3 ms·

> Intuitively, it feels that those emails aren't official government records. But according to the law, they actually are official records. [1] Emails from top

by GVIrish 10y ago

> Intuitively, it feels that those emails aren't official government records. But according to the law, they actually are official records. [1] Emails from top-level officials like heads of cabinet agencies are part of the official record. Emails from rank and file employees typically are not. There are well over 2.6 million people in government (over 4 mil counting the military) and hundreds of thousands of contractors. If even 10% of all those emails had to be archived and stored in the National Archives it would constitute an enormous amount of data, much of it of little use. > All government employees and contractors undergo annual records retention training that requires them to be aware of the obligation to retain relevant communication for the required time period. I can assure you that record retention training is not standard nor is it annual at State Department. Wasn't that way at DoD in the past either. Some jobs and offices would deal with it a lot more than others but regular joes and janes don't deal with that issue much.

linkregister 10y ago
I can assure you that the training was required at both State and Defense [1] from 2010 to 2014. The requirement was for all users of the networks to archive their email and other documents. Failure to complete the training would result in revocation of computer network access. I never claimed that the National Archives performed the records retention. Each individual was required to perform their own retention up until each class of records' retention expiration. It feels unintuitive, but that was indeed the standard. It is probably still that way, but I no longer work in that sector so I can't authoritatively state that. Personally, I find it frustrating when commenters on HN make a statement with an authoritative tone without citation or definitive knowledge, just because they truly believe something must be so. It is in fact contributing to noise, not signal. [1] personal experience
- GVIrish 10y ago
  I have worked at State since 2009, it's not a department wide requirement. Security training is yearly and mandatory but record retention and NARA compliance is a different matter.
  - tanderson92 10y ago
    > it's not a department wide requirement I suppose that the head of State (who was that again?) can't be expected to follow correct procedure if they weren't properly trained. If only there were a diplomat running the department at that time who could have directed that all relevant staffers and heads of state received proper training. Hopefully this carelessness doesn't affect the importance that staffers give to using proper procedures for handling classified documents. In all seriousness, that is what this part of your position reduces to: the head of a department didn't break any rules because they didn't receive the proper training. You hopefully can see why people might see that as a problem, even if not a crime.
    - GVIrish 10y ago
      You're talking about a couple of different issues here. Official record retention for the purpose of storing to the National Archives rarely applies to the emails of normal employees. There isn't department wide mandatory training on this because it's not really needed. Secretary Clinton would be required to archive her official email as the head of a major agency. There is mandatory training on security and handling classified materials. I'm not saying Clinton didn't receive proper training on either NARA compliance or handling classified material. It just appears that she circumvented the spirit of the archival rules buy maybe not the letter. Classification-wise it sounds like the information was not marked as classified when it was sent to Clinton. If something is changed to classified after the fact that doesn't mean the recipient of the information committed a violation. Now if it turns out Clinton knowingly handled classified materials on unclassified systems that would be a security violation. Then the question would get into intent and impact to determine what charges and punishment would be warranted. Usually there has to be some intent and an attempt to distribute classified info before jail time comes into play.
  - linkregister 10y ago
    Thanks for responding; I'm surprised and dismayed that records retention training isn't universal. Not that I can see the SecState clicking through hours of computer-based training, that would be delegated to an assistant.

by GVIrish 10y ago

linkregister 10y ago

I can assure you that the training was required at both State and Defense [1] from 2010 to 2014. The requirement was for all users of the networks to archive their email and other documents. Failure to complete the training would result in revocation of computer network access. I never claimed that the National Archives performed the records retention. Each individual was required to perform their own retention up until each class of records' retention expiration. It feels unintuitive, but that was indeed the standard. It is probably still that way, but I no longer work in that sector so I can't authoritatively state that. Personally, I find it frustrating when commenters on HN make a statement with an authoritative tone without citation or definitive knowledge, just because they truly believe something must be so. It is in fact contributing to noise, not signal. [1] personal experience

GVIrish 10y ago
I have worked at State since 2009, it's not a department wide requirement. Security training is yearly and mandatory but record retention and NARA compliance is a different matter.
- tanderson92 10y ago
  > it's not a department wide requirement I suppose that the head of State (who was that again?) can't be expected to follow correct procedure if they weren't properly trained. If only there were a diplomat running the department at that time who could have directed that all relevant staffers and heads of state received proper training. Hopefully this carelessness doesn't affect the importance that staffers give to using proper procedures for handling classified documents. In all seriousness, that is what this part of your position reduces to: the head of a department didn't break any rules because they didn't receive the proper training. You hopefully can see why people might see that as a problem, even if not a crime.
  - GVIrish 10y ago
    You're talking about a couple of different issues here. Official record retention for the purpose of storing to the National Archives rarely applies to the emails of normal employees. There isn't department wide mandatory training on this because it's not really needed. Secretary Clinton would be required to archive her official email as the head of a major agency. There is mandatory training on security and handling classified materials. I'm not saying Clinton didn't receive proper training on either NARA compliance or handling classified material. It just appears that she circumvented the spirit of the archival rules buy maybe not the letter. Classification-wise it sounds like the information was not marked as classified when it was sent to Clinton. If something is changed to classified after the fact that doesn't mean the recipient of the information committed a violation. Now if it turns out Clinton knowingly handled classified materials on unclassified systems that would be a security violation. Then the question would get into intent and impact to determine what charges and punishment would be warranted. Usually there has to be some intent and an attempt to distribute classified info before jail time comes into play.
- linkregister 10y ago
  Thanks for responding; I'm surprised and dismayed that records retention training isn't universal. Not that I can see the SecState clicking through hours of computer-based training, that would be delegated to an assistant.