's email footer throws the whole spaghetti at the wall—confidentiality, attorney-client privilege, securities regulations, and copyright law, too.
> "The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of JEE"
> "Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com, and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved"
> Abbott’s and Musk’s lawyers fought their release, arguing they would reveal trade secrets, potentially “intimate and embarrassing” exchanges or confidential legal and policymaking discussions
Maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't have used your government email account to have intimate and embarrassing exchanges? That thought come to mind, Mr. Abbott?
Is there any avenue to validate the claims of the governor’s office, that these things must be protected? Are there for example, firms that will look at the unredacted content as a third party with confidentiality agreements, to certify that it is correctly being redacted? Otherwise it feels like they could easily be hiding any number of unethical or outright criminal activities this way.
There actually is a legal process for just this sort of situation.
It's called an "In camera review". Assuming someone sues Abbott over this, then a judge can take the documents in question, look over them, and make a determination on whether or not Abbott's claims are true.
Exactly this. I've used this on many FOIA cases where the defendant public body has argued for redaction. One was an 800 page manual on jail procedures which the body said was 100% subject to redaction. On the first round we got them to concede the table of contents, after that it wasn't worth arguing further, so sadly we had to file a motion for in camera review and the judge had to take it home and read all 800 pages. The final determination was that only the locations and operations of the keys, how knives were stored in the kitchen, and how the armory operated were actually redactable.
Of course, then the public body appeals it and the appellate justices then have to read the 800 pages all over again.
But eventually you should get a half-decent result.
If there were a lawsuit it’s possible that the original communications could be obtained by court order. I wouldn’t be surprised if that happened eventually.
The FBI and friends can also use their means of unlawful surveillance and leak the contents to politically aligned publishers.
My guess is that they discussed a lot of horse trading too candidly.
> Are there for example, firms that will look at the unredacted content as a third party with confidentiality agreements, to certify that it is correctly being redacted?
Readit News
What kinds of things could Musk and Abbott be discussing that could lead to an exchange of intimate messages? The only (non-jokey) thing I can think of would be discussions about the kinds of accommodations Abbott might need at SpaceX or Tesla events due to being paralyzed.
So yeah, there's probably some genuinely not-for-public consumption stuff about Tesla/SpaceX future business initiatives and a whole lot of racism and snarky comments about people that are supposed to be political allies...
Edit: wondering if the downvote brigade are supposed to be signalling that Elon doesn't have any legitimate reason to start conversations about his companies with Texas politicians or that private conversations with Elon would never end up segueing into something that might be embarrassing. Not sure which of those opinions is more ridiculous really...
This is how corruption is defined.
My downvote was to indicate that I reject your implication that there are legitimate reasons to keep his communications with government officials private. "Government" is, in most instances, replaceable with "Public". If you don't want your private business to be public knowledge, do not do business with the public. And if you do business with the public, expect that business to be public. There are mechanisms to protect "private" information that do not require government secrecy or redactions. Private businesses use them all the time. They are fallible, sure, but so is everything. More importantly, they are subject to subpoena and other legal remedies so they can be made public if necessary, but they are otherwise private (unlike email). And no, it doesn't matter to me what levels of harm can be done by the lack of secrecy; that's not a reason to be secret, that's a reason to not provide so much harm exposure. Government should be minimizing risk, not providing mechanisms that engender it. Besides, if my refusal to show ID to a cop with no RAS can still get me arrested, obviously the state understands the law as a "do the bad thing, sort it out later" kind of setup. So show us the emails and let's start working to fix the fallout.
Like his support of racist organizations in Europe? Or hiding information about failures of self-driving automobiles? Or unexpected layoffs? There's probably a lot more, involving SpaceX, etc.
Honestly, that first one alone merits a lot of hairy eyeballing, but I despise racists and hate that my home state is associated with them.
Why are politicians involved with legal issues? Is this correct?
Deleted Comment
I'm not seeing much to be gained by making it impossible for governments to do due diligence with many suppliers because they'd rather turn down the contract than broadcast such information to their competitors (not sure it'd jive particularly well with public company control over what is and isn't public information either)...
> "The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of JEE"
> "Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com, and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved"
Maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't have used your government email account to have intimate and embarrassing exchanges? That thought come to mind, Mr. Abbott?
Deleted Comment
It's called an "In camera review". Assuming someone sues Abbott over this, then a judge can take the documents in question, look over them, and make a determination on whether or not Abbott's claims are true.
That ruling can be appealed to higher courts.
Of course, then the public body appeals it and the appellate justices then have to read the 800 pages all over again.
But eventually you should get a half-decent result.
The FBI and friends can also use their means of unlawful surveillance and leak the contents to politically aligned publishers.
My guess is that they discussed a lot of horse trading too candidly.
No. But there are investigative reporters.
The government uses "special masters" or "taint teams" if there's a scenario like this, at times. One was involved in the Trump Mar-a-Lago case.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/resources/news...
Deleted Comment