|
|
Post by mick on Jun 7, 2023 7:54:43 GMT
First may I ask that we try to be apolitical in answering this. Tough I know.
Second I steer clear of WhatsApp so know nothing of how it works.
At last my point. I see that two enquiries are demanding access to all unredacted WhatsApp messages (Boris Johnson and Nicola Sturgeon). The argument seems to be that the enquiry should decide what's relevant and what's not.
Much as I dislike both of the folk mentioned I have qualms about this attitude. Are we in a position where a public person is allowed no privacy of any sort? I'm influenced by my belief that we live in a leaky, post truth, society and I believe, rather than suspect, that any messages handed over, relevant or not, will soon be in the public domain and 'spun' out of all recognition.
I'll admit that my opinion is only partially formed and I hope that your replies will help me decide.
Over to you.
Mick
|
|
|
|
Post by MJB on Jun 7, 2023 8:26:12 GMT
As I understand it, certainly in the case of Johnson, this about the WhatsApp account provided with the office of prime minister, not a personal account. If he chose to use a personal account to conduct government business then he's forfeit any right to privacy in the matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fenris on Jun 7, 2023 8:31:12 GMT
Being as WhatsApp was being used for 'work' when it wasn't a permitted method of communication(*)... yes it is right to demand all unredacted messages.
WhatsApp has been used by people as they wanted to keep conversations away from scrutiny.
For example, a PM wouldn't want to say "Let the bodies pile up" on their official email account as this is monitored by the civil service. However, on the non-monitored WhatsApp they could say whatever they wanted to and have been caught doing so, like giving their mates PPE contracts.
So if the decision is not to allow access to these messages you are allowing those in power to do whatever they want without guidelines.
* on private phones rather than work phones
|
|
|
|
Post by mick on Jun 7, 2023 9:41:12 GMT
As I understand it, certainly in the case of Johnson, this about the WhatsApp account provided with the office of prime minister, not a personal account. If he chose to use a personal account to conduct government business then he's forfeit any right to privacy in the matter. I have done some Googling and can find no reference to the account being official rather than private. Probably my bad searching. If you are correct then, of course, it makes a significant difference.
During the course of my searches I found reference to another thing called "google spaces" which also seems to have been used for communication between politicians. Possibly that's going to become an issue as well.
I still have qualms about the opinion that effectively says that nothing can be private. There have been many times in my career when "off the record" conversations have been useful in moving the "on the record" situation forward. There has never been any impropriety involved.
Of course I'm not in any way condoning improper use of any tool - but secrecy, sometimes and in my book, isn't always improper.
Mick
|
|
|
|
Post by kate on Jun 7, 2023 10:22:20 GMT
I think it's the ones he communicated with who are nervous now. Boris has less to lose so doesn't care.
|
|
|
|
Post by don on Jun 7, 2023 12:06:52 GMT
Personally I don’t give a toss about any of it.
|
|
eightbittony
Full Member
[insert witty status message here]
Posts: 111
|
Post by eightbittony on Jun 12, 2023 21:12:09 GMT
I have a work phone.
I have a personal phone.
I'm 100% certain the contract of employment I have permits the company access to anything I do on the work phone.
I'm 100% certain the company has no right to access my personal mobile.
Anyone working for the government who uses a mobile phone to conduct government business should expect the entire device content to be accessible to the government, I certainly would expect that. If you want a private life, use a private mobile and don't use it for business.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffr on Jun 12, 2023 21:37:47 GMT
I have a work phone. I have a personal phone. I'm 100% certain the contract of employment I have permits the company access to anything I do on the work phone. I'm 100% certain the company has no right to access my personal mobile. Anyone working for the government who uses a mobile phone to conduct government business should expect the entire device content to be accessible to the government, I certainly would expect that. If you want a private life, use a private mobile and don't use it for business. Sounds entirely reasonable, just as long as you don’t communicate with someone else’s work phone from your personal phone. |
|
eightbittony
Full Member
[insert witty status message here]
Posts: 111
|
Post by eightbittony on Jun 12, 2023 22:09:19 GMT
I have a work phone. I have a personal phone. I'm 100% certain the contract of employment I have permits the company access to anything I do on the work phone. I'm 100% certain the company has no right to access my personal mobile. Anyone working for the government who uses a mobile phone to conduct government business should expect the entire device content to be accessible to the government, I certainly would expect that. If you want a private life, use a private mobile and don't use it for business. Sounds entirely reasonable, just as long as you don’t communicate with someone else’s work phone from your personal phone.
I avoid that by only putting work contact numbers into my work phone, and personal contact numbers into my personal phone (made easier in my case by using different identities for each device, so I don't have problems with Apple or Google helpfully merging contacts).
It's not overly hard.
Sure, there's nothing I can do to stop someone taking my personal number if they have it, and sending it a message from their work phone. If I was to respond to that from my personal device, then I have no issue with their employer or the government having access to my response, which is likely to be 'you've messaged my personal number, did you intend to message my work number'?
Anyway, it's moot. Should the communications of the people in charge of the country be subject to free access by a tribunal? Yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffr on Jun 14, 2023 14:08:14 GMT
Sounds entirely reasonable, just as long as you don’t communicate with someone else’s work phone from your personal phone.
I avoid that by only putting work contact numbers into my work phone, and personal contact numbers into my personal phone (made easier in my case by using different identities for each device, so I don't have problems with Apple or Google helpfully merging contacts).
It's not overly hard.
Sure, there's nothing I can do to stop someone taking my personal number if they have it, and sending it a message from their work phone. If I was to respond to that from my personal device, then I have no issue with their employer or the government having access to my response, which is likely to be 'you've messaged my personal number, did you intend to message my work number'?
Anyway, it's moot. Should the communications of the people in charge of the country be subject to free access by a tribunal? Yes.
Of course the communications of the people in charge should be subject to free access by a tribunal. Said “people in charge” should have expected nothing less when they set up the tribunal. A more pertinent question might be “should the people in charge of the country be allowed private communications?”. Boris to Carrie, what’s for dinner? Reply, I thought you were having a party! |
|
