6 ms·

See also the "Bush White House email controversy": [1] > The "gwb43.com" domain name was publicized by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CR

See also the "Bush White House email controversy": [1] > The "gwb43.com" domain name was publicized by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), who sent a letter to Oversight and Government Reform Committee committee chairman Henry A. Waxman requesting an investigation. > Waxman sent a formal warning to the RNC, advising them to retain copies of all emails sent by White House employees. According to Waxman, "in some instances, White House officials were using nongovernmental accounts specifically to avoid creating a record of the communications." >The Republican National Committee claims to have erased the emails, supposedly making them unavailable for Congressional investigators It is hopeless to expect voluntary transparency by the government, there is no incentive to 1) comply with the rules when transparency is clearly detrimental to your backroom deals or 2) to punish the very people that appointed you to your high positioned job or 3) to punish the opponents in the other party when they fail to comply while, after 4 years, the positions can be reversed and you may be in the crosshairs in a similar investigation. Nothing was done when Bush did it, nothing will be done now that is Hillary doing it and don't expect anything different regardless of what party manage to snag the congress and White House. If regulatory capture is a significant problem in the private sector imagine inside the government itself. It is hopeless. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controv...

MrTonyD 10y ago
Many workers are closely supervised and monitored (I think of the facial recognition being used by WalMart to track all their employees continuously.) I think that both wealth and power should come with responsibilities - and the obligation to be monitored for the good of our society. All Big Data techniques should be used to monitor them closely - to keep track of every person they contact and the nature of their conversations. At the same time, there should be less monitoring of ordinary citizens.
- pc86 10y ago
  This is easily one of most ridiculous things I've read on here in a long time.
tanderson92 10y ago
The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed the initial suits, suing for information related to Hillary Clinton's e-mails. Then they were taken over by Clinton acolyte and hatchet-man David Brock, using his super PAC money. They have since had a, um, strategic restructuring. Incredibly, this line of inquiry has been dropped by CREW.
- DanielBMarkham 10y ago
  If you're interested in corruption in government, the CREW story is incredibly interesting. Most of these agencies have internal quality control and feedback systems, notably the Inspectors General. In many cases these systems are no longer working like they should. NGOs tried taking over that role. Now we're seeing the NGOs being "strategically restructured" Who's left? The press? They suck up to whomever is in power. If they don't, they get locked out. SV? All they care about is keeping the money machine going. I'm looking around and not seeing much of an answer.
  - blowski 10y ago
    Perhaps forums like HN and /r/politics genuinely are the best we have.
    - DanielBMarkham 10y ago
      I think you are correct. My concern is that in the near future we're going to start seeing citizens scored on how much of a threat they are to the government. The scoring will be driven by comments in forums such as these. And that scoring system will not distinguish folks who are peaceful yet very angry from folks who are very angry and could become violent. Combine that with automated enforcement of laws and we could be in a real world of shit. I don't care which party runs the government. I'll even say screw it about how big the government is. We can have that fight another day. But over the last decade or two we're seeing the feedback systems break down. That's totally fucked. (For comparison, think about the political tornado that happened in the 70s when the U.S. intelligence services were caught screwing up. Now compare that to them being caught doing as bad or worse things over the last few years.)
mtgx 10y ago
Just because it has happened in the past, doesn't mean the government can't be forced to change. However, it's that sort of defeatist attitude that: 1) is contagious and makes most people who read it to think the same way. In other words, such comments actively harm any potential progress, even if the authors think that "they are simply stating the obvious." 2) makes those in power see that the People aren't outraged about their actions "because it's expected," which gives them an even bigger incentive to keep doing those actions because they know no one expects them to be punished.
lern_too_spel 10y ago
> Nothing was done when Bush did it, nothing will be done now that is Hillary doing it and don't expect anything different regardless of what party manage to snag the congress and White House. Something already has been done. It is now illegal to do what Bush and Clinton did, though it wasn't at the time they did it. http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/03/03/the-new-york-times-deceptive-suggestion-that-hi/202726 http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/03/03/the-new-york-tim...
msluyter 10y ago
It is hopeless to expect voluntary transparency by the government... Well, not only that, but transparency rules create certain perverse incentives. If all emails are discoverable, for example, then people will simply tend to shift their meaningful conversations to the phone.
- nickff 10y ago
  Janet Napoletano has said she only does business in person and over the phone...

MrTonyD 10y ago

Many workers are closely supervised and monitored (I think of the facial recognition being used by WalMart to track all their employees continuously.) I think that both wealth and power should come with responsibilities - and the obligation to be monitored for the good of our society. All Big Data techniques should be used to monitor them closely - to keep track of every person they contact and the nature of their conversations. At the same time, there should be less monitoring of ordinary citizens.

pc86 10y ago
This is easily one of most ridiculous things I've read on here in a long time.

tanderson92 10y ago

The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed the initial suits, suing for information related to Hillary Clinton's e-mails. Then they were taken over by Clinton acolyte and hatchet-man David Brock, using his super PAC money. They have since had a, um, strategic restructuring. Incredibly, this line of inquiry has been dropped by CREW.

DanielBMarkham 10y ago
If you're interested in corruption in government, the CREW story is incredibly interesting. Most of these agencies have internal quality control and feedback systems, notably the Inspectors General. In many cases these systems are no longer working like they should. NGOs tried taking over that role. Now we're seeing the NGOs being "strategically restructured" Who's left? The press? They suck up to whomever is in power. If they don't, they get locked out. SV? All they care about is keeping the money machine going. I'm looking around and not seeing much of an answer.
- blowski 10y ago
  Perhaps forums like HN and /r/politics genuinely are the best we have.
  - DanielBMarkham 10y ago
    I think you are correct. My concern is that in the near future we're going to start seeing citizens scored on how much of a threat they are to the government. The scoring will be driven by comments in forums such as these. And that scoring system will not distinguish folks who are peaceful yet very angry from folks who are very angry and could become violent. Combine that with automated enforcement of laws and we could be in a real world of shit. I don't care which party runs the government. I'll even say screw it about how big the government is. We can have that fight another day. But over the last decade or two we're seeing the feedback systems break down. That's totally fucked. (For comparison, think about the political tornado that happened in the 70s when the U.S. intelligence services were caught screwing up. Now compare that to them being caught doing as bad or worse things over the last few years.)

mtgx 10y ago

Just because it has happened in the past, doesn't mean the government can't be forced to change. However, it's that sort of defeatist attitude that: 1) is contagious and makes most people who read it to think the same way. In other words, such comments actively harm any potential progress, even if the authors think that "they are simply stating the obvious." 2) makes those in power see that the People aren't outraged about their actions "because it's expected," which gives them an even bigger incentive to keep doing those actions because they know no one expects them to be punished.

lern_too_spel 10y ago

> Nothing was done when Bush did it, nothing will be done now that is Hillary doing it and don't expect anything different regardless of what party manage to snag the congress and White House. Something already has been done. It is now illegal to do what Bush and Clinton did, though it wasn't at the time they did it. http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/03/03/the-new-york-times-deceptive-suggestion-that-hi/202726 http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/03/03/the-new-york-tim...

msluyter 10y ago

It is hopeless to expect voluntary transparency by the government... Well, not only that, but transparency rules create certain perverse incentives. If all emails are discoverable, for example, then people will simply tend to shift their meaningful conversations to the phone.

nickff 10y ago
Janet Napoletano has said she only does business in person and over the phone...