[sanotehu]

Agreed. You're putting an overworked, underpaid public servant in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. They complied with a far reaching request and got told their response was too far reaching? I'd quit my job if faced with a legal minefield like that, especially one not actually related to the job itself

[Aeolun]

Why do you think complying with these requests is not part of the job for Seattle IT?

I would think it’s pretty cool to retrieve this massive amount of data that I wouldn’t otherwise get to play with.

[setr]

Presumably this should be considered overreaching should be considered an important though: if there’s an authorization process in play, then more information has been given out than the public servant was actually authorized to hand out. If me as a citizen starts receiving sensitive information despite only being authorized to receive insensitive info, that could easily become a significant security breach.

In fact, a known security check was actually bypassed in this case: the email review, reserved for the content of the email, causing the whole problem in the first place.

It seems to me imperative that they actually deliver up to the amount authorized. Ideally exactly the amount, but never more.

[hnaccy]

>They complied with a far reaching request and got told their response was too far reaching?

He requested metadata and they sent actual email content, kind of a big difference there.