Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.1021 [SLACK_001235] · slack_pm:msg:10656

Recipients on this medium are inferred from channel membership, not per-message addressing.

I will check with our lawyer but it only requires one of us to say no.

In context

A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.

2021-10-13 13:56 Kristian G. Andersen open

The former we have had previously, the latter not.
2021-10-13 13:58 Kristian G. Andersen open

Yup, totally understand Eddie (which I hope I made clear). I personally _do_ think there's a way to do it without setting a precedent and that's the advice I have been given - but again, totally understand you (and others) can't agree to it.
2021-10-13 14:02 Edward C. Holmes open

Yes, but I've had 3 FOIAs directly asking for this correspondence. There's one at the moment that will likely go tocourt. My University would also object to an FOIA on the grounds that the presumption is that this correspondence was meant to be confidential. Which of course it was. Plus the emails don't get into the fact that the intelligence services were informed throughout.
2021-10-13 14:03 Andrew Rambaut open

I am in the same position. We have been asked for huge tranches of emails and we are refusing to say what exists even.
2021-10-13 14:04 Andrew Rambaut

I will check with our lawyer but it only requires one of us to say no.
2021-10-13 14:06 Edward C. Holmes open

I have to say no
2021-10-13 14:06 Andrew Rambaut open

That's what I mean.
2021-10-13 14:07 Andrew Rambaut open

I don't know what happens if we get overruled - I guess we just have to redact them in the same way they are already redacted
2021-10-13 14:10 Edward C. Holmes open

Ron's is the most interesting