this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2026
780 points (99.4% liked)
Videos
18467 readers
952 users here now
For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!
Rules
- Videos only (aside from meta posts flagged with [META])
- Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
- Don't be a jerk
- No advertising
- No political videos, post those to !politicalvideos@lemmy.world instead.
- Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
- Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
- Duplicate posts may be removed
- AI generated content must be tagged with "[AI] …" ^Discussion^
Note: bans may apply to both !videos@lemmy.world and !politicalvideos@lemmy.world
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It should not be legal for elected officials to sign NDAs with corporations.
That was my reaction before I even read the text at the bottom of the post.
It should not be legal for elected officials to sign NDAs ~~with corporations~~.
Part of the price for being given the power of office should be the loss of privacy. If you are an official, you are no longer a private citizen. You are a representative and should not be doing anything you want to keep secret from your constituency.
Except for personal stuff. But any action that will impact anyone outside of their family should be public.
I'd argue that medical records and maybe travel info should also be open. Though travel info should be on a delay of say 2 months.
I'd argue relevant medical records. I don't need to know if an elected official has diabetes or is on PrEP, but I do need to know if they're off their mental health medication, if they're experiencing dementia, or if they're dead/dying.
I generally agree with that, but sometimes government officials have to perform official duties that require confidentiality.
If they're intervening on behalf of a constituent and it involves medical or otherwise personal information, then they should be required to maintain confidentiality. Whether that requires an NDA or something else is a different question.
No NDA necessary. That'd be under other laws/systems. Some would be under things like HIPAA in the US if they learned the information in the course of their work. At minimum, it would fall under civil liability if they publicised private information of private individuals and those people claimed that it caused them harm in some way.
At this point I think you may not even understand what a NDA is.
Are you under the impression if someone doesn't want to talk about a topic, they just "sign a NDA" and don't have to talk about it?
If by "sometimes" you mean "they'll make you sign a NDA to tell you 8 hours before everyone else it's Taco Tuesday"...
Yeah, that's pretty close
NDAs aren't rare at all, and I wish it was surprising no one on Lemmy seems to have actual governmental experience.
Hey jackass, I had to sign an NDA when I left my government job because I held a security clearance. I know more about it than you do.
Trite quips about taco tuesday aside, government jobs require confidentiality about some things, and transparency about others. There's no contradiction there, but ideally it should be unambiguous where the boundary is. Those things should be clearly defined.
A good start, albeit still overly simplistic, would be to say confidentiality concerning information belonging to their constituents, and transparency concerning information belonging to corporations and their donors. Unfortunately that still leaves a lot of vaguery and wiggle-room.
But I'm no policy-maker, so even if I were to write a twenty-page document defining everything in minute detail, it still wouldn't matter.