Is it consistent with good governance to delete Whatsapp messages between
goverment politicians and officials, on the same basis that informal
conversations are not normally minuted?

I gather the Scottish CMO recommended (and did) this during the pandemic.

I think it is appropriate to delete such messages, because it is a great waste
of time if every informal conversation has to be in person so that people can
speak frankly.

Is there any clear law relating to this?

I do realise that not recording *decisions* in writing would be remiss.

--
Roger Hayter

On 22/01/2024 21:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
> Is it consistent with good governance to delete Whatsapp messages between
> goverment politicians and officials, on the same basis that informal
> conversations are not normally minuted?
>
> I gather the Scottish CMO recommended (and did) this during the pandemic.
>
> I think it is appropriate to delete such messages, because it is a great waste
> of time if every informal conversation has to be in person so that people can
> speak frankly.
>
> Is there any clear law relating to this?
>
> I do realise that not recording *decisions* in writing would be remiss.
>
>
>
I agree, people should be able to chat, raise odd points, and then move on.

But, as the Scottish Government WhatsApp messsages are gone, then all the
English ones must now be ignored as well - for the same reason. They are proof
of absolutely nothing.
--
kat
>^..^<

On 22/01/2024 21:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
> Is it consistent with good governance to delete Whatsapp messages between
> goverment politicians and officials, on the same basis that informal
> conversations are not normally minuted?
>
> I gather the Scottish CMO recommended (and did) this during the pandemic.
>
> I think it is appropriate to delete such messages, because it is a great waste
> of time if every informal conversation has to be in person so that people can
> speak frankly.
>
> Is there any clear law relating to this?
>
> I do realise that not recording *decisions* in writing would be remiss.

Personally I think it is remarkable that WhatsApp is not banned for any
conversations regarding Official business. Having messages going via
foreign uncontrolled servers seems like a very serious security breach.

Jeff

On 23 Jan 2024 at 10:19:47 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 22/01/2024 21:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
>> Is it consistent with good governance to delete Whatsapp messages between
>> goverment politicians and officials, on the same basis that informal
>> conversations are not normally minuted?
>>
>> I gather the Scottish CMO recommended (and did) this during the pandemic.
>>
>> I think it is appropriate to delete such messages, because it is a great waste
>> of time if every informal conversation has to be in person so that people can
>> speak frankly.
>>
>> Is there any clear law relating to this?
>>
>> I do realise that not recording *decisions* in writing would be remiss.
>>
>>
>>
> I agree, people should be able to chat, raise odd points, and then move on.
>
> But, as the Scottish Government WhatsApp messsages are gone, then all the
> English ones must now be ignored as well - for the same reason. They are proof
> of absolutely nothing.

They are widely used to prove thoughtcrimes or Wrong Attitudes against
politicians.

--
Roger Hayter

On 23 Jan 2024 at 09:22:37 GMT, "Jeff" <jeff@ukra.com> wrote:

> On 22/01/2024 21:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
>> Is it consistent with good governance to delete Whatsapp messages between
>> goverment politicians and officials, on the same basis that informal
>> conversations are not normally minuted?
>>
>> I gather the Scottish CMO recommended (and did) this during the pandemic.
>>
>> I think it is appropriate to delete such messages, because it is a great waste
>> of time if every informal conversation has to be in person so that people can
>> speak frankly.
>>
>> Is there any clear law relating to this?
>>
>> I do realise that not recording *decisions* in writing would be remiss.
>
> Personally I think it is remarkable that WhatsApp is not banned for any
> conversations regarding Official business. Having messages going via
> foreign uncontrolled servers seems like a very serious security breach.
>
> Jeff

If you believe the owners of Whatsapp only the addressee(s), not the server,
has access to the decrypted message.

--
Roger Hayter

On Monday 22 January 2024 at 21:43:05 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:
> Is it consistent with good governance to delete Whatsapp messages between
> goverment politicians and officials, on the same basis that informal
> conversations are not normally minuted?
>
> I gather the Scottish CMO recommended (and did) this during the pandemic.
>
> I think it is appropriate to delete such messages, because it is a great waste
> of time if every informal conversation has to be in person so that people can
> speak frankly.
>
> Is there any clear law relating to this?
>
> I do realise that not recording *decisions* in writing would be remiss.
>
>
>
> --
> Roger Hayter

It is good governance to apply retention periods to information after which it gets deleted.

It is perhaps untenable to think that the principle of good governance was behind this when nothing else was subject to good governance.

On Tuesday 23 January 2024 at 10:54:21 UTC, Jeff wrote:
> On 22/01/2024 21:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
> > Is it consistent with good governance to delete Whatsapp messages between
> > goverment politicians and officials, on the same basis that informal
> > conversations are not normally minuted?
> >
> > I gather the Scottish CMO recommended (and did) this during the pandemic.
> >
> > I think it is appropriate to delete such messages, because it is a great waste
> > of time if every informal conversation has to be in person so that people can
> > speak frankly.
> >
> > Is there any clear law relating to this?
> >
> > I do realise that not recording *decisions* in writing would be remiss.
> Personally I think it is remarkable that WhatsApp is not banned for any
> conversations regarding Official business. Having messages going via
> foreign uncontrolled servers seems like a very serious security breach.
>
> Jeff

There is much in government that is banal and the loss of information relating to those elements would be of no consequence.

Sensitive matters should not of course be discussed on those platforms.

On 23/01/2024 11:13, Roger Hayter wrote:
> On 23 Jan 2024 at 10:19:47 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 22/01/2024 21:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>> Is it consistent with good governance to delete Whatsapp messages between
>>> goverment politicians and officials, on the same basis that informal
>>> conversations are not normally minuted?
>>>
>>> I gather the Scottish CMO recommended (and did) this during the pandemic.
>>>
>>> I think it is appropriate to delete such messages, because it is a great waste
>>> of time if every informal conversation has to be in person so that people can
>>> speak frankly.
>>>
>>> Is there any clear law relating to this?
>>>
>>> I do realise that not recording *decisions* in writing would be remiss.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I agree, people should be able to chat, raise odd points, and then move on.
>>
>> But, as the Scottish Government WhatsApp messsages are gone, then all the
>> English ones must now be ignored as well - for the same reason. They are proof
>> of absolutely nothing.
>
> They are widely used to prove thoughtcrimes or Wrong Attitudes against
> politicians.
>
>

They certainly have been n this Covid enquiry.
--
kat
>^..^<

On 23 Jan 2024 at 12:53:03 GMT, "Dr Dave" <david.christopher.astles@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Monday 22 January 2024 at 21:43:05 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:
>> Is it consistent with good governance to delete Whatsapp messages between
>> goverment politicians and officials, on the same basis that informal
>> conversations are not normally minuted?
>>
>> I gather the Scottish CMO recommended (and did) this during the pandemic.
>>
>> I think it is appropriate to delete such messages, because it is a great waste
>> of time if every informal conversation has to be in person so that people can
>> speak frankly.
>>
>> Is there any clear law relating to this?
>>
>> I do realise that not recording *decisions* in writing would be remiss.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Roger Hayter
>
> It is good governance to apply retention periods to information after which it
> gets deleted.
>
> It is perhaps untenable to think that the principle of good governance was
> behind this when nothing else was subject to good governance.

<font color="#d6d6d6">Are all conversations between politicians to be minuted
and retained? Are all conversations between civil servants to be minuted and
retained? I understand that conversations between civil servants and
politicians should be minuted and retained, but this is not a verbatim record
but an agreed minute. And I'm unsure if it applies even to casual
conversations.</font>

Whatever the answers to these questions, I feel the same answers should apply
to encrypted electronic conversations. They are so much cheaper and more
convenient than having to arrange personal meetings that they should be
encouraged rather then discouraged by the rules

--

Roger Hayter

On 23 Jan 2024 at 16:51:06 GMT, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:

> On 23 Jan 2024 at 12:53:03 GMT, "Dr Dave" <david.christopher.astles@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Monday 22 January 2024 at 21:43:05 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>> Is it consistent with good governance to delete Whatsapp messages between
>>> goverment politicians and officials, on the same basis that informal
>>> conversations are not normally minuted?
>>>
>>> I gather the Scottish CMO recommended (and did) this during the pandemic.
>>>
>>> I think it is appropriate to delete such messages, because it is a great waste
>>> of time if every informal conversation has to be in person so that people can
>>> speak frankly.
>>>
>>> Is there any clear law relating to this?
>>>
>>> I do realise that not recording *decisions* in writing would be remiss.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Roger Hayter
>>
>> It is good governance to apply retention periods to information after which it
>> gets deleted.
>>
>> It is perhaps untenable to think that the principle of good governance was
>> behind this when nothing else was subject to good governance.
>
> <font color="#d6d6d6">Are all conversations between politicians to be minuted
> and retained? Are all conversations between civil servants to be minuted and
> retained? I understand that conversations between civil servants and
> politicians should be minuted and retained, but this is not a verbatim record
> but an agreed minute. And I'm unsure if it applies even to casual
> conversations.</font>
>
> Whatever the answers to these questions, I feel the same answers should apply
> to encrypted electronic conversations. They are so much cheaper and more
> convenient than having to arrange personal meetings that they should be
> encouraged rather then discouraged by the rules

My apologies for the inappropriate html tags; I am really not sure where they
came from!

--

Roger Hayter

On Tuesday 23 January 2024 at 10:19:54 UTC, kat wrote:
> On 22/01/2024 21:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
> > Is it consistent with good governance to delete Whatsapp messages between
> > goverment politicians and officials, on the same basis that informal
> > conversations are not normally minuted?
> >
> > I gather the Scottish CMO recommended (and did) this during the pandemic.
> >
> > I think it is appropriate to delete such messages, because it is a great waste
> > of time if every informal conversation has to be in person so that people can
> > speak frankly.
> >
> > Is there any clear law relating to this?
> >
> > I do realise that not recording *decisions* in writing would be remiss.
> >
> >
> >
> I agree, people should be able to chat, raise odd points, and then move on.
>
> But, as the Scottish Government WhatsApp messsages are gone, then all the
> English ones must now be ignored as well - for the same reason. They are proof
> of absolutely nothing.

Not sure what you mean by proof of nothing. They're proof of the discussions which
were taking place, and a rather more reliable source of evidence then the hazy
recollections of the unwritten discussions.

On 22/01/2024 09:42 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:

> Is it consistent with good governance to delete Whatsapp messages between
> goverment politicians and officials, on the same basis that informal
> conversations are not normally minuted?
>
> I gather the Scottish CMO recommended (and did) this during the pandemic.

And why not, unless every pleasantry exchanged in the lift was going to
be minuted?

See * below.
>
> I think it is appropriate to delete such messages, because it is a great waste
> of time if every informal conversation has to be in person so that people can
> speak frankly.

I agree.
>
> Is there any clear law relating to this?
> I do realise that not recording *decisions* in writing would be remiss.

Not only decisions, but also professionally-tendered advice in response
to official consultations.

*
To: Permanent Secretary DWP From: Chief Medical officer DHHS
Richmond House Alexander Fleming House

Date: 31st June 2021

Ref: Conversation during casual meeting 31st June 2021

1. I hereby to provide the formal minute of our conversation of today's
date at approximately 10.25 am. The meeting took place in the main
lift at AFH.

2. CMO asked the Perm Sec what he would like from the canteen. The Perm
Sec responded that he would appreciate a large Americano and a
Belgian bun, adding that he would pay later, after he had acquired
some change.

3. The meeting ended at approximately 10:26 am.

Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxx
AFH
Tel: Nnn Nnnn Nnnnnn
GTN: Nnn Nnnnn
Email: Nnnn@dwp.gov.uk

On 22/01/2024 21:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
> Is it consistent with good governance to delete Whatsapp messages between
> goverment politicians and officials, on the same basis that informal
> conversations are not normally minuted?
>
> I gather the Scottish CMO recommended (and did) this during the pandemic.
>
> I think it is appropriate to delete such messages, because it is a great waste
> of time if every informal conversation has to be in person so that people can
> speak frankly.
>

I don't buy this. Perhaps high level negotiations benefit from off the
record conversations, but most normal communications should be recorded.
That doesn't mean they have to be public record, but they should be
available if needed. FWIW, I think a lot of the tittle-tattle published
in the Covid inquiry was inappropriate, but I don't regard it as that
significant, just a bit sloppy.

When I worked, my electronic communications were all recorded. I don't
suppose anyone ever listened to them, but if there had been a reason to
do so, they could have.

I don't think it is as inhibiting as people claim. I think it is
reasonable to ask people to justify their actions professionally. Often
it gave me a sense of security, knowing that the recording kept people
honest.

> Is there any clear law relating to this?
>
> I do realise that not recording *decisions* in writing would be remiss.
>

With politicians, I think we need to be very vigilant against
conspiracy, payola. This was particularly true with Covid procurement.

On 23/01/2024 18:06, David McNeish wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 January 2024 at 10:19:54 UTC, kat wrote:
>> On 22/01/2024 21:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>> Is it consistent with good governance to delete Whatsapp messages between
>>> goverment politicians and officials, on the same basis that informal
>>> conversations are not normally minuted?
>>>
>>> I gather the Scottish CMO recommended (and did) this during the pandemic.
>>>
>>> I think it is appropriate to delete such messages, because it is a great waste
>>> of time if every informal conversation has to be in person so that people can
>>> speak frankly.
>>>
>>> Is there any clear law relating to this?
>>>
>>> I do realise that not recording *decisions* in writing would be remiss.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I agree, people should be able to chat, raise odd points, and then move on.
>>
>> But, as the Scottish Government WhatsApp messsages are gone, then all the
>> English ones must now be ignored as well - for the same reason. They are proof
>> of absolutely nothing.
>
> Not sure what you mean by proof of nothing. They're proof of the discussions which
> were taking place, and a rather more reliable source of evidence then the hazy
> recollections of the unwritten discussions.
>
It would be weird if no discussions were taking place, and we can even assume
that there were spoken discussions too. It is after all much easier to say more
when spreaking than when typing - no doubt with some interesting predictive text
mistakes.

In whatsapp this morning my daughter linked to a lego set that made her think of
her dad. Inference could be, should we get it for his birthday, or, is he ever
going to sort out that shelf in his study. I know this because I know the
background, unwritten. But you don't.

You can make assumptions from a few words of written chat and get it entirely
wrong. They don't prove a thing.
--
kat
>^..^<

On 23/01/2024 11:04, Roger Hayter wrote:
> On 23 Jan 2024 at 09:22:37 GMT, "Jeff" <jeff@ukra.com> wrote:
>
>> On 22/01/2024 21:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>> Is it consistent with good governance to delete Whatsapp messages between
>>> goverment politicians and officials, on the same basis that informal
>>> conversations are not normally minuted?
>>>
>>> I gather the Scottish CMO recommended (and did) this during the pandemic.
>>>
>>> I think it is appropriate to delete such messages, because it is a great waste
>>> of time if every informal conversation has to be in person so that people can
>>> speak frankly.
>>>
>>> Is there any clear law relating to this?
>>>
>>> I do realise that not recording *decisions* in writing would be remiss.
>>
>> Personally I think it is remarkable that WhatsApp is not banned for any
>> conversations regarding Official business. Having messages going via
>> foreign uncontrolled servers seems like a very serious security breach.
>>
>> Jeff
>
> If you believe the owners of Whatsapp only the addressee(s), not the server,
> has access to the decrypted message.

I think you're a fool to believe that.

The Enigma machine is a very good example. It was broken, but given the
nature of the importance of the messages, it was important to provide
the fallacy to the enemy it was still secure. Otherwise they would
simply expend a little more effort top make it secure.

I'm sure all the major US endorsed encryption standards work in that
way. Otherwise its export would be ITAR restricted. Look at the
kerfuffle of PGP, which blew over once it was known the password was
encrypted in the message.

On Wednesday 24 January 2024 at 10:08:45 UTC, kat wrote:
> On 23/01/2024 18:06, David McNeish wrote:
> > On Tuesday 23 January 2024 at 10:19:54 UTC, kat wrote:
> >> On 22/01/2024 21:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
> >>> Is it consistent with good governance to delete Whatsapp messages between
> >>> goverment politicians and officials, on the same basis that informal
> >>> conversations are not normally minuted?
> >>>
> >>> I gather the Scottish CMO recommended (and did) this during the pandemic.
> >>>
> >>> I think it is appropriate to delete such messages, because it is a great waste
> >>> of time if every informal conversation has to be in person so that people can
> >>> speak frankly.
> >>>
> >>> Is there any clear law relating to this?
> >>>
> >>> I do realise that not recording *decisions* in writing would be remiss.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> I agree, people should be able to chat, raise odd points, and then move on.
> >>
> >> But, as the Scottish Government WhatsApp messsages are gone, then all the
> >> English ones must now be ignored as well - for the same reason. They are proof
> >> of absolutely nothing.
> >
> > Not sure what you mean by proof of nothing. They're proof of the discussions which
> > were taking place, and a rather more reliable source of evidence then the hazy
> > recollections of the unwritten discussions.
> >
> It would be weird if no discussions were taking place, and we can even assume
> that there were spoken discussions too. It is after all much easier to say more
> when spreaking than when typing - no doubt with some interesting predictive text
> mistakes.
>
> In whatsapp this morning my daughter linked to a lego set that made her think of
> her dad. Inference could be, should we get it for his birthday, or, is he ever
> going to sort out that shelf in his study. I know this because I know the
> background, unwritten. But you don't.
>
> You can make assumptions from a few words of written chat and get it entirely
> wrong. They don't prove a thing.

The copies of the messages prove what the messages were. I agree you can't
make assumptions based purely on them, but that isn't what the inquiry is doing -
the relevant parties are coming in as witnesses and being questioned about the
context of the messages and the other communication and decision-making
which was going on.

Are you suggesting the inquiry ought to pretend the archives of the messages
don't exist?

On 24/01/2024 18:48, David McNeish wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 January 2024 at 10:08:45 UTC, kat wrote:
>> On 23/01/2024 18:06, David McNeish wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 23 January 2024 at 10:19:54 UTC, kat wrote:
>>>> On 22/01/2024 21:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>>>> Is it consistent with good governance to delete Whatsapp messages between
>>>>> goverment politicians and officials, on the same basis that informal
>>>>> conversations are not normally minuted?
>>>>>
>>>>> I gather the Scottish CMO recommended (and did) this during the pandemic.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it is appropriate to delete such messages, because it is a great waste
>>>>> of time if every informal conversation has to be in person so that people can
>>>>> speak frankly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there any clear law relating to this?
>>>>>
>>>>> I do realise that not recording *decisions* in writing would be remiss.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I agree, people should be able to chat, raise odd points, and then move on.
>>>>
>>>> But, as the Scottish Government WhatsApp messsages are gone, then all the
>>>> English ones must now be ignored as well - for the same reason. They are proof
>>>> of absolutely nothing.
>>>
>>> Not sure what you mean by proof of nothing. They're proof of the discussions which
>>> were taking place, and a rather more reliable source of evidence then the hazy
>>> recollections of the unwritten discussions.
>>>
>> It would be weird if no discussions were taking place, and we can even assume
>> that there were spoken discussions too. It is after all much easier to say more
>> when spreaking than when typing - no doubt with some interesting predictive text
>> mistakes.
>>
>> In whatsapp this morning my daughter linked to a lego set that made her think of
>> her dad. Inference could be, should we get it for his birthday, or, is he ever
>> going to sort out that shelf in his study. I know this because I know the
>> background, unwritten. But you don't.
>>
>> You can make assumptions from a few words of written chat and get it entirely
>> wrong. They don't prove a thing.
>
> The copies of the messages prove what the messages were. I agree you can't
> make assumptions based purely on them, but that isn't what the inquiry is doing -
> the relevant parties are coming in as witnesses and being questioned about the
> context of the messages and the other communication and decision-making
> which was going on.
>
> Are you suggesting the inquiry ought to pretend the archives of the messages
> don't exist?
>

They should now, given one part of the UK Government has none. But yes, they
are just chat, what actually matters is not that X raised this random point
because it happened to be mentioned by Y in a spoken conversation, but what
were the decisions actually made after consideration, and were they the right
ones, and what should we do in the future.

Other countries seem to have managed to have their enquiries much quicker - and
cheaper.

--
kat
>^..^<