Politech archive: http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=Radwanski --- From: "Jim Harper - Privacilla.org" <jim.harperat_private> To: <declanat_private> Subject: RE: Canada's privacy commissioner's farewell statement vanishes Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:59:11 -0400 Does anyone need reminding that all this nonsense is what you get when you rely on bureaucrats and politicians for privacy? Jim Harper Editor Privacilla.org --- From: Charles Putnam <charles.putnamat_private> To: "'declanat_private'" <declanat_private> Subject: Canada's privacy commissioner's farewell statement vanishes Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:30:45 -0400 Please remind me again why I'm supposed to get all uptight merely because the former privacy commissioner's replacement removed his predecessor's self-serving tirade from the commission's official website? How long was the commission legally or morally obligated to keep the statement there? Why should I be outraged, especially when the letter still is available elsewhere on the net to sufficiently intrepid searchers and [presumably] also could be obtained in hard copy under Canada's open records laws? Is there some law or rule of behavior that requires operators of government websites to keep posted material up indefinitely, even if they deem it self-serving, or worse, misleading? It would have been more helpful to provide Radwanski's harangue along with a reference to the parliamentary report: http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/XJ&sdn=canadaonline&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parl.gc.ca%2FInfoComDoc%2F37%2F2%2FOGGO%2FStudies%2FReports%2Foggorp05-e.htm to allow your readers to actually follow what the name calling was all about. IMHO, after reviewing the parliamentary committee's report and Radwanski's letter, it boils down to this: a standing committee of legislators found that Radwanski bullied his staff, believed the subordinates' testimony that Radwanski falsified information filed with the committee, and found that he tried to circumvent the open records law; Radwanski then resigned before facing removal proceedings [which, by the way, would presumably have been the open, adversarial forum he claimed to want so badly . . .]. In my experience as a former civil servant, it is not a good employment strategy to bully subordinates, lie on expense reimbursement forms and then lie to legislators, regardless of the righteousness of one's views and policies on other matters. I am not yet persuaded that the Privacy Commission's webmaster was in any way obligated to keep Radwanski's letter posted for a day, much less in perpetuity. Best regards, Charles Putnam --- Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:52:56 -0600 From: Chris Jones <cdjonesat_private> To: declanat_private Subject: Re: FC: Canada's privacy commissioner's farewell statement vanishes References: <5.2.1.1.0.20030702110943.0478cda0at_private> In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20030702110943.0478cda0at_private> I have no knowledge of the truth or falsehood of former Commissioner >Radwanski's statement. I just find it interesting that the most >politically active national privacy commissioner in the world has been >forced out of office -- and that his resignation statement has been >removed mere days after its publication. ... with all due respect to John Gilmore, he may be seeing patterns that don't exist. The investigation into Commissioner Radwanski was unanimously supported by the all-party committee that oversees Parliamentary officers. Given that several of the parties on the committee are opposed to the same privacy-invasive initiatives that Radwanski had been, it would seem incredible that they would be complicit in forcing him out for opposing those initiatives. Given that one of the key requirements for Parliamentary officers is that they be absolutely trustworthy, behaviour such as that found by the committee is, and should be, a firing offence. Concealing information from and misleading Parliament cannot be condoned; Commissioner Radwanski had the opportunity to be forthright and provide the truth. Had he done so, he would likely still be the Privacy Commissioner (though perhaps with a tighter financial leash). --- (Declan: Please anonymize this if you post it to Politech. Thanks.) >The statement enclosed in this message has disappeared from the web >site of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, where I obtained it >several days ago. It was apparently censored by the outgoing >Commissioner's replacement. "Censored" is a little extreme, but that's just my personal opinion... >I have no knowledge of the truth or falsehood of former Commissioner >Radwanski's statement. I just find it interesting that the most >politically active national privacy commissioner in the world has been >forced out of office -- and that his resignation statement has been >removed mere days after its publication. I'm not surprised by that - I was more surprised by the fact that the entire statement as it is written appeared on the website at all. The website is for the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, which is different from the Privacy Commissioner as a person. Given the nature of that statement, it's about Radwanski answering/deflecting (unsuccessfully on both counts) the charges against him, not about the office itself. It's not the responsibility of the office to act as the mouthpiece for Radwanski, nor is it right for him to use the office for that purpose. (It actually strikes me as more of the same thing that got him in trouble in the first place - using the office toward his own - pretty damn selfish - ends.) Anyway, I don't buy that Radwanski's activism is what got him forced out of office, in spite of what he says. The committee that investigated this matter is an all-party committee, and the decision was unanimous. If Radwanksi was so good at sticking it to the ruling Liberals, it's hard to imagine why MPs from other parties would jump on board. Radwanksi's claim that they did it because they wanted to trash somebody the Liberals appointed is just an attempt to play both sides at once, and seems pretty inconsistent. In any event, the effectiveness of Radwanski's activism is open to question. Here's the committee's final report: http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/37/2/OGGO/Studies/Reports/oggorp05-e.htm Here's a list of Radwanski's meal and travel expenses: http://www.thehilltimes.ca/2003/june/23/radwanski_list/ --- From: "Paul6412 Rogers" <paul6412at_private> To: <declanat_private> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20030702110943.0478cda0at_private> Subject: Re: Canada's privacy commissioner's farewell statement vanishes Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:58:20 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Needles to say, they did not take Mr. Radwanski recommendation to appoint Mr. Leary as interim commissioner either. http://www.pco.gc.ca/lgc/default.asp?Language=E&Page=NewsRoom&Sub=press&Doc=20030627_marleau_e.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jul 02 2003 - 21:49:06 PDT