Commentary

Official's Buzz Profile Sparks FOIA Request For His Emails

Google's Buzz has drawn two privacylawsuits, a request for a Federal Trade Commission investigation and some pointed criticism by lawmakers.

Now, information revealed by Buzz about Andrew McLaughlin, Deputy Chief Technology Officer for the Obama administration and former Google lobbyist, has spurred Consumer Watchdog -- which opposed McLaughlin's appointment -- to file a Freedom of Information Act request for McLaughlin's emails.

This week, Breitbart's Big Government reported that McLaughlin's Buzz profile showed that at least 28 of his contacts worked at Google. "McLaughlin's Gmail appears to include a 'who's who' of Google senior lobbyists and lawyers from across the globe," the site wrote.

That's reason enough to request McLaughlin's emails, says John Simpson, consumer advocate for Consumer Watchdog. "His top contacts were former Google colleagues," Simpson says. "That prompted a concern on my part. We ought to be able to see the emails that have gone back and forth between McLaughlin and Google executives."

The White House takes the position that the emails need not be disclosed, the Los Angeles Timesreports.

Simpson acknowledges that some of the emails between McLaughlin and Google employees might be personal, but argues that the government must come forward and argue that particular messages are privileged.

When Google launched Buzz, it disclosed the names of users' email contacts, if users activated Buzz without changing the defaults. Since then, Google revised the service; now, it merely suggests followers, rather than automatically creating them.

While the revision was a welcome change, it obviously came too late to protect the privacy of people like McLaughlin.

1 comment about "Official's Buzz Profile Sparks FOIA Request For His Emails".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Monica Bower from TERiX Computer Service, April 5, 2010 at 12:48 p.m.

    The FOIA is pretty clear that 'because we said so' is an inadequate argument from the government regarding obfuscation. The act stipulates that the burden is on the government to prove cause to retain, not on the citizen to prove a need to disclose. If these emails were sent while he was a government appointee they are public record until proven otherwise in a court of law, regardless of who was or wasn't in his contact list.

    Other than national security, or the unavailability of data, the federal government has few recourses to keep anything secret. And while the definition is stretched pretty thin in many cases, I don't really see how this guy's emails could really be retained as a matter of national security. However it might be argued that the emails weren't created as part of his government activities and are therefore personal and protected.

    The FOIA is actually a pretty amazing thing.

Next story loading loading..