FC: Why Canadian privacy commissioner should have been booted

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

Politech archive:
http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=Radwanski

---

From: "Jim Harper - Privacilla.org" <jim.harper () privacilla org>
To: <declan () well com>
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.putnam () unh edu>
To: "'declan () well com'" <declan () well com>
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 <cdjones () novusordo net>
To: declan () well com
Subject: Re: FC: Canada's privacy commissioner's farewell statement vanishes
References: <5.2.1.1.0.20030702110943.0478cda0 () mail well com>
In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20030702110943.0478cda0 () mail well com>

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" <paul6412 () rogers com>
To: <declan () well com>
References: <5.2.1.1.0.20030702110943.0478cda0 () mail well com>
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/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------