Public Inquiries (PI) & WhatsApp Messages

[Scarletpimpofnel]

I'm posting this here regarding the law associated with public inquiries (and also because I cannot post in NPE)...

There is much fuss at the moment about missing WhatsApp messages that the covid PI wants access to. In my mind a PI would be set up to establish if, with the evidence available on a timeline, were the right decisions made at the right time and what lessons could be learnt.

So the key things are what evidence was available when, and when and what decisions were arrived at from that evidence. And were those with the benefit of hindsight the best decisions.

I don't see what use the WhatsApp messages are in this. I don't see that the back ground conversations around the decisions and no doubt a whole load of private thoughts/comments is relevant? What is relevant is when policies were announced not that "person A had a hissy fit and called person B a t*t". The latter might be good fodder for the Daily Mail etc but in my mind lowers the tone of the PI as this tittle-tattle is all that the msm and opposition will focus on and will no doubt get ten times the airtime than any lessons learnt will do.

So why do PI needs private WhatsApp messages rather than just focus on what evidence was available from the scientists etc and what decisons were derived from that?

[MustangGT]

Surely it is the WA messages between government members they are interested in? If so, no reason not to view it, they should not be using WA for official business anyway.

[untakenname]

The real question is why are they using Whatsapp in the first place for matters of such importance?


In the news yesterday a company was fined a six figure sum for leaving an employee that was off on sick so left out of a whatsapp groupchat.

Edited by untakenname on Wednesday 4th October 11:51

[donkmeister]

This answers all the questions above:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/non-cor...

So yes, it can be used for official business up to Official Sensitive. Record keeping is necessary, i.e. don't delete the messages in order to answer any audit queries.

[Biker 1]

donkmeister said:

This answers all the questions above:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/non-cor...

So yes, it can be used for official business up to Official Sensitive. Record keeping is necessary, i.e. don't delete the messages in order to answer any audit queries.

This is where a load of MPs will get caught out: some will delete their WA messages in the belief that they are permanently deleted & therefore can't be used as evidence. The problem is, the recipient or sender may choose not to delete messages, or even keep backups. If it is indeed shown that MPs have been trying to cover something up in this way, surely they will end up in a lot of trouble?

[pork911]

Such messages may be not only absolutely relevant but may be crucial to gaining an accurate understanding of many matters very much within the remit.

[Steve-B]

All electronic forms of communication are regulated, and companies/governement are legally bound to archive them for eDiscovery, and retention, etc. This has been the case since the late 90s, first in the USA then almost all countries globally. Saying "I can't remember the passcode", etc is a load of boll ox and won't stand the test in court as the courts would rightly penalise/fine those complicit in not producing the content.

Which is why I'm so utterly @£$%^&*ed off with all gubmnt types trying it on.

Disclaimer: I was with a UK company that invented active archiving (email, files, texts, etc) and am not up to speed with current legilisation but I do know for a fact the laws have been strengthened, not relaxed!

[Tribal Chestnut]

I wouldn’t be surprised to see the OP firmly in the ‘if you’ve got nothing to hide’ camp when it comes to CCTV, invasions of the electorate’s privacy, etc, etc.

[Scarletpimpofnel]

Tribal Chestnut said:

I wouldn’t be surprised to see the OP firmly in the ‘if you’ve got nothing to hide’ camp when it comes to CCTV, invasions of the electorate’s privacy, etc, etc.

I'm not sure what you mean. I was asking a genuine question out of curiosity. To me a PI should look at what evidence was available and when, versus what decisions were made from that evidence and when. I don't see that looking at who said / typed what on WhatsApp or elsewhere is relevant. It's what decisions were made from the evidence I would think is important. I feel all the ploughing through WA messages is simply to get "nuggets" like "person A called person B a t**t in a WA message" for the msm to publish which to me detracts from the real outcome that is needed which is what should be done differently now and next time.

[Scarletpimpofnel]

donkmeister said:

This answers all the questions above:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/non-cor...

So yes, it can be used for official business up to Official Sensitive. Record keeping is necessary, i.e. don't delete the messages in order to answer any audit queries.

That link is dated March 2023 so is presumably a clarification intended to stop any similar lack of clarity over the use of personal WA etc again in the future. I can't see that it is Issue 2 etc so assume it is new government wide guidance.

[MustangGT]

Scarletpimpofnel said:

Tribal Chestnut said:

I wouldn’t be surprised to see the OP firmly in the ‘if you’ve got nothing to hide’ camp when it comes to CCTV, invasions of the electorate’s privacy, etc, etc.

I'm not sure what you mean. I was asking a genuine question out of curiosity. To me a PI should look at what evidence was available and when, versus what decisions were made from that evidence and when. I don't see that looking at who said / typed what on WhatsApp or elsewhere is relevant. It's what decisions were made from the evidence I would think is important. I feel all the ploughing through WA messages is simply to get "nuggets" like "person A called person B a t**t in a WA message" for the msm to publish which to me detracts from the real outcome that is needed which is what should be done differently now and next time.

So you are saying WA messages are not relevant even though used a lot in decision making?

Of course it is relevant!

[donkmeister]

Scarletpimpofnel said:

donkmeister said:

This answers all the questions above:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/non-cor...

So yes, it can be used for official business up to Official Sensitive. Record keeping is necessary, i.e. don't delete the messages in order to answer any audit queries.

That link is dated March 2023 so is presumably a clarification intended to stop any similar lack of clarity over the use of personal WA etc again in the future. I can't see that it is Issue 2 etc so assume it is new government wide guidance.

These rules are older than the page. I remember even back in 2020 WhatsApp was on the government list of acceptable non-corporate comms tools (but the Apple equivalent wasn't, which annoyed some who would have preferred to use it). Note that this doesn't mean really sensitive stuff can be shared on WhatsApp, but government business can be conducted using these tools. You aren't going to have Sunak asking to be sent the nuclear attack codes on Yahoo Messenger or something.

Bespoke stuff for everything doesn't help anyone and isn't necessarily any more secure. Instead they have clever people validating security of off the shelf tools, and assessing weaknesses. You have other people doing risk balance cases where they are trading off the ability for the government to effectively/efficiently do work Vs the ability of nefarious actors to gain an advantage.

[Ian Geary]

Don't forget also: the Daily Mail will winkle out and fixate on those "nuggets", or politically embarrassing WhatsApps, because that's what geta clicks.

It doesn't necessarily mean there isn't loads of other, potentially valuable usage of WhatsApp that is relevant to the inquiry's work.

I read something yesterday about the chaos from the pov of a civil servant because it was Boris's wife calling the shots.

Now that is relevant to a review of policy making. It also lets all the "I told you so" types say "I told you so". Hence it got a headline.

The public inquiry is also apparently warning people that WhatsApp messages don't have nuance or context, so to take that into account when reviewing them (which of course no one will do)

[MustangGT]

Ian Geary said:

I read something yesterday about the chaos from the pov of a civil servant because it was Boris's wife calling the shots.

Now that is relevant to a review of policy making.

They should be used to it after the Tony Blair years.