Private vs Public - use of emails etc for Govt purposes.

[Apple]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57772428

 

Although this is a UK topic at the moment there have been problems here recently highlighted by the use of emails to conduct business, certainly in relation to management in the public services. A case haas just been concluded I believe. Gruesome.

Are emails and similar messaging systems used for parliamentary and government activities accessible if needed under SARs or Freedom of Information requests. If not, should they be. Should Government systems be used for private business.?

When ever I go to Tynwald there seems to be at least 60 % or even more using their laptops to "communicate " with each other ( easy to spot when a funny email is sent round) or whatever else they get up to.  It's like an Internet library in there sometimes.

[2112]

Good luck Apple, you won’t get anywhere especially where IOMG is concerned. Cover up or swept under a carpet.

[Apple]

@2112I think there may be something in the next Tynwald question paper relating to it.

The case should not be swept under any carpet.

 

 

[Galen]

In relation to personal emails outside of Govt, as I recall, as with the use of telephones (mobile and desktop), IOM Govt used to permit 'minimal personal use' and written advice was given to staff and periodically reinforced. In other words, the occasional use, such as in an personal emergency, or making medical appointments, was acceptable, but it was with the understanding that staff would not use it unreasonably. It also came with the understanding that as personal emails and internet use were being carried out on the Govt equipment (phone, computers and IT systems) it could (and was) scrutinised for abuse of use and for abusive content. Further, staff had to accept the content of personal emails generated on Govt equipment or sent through its systems, 'belonged' to Government and subject to its policies and procedures including confidentiality aspects. Most Govt staff understood 'the rules' and kept personal use to a minimum and increasing saw little point in using the Govt systems as personal mobile phones became more widely available, with increased functionality that often surpassed that of Government equipment.

However, as is always the case, there were a minority who saw the rules were there to be broken. When called challenged they pleaded all sorts of mitigating circumstances to the point where in some departments personal use of the Govt email system was banned as monitoring became a nightmare and wasted considerable time. Employees personal of the Internet was supposed to be only permissible during break times. Nowadays, it is probably now a situation were 'use and abuse' is tolerated as actively monitoring and then subsequently taking any action over abuse is just not worth the effort other in extreme cases.

Personally, irrespective of any cost to the tax payer, I think any employee using Government email or Internet services other than for work related purposes, is unwise and should use their own devices whenever possible other than in genuine emergencies. In this way there is clear separation between work and private use.

 

[Gladys]

This is about use of personal emails for government business which has GDPR issues, not private use of government email. 

The issue is that personal account emails are not going to be easily accessible in the event of an inquiry, or a Data Subject Access Request.  There are also potential issues regarding security and retention.  Nothing to do with MHKs using their tablets for private jokes.  In that case the emails are captured within the government system.  That is a different issue. 

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, Apple said:

 

Are emails and similar messaging systems used for parliamentary and government activities accessible if needed under SARs or Freedom of Information requests. 

 

Yes

1 hour ago, Apple said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57772428

 

Should Government systems be used for private business.?

 

Not really. But its at the users risk as they could be accessed if there was an FOI

[John Wright]

The real issue here is transparency and accountability.

Its a mix of GDPR, Subject Access data requests and Public Records.

Forget personal use of government systems. There are rules about that.

There are also rules about the use of personal and  business e-mail and data storage systems for government business.

For the various Tribunals and public bodies I sit on it means everything must go through the clerk or be copied to the clerk.

Anyone sitting on a public body should be notified to the data commissioner, they should have a retention and destruction policy. 

[Apple]

9 minutes ago, John Wright said:

For the various Tribunals and public bodies I sit on it means everything must go through the clerk or be copied to the clerk.

Anyone sitting on a public body should be notified to the data commissioner, they should have a retention and destruction policy. 

That has made clear something I was going to ask John about anyway.  It could do with being made explicit when being appointed to the public bodies. 

16 minutes ago, John Wright said:

The real issue here is transparency and accountability.

Another connected issue is the use of email systems in relation to the management of staff. When Managers and work colleagues use them extensively to instruct staff or  when relating to staff matters where do you draw the lines ?

[Boo Gay'n]

Someone told me that the council of ministers use Telegram, or a similar encrypted messaging system, to coordinate their actions during sittings of the Keys and Tynwald.  Presumably there will be no public record of those communications.

[Uhtred]

2 hours ago, Boo Gay'n said:

Someone told me that the council of ministers use Telegram, or a similar encrypted messaging system, to coordinate their actions during sittings of the Keys and Tynwald.  Presumably there will be no public record of those communications.

Most of them are so inarticulate that’s encryption enough.

[The Voice of Reason]

57 minutes ago, Uhtred said:

Most of them are so inarticulate that’s encryption enough.

Why do you have to make stuff up to try and make cheap jokes that just don’t work?
 

[quilp]

It's satire, don't you recognise satire? 

[finlo]

5 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Why do you have to make stuff up to try and make cheap jokes that just don’t work?
 

Because a load of failed plumbers/painters postie's etc hardly makes up an intellectual tour de force!

[Apple]

3 hours ago, Boo Gay'n said:

Someone told me that the council of ministers use Telegram, or a similar encrypted messaging system, to coordinate their actions during sittings of the Keys and Tynwald.  Presumably there will be no public record of those communications.

I have been told by an MHK with no reason to lie that they have a closed system for sharing stuff. Presumably they are all trained not to use it for official stuff.

It does raise the questions though about SARs and FOI's requests. I suppose anyone with a Government issued phone or lap top etc can have their accounts subject to a 'higher' scrutiny. 

 

[SleepyJoe]

What stuff do they share that isn't official?