14 ms·
I would have assumed that everyone in this gov/enterprise space used an auditable email logging solution that keeps communications for whatever their applicable
by roamerz 2y ago
I would have assumed that everyone in this gov/enterprise space used an auditable email logging solution that keeps communications for whatever their applicable policy dictates.
- WarOnPrivacy 2y agoI've been reading stories about US Gov agency dirs/mgmnt using private email for Gov business. Ostensibly because it went a long way dodge FOIA. The practice was widespread in every admin, from W until at least 2020.
- adastra22 2y agoThat’s what the whole “Hillary’s emails” thing was about. Not that she had any damning emails, but that she was using a personal email account as Secretary of State to dodge FOIA requests.
- HideousKojima 2y ago>Not that she had any damning emails Hard to say this since tons that were under subpeona were deleted Edit: the best part is Hillary claiming the emails weren't work related and the press just mindlessly repeating that claim. No way to tell if the claim is true or not since they were, y'know, deleted: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-deleted-33000-emails-secretary-state/story?id=42389308 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-deleted-3300...
- lupusreal 2y agoShe's such a nice and reputable person, it makes sense to take her claims at face value.
- aredox 2y agoTrump and co. had four years of full power to get to the bottom of it, and yet they didn't.
- tialaramex 2y agoHow does "getting to the bottom of it" directly benefit Donald Trump ?
- lazide 2y agoWhy would Trump want to get to the bottom of anything?
- adastra22 2y agoEmail is a two way street. If she sent a damning email, the recipient would have it. If she received a damning email, the sender would have a copy. Yet somehow no example of such an email has ever surfaced, despite it being something that would have carried a lot of weight when Trump was president.
- lazide 2y agoWhy would the counterparties surface emails they’d think were damning publically?
- adastra22 2y agoDamning of Hillary, not necessarily the recipient, after she lost the election and was pushed out of politics, and wanted by the new President Trump (their boss) who had an ego desperate for vindication. Doesn't the question answer itself? If we posit the existence of emails indicative of a criminal conspiracy, maybe many of them were damning of both parties and it's reasonable to assume we never saw them. But every single email? That is incredibly unlikely. More likely solution: Hillary did turn over all the emails having to do with her job when it was requested that she do so, and the ones she held back and deleted were conversations with family, online shopping, etc. that she didn't want distributed all over the public media. No criminal conspiracy emails have since shown up because there aren't any.
- lazide 2y agoAh. Well, 1) A criminal conspiracy would necessarily also indict the counterparty, since conspiracy is a crime and they’d just be as culpable. So they’d need to not delete their emails and let them out too, despite knowing this. 2) Yeah, I don’t expect she was doing anything actually very nefarious. Certainly not like the things that have been actively admitted to by Trump in full view of the Public. I’ve personally always taken everything Trump has been ranting about as projection. It certainly holds up well to reality testing, eh?
- Loughla 2y agoWhat I don't understand is that the state agency I work for was VERY clear that if we use personal devices for work, they are immediately able to be subpoenaed in the event that happens. Why would feds be different?
- adastra22 2y agoIn theory they’re not above the law. In practice, they are.
- lazide 2y agoAlso says every gov employee and soldier who would get thrown in a cell in a hot minute for doing any of the things Trump has done re: government secret materiel. Answer: you know why.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 2y agoAlso Biden right, storing them in his garage?
- lazide 2y agoAh, here we go. Poisoning the well of civil discussion, one thread at a time. Compare the facts of the situations side by side, I’ll wait.
- robertlagrant 2y agoThis is the only poison-ey comment. If you want to compare them, do so. Don't just name-call.
- lazide 2y agoI didn’t start the comparison, you should note. I merely asked for them to be DIRECT about it, instead of ‘whattaboutism’. Is everyone really this easy to manipulate?
- 2y ago
- koolba 2y agoAnd more specifically that she unilaterally decided which emails were “official” and which were personal rather than deferring that decision to a third party. And then she had whatever she considered personal deleted, after being served with a subpoena for all the emails on their server.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y agoSince SCOTUS just recently said that POTUS gets to make this decision, there's a good chance they think that the SoS does too.
- jordanb 2y agoHillary's emails was more about the Presidential Records Act than FOIA. PRA requires documents of the president, vice president and their staff to be kept forever. It was enacted because of efforts by Nixon to destroy information. Using private email services to avoid the PRA was only outlawed in 2014, which is after Hillary was no longer in the administration. However, it was obviously a pretty scummy thing to do before it was illegal.
- IG_Semmelweiss 2y agoCan we dive into this further? Is the noncompliance with the presidential records Act, an illegal act? Because that's what is suggested was true ,until 2014. Is that correct?
- philwelch 2y agoThere were a lot of problems with Hillary’s email server. The major criminal liability was the fact that classified information had been sent and received in many of those emails, though Comey ultimately decided that this was not intentional on Hillary’s part. There was also concerns about security and email retention. The retention issues were kind of funny; the official sequence of events was: 1. Hillary’s chief of staff and lawyers go through her emails and send all the work related ones to the State Department for archiving. 2. Hillary’s chief of staff then asks PRN (the company managing the server) to set a 60 day retention policy. 3. Months pass. 4. The server comes to public attention, and a Congressional committee investigating the Benghazi fiasco subpoenas Hillary’s emails. 5. The guy at PRN realizes he never actually turned on the retention policy so he panics and starts deleting emails with BleachBit.
- dehrmann 2y agoThis always shocked me because of how big of a red flag this would be at any private business larger than 10-100 employees.
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago> That’s what the whole “Hillary’s emails” thing was about. You're not wrong but Hillary was 1 of 1000. Nearly everyone angry about Hillary cared nothing about all the other agency mgmt doing the same. Because ~0% cared about the the issue in a meaningful way, nothing got done and the practice carried on after she went away.
- blindriver 2y agoOne of the top aides for Fauci admitted that Fauci and he used private email addresses to do government business. He even admitted ways he would use to avoid detection from FOIA.
- slater- 2y agoWho? When?
- blindriver 2y agoI'm actually shocked that you don't know this. It was big news a few months ago. https://www.nbcmontana.com/news/nation-world/fauci-advisor-bragged-about-avoiding-public-records-law-documents-show-freedom-of-information-act-or-foia-coronavirus-pandemic-david-morens https://www.nbcmontana.com/news/nation-world/fauci-advisor-b... https://oversight.house.gov/release/new-covid-select-memo-details-allegations-of-wrongdoing-and-illegal-activity-by-dr-faucis-senior-scientific-advisor/ https://oversight.house.gov/release/new-covid-select-memo-de... https://thehill.com/video/top-fauci-aide-david-morens-caught-deleting-emails-accused-of-lying-to-congress/9722032/ https://thehill.com/video/top-fauci-aide-david-morens-caught...
- WarOnPrivacy 2y agoLet say that's true. If someone is angry about Fauci but give a pass to the many, many other agency directors doing the same thing - that someone isn't really angry about the issue are they? It's just something to exploit and then forget about.
- blindriver 2y agohttps://www.nbcmontana.com/news/nation-world/fauci-advisor-bragged-about-avoiding-public-records-law-documents-show-freedom-of-information-act-or-foia-coronavirus-pandemic-david-morens https://www.nbcmontana.com/news/nation-world/fauci-advisor-b...
- datavirtue 2y agoIf I recall correctly, FOIA says "in the course of government business." Doesnt matter what system you use unless that system is destroying emails...which is illegal.
- WarOnPrivacy 2y agoSure but someone has to care enough to pursue action. Whoever that is, their boss and their boss' boss are doing it too.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y agoMy guess is that you did not read the article (and, from reading most of the other comments, you are not alone). They were using "auditable email logging solution that keeps communications for whatever their applicable policy dictates." The issue is that the CDC had a policy where lower level employees had their emails deleted after 90 days (and there was nothing secret about this, it was their standard procedure), but there is disagreement over how long these lower level employees have to have their emails retained due to the CDC agreeing to a "Capstone" records retention program from the National Archives. The article has the details. Issue being, the headline is written in a way that deliberately makes it sound like something nefarious is going on, where it sounds like an underlying disagreement over the interpretation of how long records were required to be retained due to this signing on to the Capstone program. Regardless, this is the Internet, so I'm sure everyone with an axe to grind will read this as "WhaT tHe CDC doEsn'T wAnT yOu to Seeeee!!!!"
- skissane 2y ago> Issue being, the headline is written in a way that deliberately makes it sound like something nefarious is going on, where it sounds like an underlying disagreement over the interpretation of how long records were required to be retained due to this signing on to the Capstone program. From the article, it seems there was a dispute over which of two scenarios applied (1) the CDC agreed to implement the whole of the Capstone program but then unilaterally decided to stop applying it to lower-level employees; (2) the CDC agreed to implement it for senior employees only and never agreed to implement it for lower-level employees. Plaintiffs claimed the situation was (1), the CDC claimed it was (2), the judge decided based on the evidence (1) was more likely. The plaintiffs are GOP-aligned and the judge is an Obama appointee, so one must assume the judge is ruling based on the evidence, not partisan bias. Given that, it definitely makes the CDC and the DOJ look bad - if the judge’s ruling is correct, then they were presenting a false narrative to the Court
- roamerz 2y agoMy point exactly. They may have been using a logging solution but whoever made the decision to keep communications for only 90 days was derelict in their duty, incompetent, or, deliberately trying to protect the agency from scrutiny. Do you have any evidence that something nefarious wasn’t happening? That’s the point of communication through approved channels keeping records of said comms.