EMAIL secrets

It has been  just disclosed that many government officials are using secret email addresses, possible to avoid disclosure from FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests.  The latest high level government official  transacting this practice is Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, possibly in requesting funds from private corporations to support the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. The claim is that this is necessary to prevent their in-boxes from being overwhelmed with unwanted messages. This may be so.  It may also be the case that many, not wishing or trusting the privacy of their communications are seeking closer privacy of their messaging.  In a previous note, there was discussed this phenomenon by former EPA director Lisa Jackson. See,
http://used-ideas.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-two-generals-plus-one-more.html

If a SIO (some important official) wished to do this, it is possible with identity in place.  For example, if the official email address is tomesh(at)hhs.gov, it could be somewhat privatized to tomesh2(at)hhs.gov.  Just don't publish it.   This would obviate the mailbox cluttering problem.  (Even I do something like this, for exactly this purpose.) But if the privatization practitioner uses jomesh(at)hhs.gov or jomesh(at)hmail.com, this smacks of sneakiness. It conveys a disingenuous intent, at the very least. In the case of Sibelius, the secret address reported by the AP is KGS2(at)hhs.gov. This is reasonable, but if it was used for any kind of solicitation, not good would be the assessment of many.

What escaped me at the time was that if Jackson and Petraeus were doing this, many others may be doing likewise. "Fool me once, shame on you... ," begins the old aphorism.

This time I am certain the practice must be widespread throughout government, and probably in any information sensitive organization, public or private.  The fact that it remains so very much undiscovered does not imply a conspiracy but  more insidiously a type of mutual cooperation of people sharing co-vital information.  Participants have mutual stakes in this enterprise, and this implies some nefarious purpose.  Could it be power, profit, policy, infidelity, or what?  Whatever, it is not benign.  It has become a way to transact business at least one layer removed from discovery, much less scrutiny.

This is worrisome for a nation whose fundamental tenet is open freedom in multifaceted forms.  Yet, one could argue that in times past such communications were transacted face-to-face and thus were non-discoverable.   Nowadays, a wider scope of information transactions is required in a world of a distributed community contacts.  The secret emails provide some cover.  A most subtle matter this is.  What is your view?