W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > November 2011

Re: Twitter use by elected officials

From: Anne L. Washington <washingtona@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 15:59:33 -0500 (EST)
To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
cc: "eGov IG (Public)" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSX.4.63.1111111550590.19383@anneimacs-computer.local>
Maybe  the question is how to archive social media and
not whether it is a public record?

The U.S. equivalent of the Hansard is the Congressional Record, if I 
remember well. They are both official records of what is said on the 
floors during legislative debate. A tweet is an interesting artifact but 
not an official part of the debate. Should it or can it be regulated 
differently?  I suppose it depends on what the situation is.

Given the difficulty in establishing email as part of a legislative 
archive, I imagine that establishing tweets is much further down the road 
in terms of records management policy.

However, it is a valid question.
How and really WHO should archive political communication in the 
form of social media streams?

Anne L. Washington, PhD
Standards work - W3C - washingtona@acm.org
Academic work - George Mason University

On Sat, 12 Nov 2011, Tim McNamara wrote:

> -1 from me.
> Hansard records debates. Interjections and such are not included.
> On 12 November 2011 09:22, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:
>> One of the discussions during the face to face meeting the other day
>> concerned elected officials' use of social media. Many western legislators
>> now routinely tweet from the floor of their house. We discussed whether such
>> public statements should or should not be part of the public record -
>> probably above our pay grades - but suppose they, or anyone, wanted to
>> archive their Tweets and other social media: how would they do it?
>> But the news about Icelandic MP Birgitta Jonsdottir having her Twitter
>> account forced open by the US courts raised another issue in my mind. In
>> Britain, MPs in the House of Commons are protected under something called
>> Parliamentary Privilege which means they can say what they like without fear
>> of prosecution for slander/defamation (or anything else).
>> That may be a legal rather than a tech matter, but, *if* we do look at this
>> issue (and I would find it fascinating personally), then it's the kind of
>> thing we might have to bear in mind.
>> What I actually have in mind for this group, potentially, is a best
>> practices doc that talks about archiving of social media updates and tries
>> to distil common points from the various codes of conduct springing up in
>> parliaments around the world.
>> Just ruminating...
>> Phil.
>> [1]
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/11/us-verdict-privacy-wikileaks-twitter
>> --
>> Phil Archer
>> W3C eGovernment
>> http://www.w3.org/egov/
>> http://philarcher.org
>> @philarcher1
Received on Friday, 11 November 2011 21:00:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:00:46 UTC