Government Employee Internet Policies for Government · Mackelprang v. Fidelity National Title Agency of Fidelity National Title Agency of Nevada, Inc. , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2379
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Tresa Baldas, Lawyers warn employers against giving glowing reviews on LinkedIn, Nat’l L. J. (7/6/09) <www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202432039774>
McMillen v. Hummingbird Speedway, Inc., No. 113-2010 CD (Pa. C.P. Jefferson Cty. 9/9/10) <ediscoverylaw.com/uploads/file/McMillen%20v%20Hummingbird%20Speedway.pdf>
Mackelprang v. Fidelity National Title Agency of Nevada, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2379 (D. Nev. 1/9/07) <https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/doc1/11511167020>
“employee access account management acceptable use employee conduct content security legal issues, and citizen conduct”
NASCIO, A National Survey of Social Media Use in State Gov’t (9/28/10)<nascio.org/publications/documents/NASCIO-SocialMedia.pdf>
CTG, Designing social media policy for gov’t: Eight essential elements (5/12/10) <ctg.albany.edu/publications/guides/social media policy/social media policy.pdf>
See how de rigeur tweets have become for legislators, committees, etc.
Congressional Research Service, Social Networking and Constituent Communications: Member Use of Twitter During a Two-Month Period in the 111th Congress (2/3/10) <http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R41066 20100203.pdf>
Guidelines for Secure Use of Social Media by Federal Dep’ts and Agencies, v1.0, Fed. CIO Council (9/17/09)<www.cio.gov/Documents/Guidelines for Secure Use Social Media v01-0.pdf>
Government Domain: Tracking Congress 2.0, LLRX (8/31/09) <www.llrx.com/columns/govdomain42.htm>
Nancy Scola, California Reformers Struggle Against Lobbyist-to-Lawmaker Texting, Personal Democracy Forum (3/3/10) (quoting S.J. Merc. News article)
(“[s]eparately, the San Jose City Council . . . unanimously approved a policy . . . . requir[ing] council members to disclose communications received on their personal e-mail or cell phones during meetings — either from lobbyists or from others with a financial interest in the matter under discussion”) <techpresident.com/blog-entry/california-reformers-struggle-against-lobbyist-lawmaker-texting>
3. Be realistic re: “personal use” – strongly consider “limited” or “incidental” exception with carve-outs for illegal, dilatory or unethical activity:
2. Train new employees and managers – and periodically retrain/remind experienced ones – re: key TAUP provisions, especially NoEPP
1. Periodically – every 2-3 years? – review, (and maybe revise) TAUP so it’s:
• consistent with actual practices; and
• up-to-date as to current technology, e.g., smartphones and social networking sites
Communications sent via work email system NOT confidential because employee:
knew of company TAUP as to no personal use
warned that company would monitor
warned of NOEP
“[A]kin to consulting her lawyer in her employer’s conference room, in a loud voice, with the door open, so that any reasonable person would expect that their discussion of her complaints about her employer would be overheard by him.”
Exec. Order, FEDERAL LEADERSHIP ON REDUCING TEXT MESSAGING WHILE DRIVING (Oct. 1, 2009) <whitehouse.gov/the press office/Executive-Order-Federal-Leadership-on-Reducing-Text-Messaging-while-Driving/>
• Richtel, Texting While Driving Banned for Fed. Staff, NYT (10/2/09)<nytimes.com/2009/10/02/technology/02distracted.html?pagewanted=print>
D.O.T., U.S. Transp. Sec’y Ray LaHood Proposes Rule to Ban Texting for Truck & Bus Drivers • DOT 55-10 (3/31/10)
<dot.gov/affairs/2010/dot5510.htm>
Larry Copeland, Software Aims To Block Texting WhileDriving, NewsFactor (7/22/10) <http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story id=74411>
Dep’t Of Education v. Choudhri, OATH Index No. 722/06 (N.Y.C. Office Of Admin. T & H 3/9/06)<files.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/nyc/doechoudri30906opn.pdf>
APPENDIX B – Robert D. Brownstone – Gov’t Educator Materials Public Records – Partial Bibliography (@ 2/15/11)
1
A. Miscellaneous Primary and Secondary Authorities
• Federal agency retention requirements (SOME): National Archives, General Records Schedules (Apr. 19, 2010) <http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/grs/>
• State governments generically: NASCIO publications linked off of <http://www.nascio.org/publications/pubsSubject2.cfm?category=30>, including:
• Cal. Exemplar set of retention periods for a state’s agencies and local government entities: Cal. Sec. of State, Local Gov’t Records Mgmt. Guidelines (Feb. 2006) <sos.ca.gov/archives/local-gov-program/pdf/records-management-8.pdf> (I have a Word version I was able to obtain from the Cal. Secretary of State in Sep. 2007; I think, but am not sure, it has the same content as the .pdf
• D.C. Government Administrative, E-mail Retention Policy, Mayor’s Order 2007-157 <http://os.dc.gov/os/frames.asp?doc=/os/lib/os/info/mayors_orders/2007/jul/2007-157_citywide_email_rentention_policy.pdf> [SUBSEQUENTLY REPEALED]
• Wash. Exemplar set of retention periods for a state’s agencies: Sec. of State, State Government General Records Retention Schedule Version 5.0 (Oct. 2010), available in Word and in.pdf formats at <sos.wa.gov/archives/RecordsManagement/RecordsRetentionSchedulesforStateGovernmentAgencies.aspx>
B. Decisions (some; there are MANY more on privacy, back-ups, etc.)
• NDLON v. U.S. I.C.E., 2011 WL 381625 (S.D.N.Y. 2/7/11 (“consistent with the state court decisions . . . certain metadata is an integral or intrinsic part of an electronic record; [a]s a result, such metadata is ‘readily reproducible’ in the FOIA context”) <http://ralphlosey.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/ndlon-v-ice-10-civ-3488-metadata-foia_revised.pdf>
• Associated Press v. Canterbury, No. 34768 (W. Va. Sup. Ct. App. Nov. 2009): Majority opinion (11/12/09) (“[u]nder the clear language of the ‘public record’ definition, a personal e-mail communication by a public official or public employee, which does not relate to the conduct of the public's business, is not a public record subject to disclosure under FOIA”) <www.state.wv.us/wvsca/docs/fall09/34768.pdf>; and Concurring/Dissenting Opinion (11/18/09) <www.state.wv.us/wvsca/docs/fall09/34768c.pdf>
• Lake v. City of Phoenix (“Lake II”), 2009 Ariz. LEXIS 257 (Oct. 20, 2009) (“if a public entity maintains a public record in an electronic format, then the electronic version, including any embedded metadata, is subject to disclosure under our public records laws”) <supreme.state.az.us/opin/pdf2009/CV090036PR.pdf>
• Fla. A.G., McCollum Announces New Policy on Public Records, Press Release (Sep. 15, 2009) <http://www.myflsunshine.com/newsrel.nsf/sunreleases/2C3A7E796E3933338525763200577CB0>
• Evertson v. City of Kimball, 278 Neb. 1, 767 N.W.2d 751 (July 2, 2009) (“private investigator’s written data and reports constitute[d] public records . . . when the public body contractually delegated its investigative authority to the private investigators[; but] . . . requested materials [were] . . . exempt from disclosure under” statutory exception) <www.localopengovernment.com/uploads/file/EvertsonCity-Kimballs08-524.pdf>
• O'Neill v. City of Shoreline, 240 P.3d 1149 (Oct. 7, 2010) (““an electronic version of a record, including its embedded metadata, is a public record subject to disclosure. There is no doubt here that the relevant e-mail itself is a public record, so its embedded metadata is also a public record and must be disclosed”) <http://www.wasupremecourtblog.com/tags/oneill-v-city-of-shoreline/> (linking to majority and dissent)
APPENDIX B – Robert D. Brownstone – Gov’t Educator Materials Public Records – Partial Bibliography (@ 2/15/11)
2
B. Decisions (some) (c’t’d)
• Burnett v. County of Bergen, 198 N.J. 408, 968 A.2d 1151 (Apr. 27, 2009) (requiring requestor to pay costs of redacting Social Security Numbers – from land title records) <http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/supreme/a-43-08.doc.html>
• State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Seneca Cty. Bd. of Com’rs, 120 Ohio St.3d 372, 899 N.E.2d 961 (Dec. 9, 2008) (“grant[ing] writ to compel the board to make reasonable efforts to recover, at its expense, the requested deleted e-mails and to make them promptly available for inspection”) <http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-6253.pdf>
• Georgia Dept. of Agriculture v. Griffin Indus., 284 Ga. App. 259, 644 S.E. 2d 286 (Mar. 19, 2007) (remanding for properly noticed hearing as to whether state agency had to restore email from back-up) <http://ga.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CGA%5C2007%5C20070319_0000363.GA.htm/qx>
• Cowles Pub. Co. v. Kootenai County Bd. of County Com’rs, 144 Idaho 259, 159 P.3d 896 (2007) (e-mails between public employees were public records and, due to signed County e-mail policy, were not protected by legitimate privacy expectation) <http://www.isc.idaho.gov/opinions/cowles14.pdf>
• Wiredata, Inc. v. Village of Sussex, 298 Wis. 2d 743, 729 N.W.2d 757 (Ct. App. Jan. 3, 2007) (finding violation of open records law via disclosure of .pdf image files instead of provision of database access) <http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=27629>
C. Articles
• ARMA, E-Mail Problems Still Plague [Fed.] Gov. Agencies, Info. Mgmt. J. (Sep./Oct. 2010) <http://content.arma.org/IMM/images/IMM_0910_issue.pdf#page=12>
• ARMA, Suit Prompts Wisconsin to Revisit E-Mail Policies, Info. Mgmt. J. (Nov.-Dec. 2009) <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3937/is_200911/ai_n42858544/>
• ARMA, Judge: Palin's Private E-Mail Use Legal, Info. Mgmt. J. (Nov.-Dec. 2009) <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3937/is_200911/ai_n42858560/>
• Breen, Tom, Don Blankenship: Public Officials' Emails Are Private, State Supreme Court Rules, AP (Nov. 13, 2009) <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/13/don-blankenship-public-of_n_357401.html>
• ARMA, Oklahoma Opts for Open Records, Info. Mgmt. J. (Sep./Oct. 2009) <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3937/is_200909/ai_n39233479/>
• Slack, Donovan and Levenson, Michael, Menino’s office acknowledges city employees routinely deleted e-mails, Boston Globe (Sep. 13, 2009) <http://Slack-Pub-Records-9-13-09.notlong.com>
• Fruehling-Watson, Rosa, Documents Prepared by Private Investigator for City Exempt from Disclosure, Local Open Government Blog (Aug. 31, 2009) <www.localopengovernment.com/tags/nebraska/>
• Scheer, Peter, Commentary: Government officials use personal email and texting accounts to avoid public access laws. Why not use technology to enhance accountability instead of to subvert it? Cal. First Amendment Coalition (Aug. 20, 2009) <http://Scheer-Pub-Records-8-20-09.notlong.com>
• Lieb, David A., State to pay $500,000 to settle e-mail lawsuit filed against former Gov. Blunt, AP (May 22, 2009) <http://Lieb-Blunt-AP-5-22-09.notlong.com>
• West, Natalie and Jenkins, Michael, When Does Your E-Mail Become a Matter of Public Record?, Inst. for Local Gov't (Sep. 1, 2003) (quoting CPRA Senate Floor Analysis, Aug. 20, 2002)) <http://West-Pub-Records-9-1-03.notlong.com>