4 ms·

Well, the specific law referenced here is a federal law which only applies to high ranking federal officials (e.g. Cabinet secretaries). It would apply to Clint

by jeremyt 12y ago

Well, the specific law referenced here is a federal law which only applies to high ranking federal officials (e.g. Cabinet secretaries). It would apply to Clinton, but not to most of the people on your list. "The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities. (44 U.S. Code § 3101)" The only relevant question is, "are emails 'records'?", and according to the State Department, the answer is yes: "All employees must be aware that some of the variety of the messages being exchanged on E-mail are important to the Department and must be preserved; such messages are considered Federal records under the law. (5 FAM [Foreign Affairs Manual] " And I might add that the accusation here is not that she had a personal account in addition to her official one, it's that she didn't have an official one at all.

eitally 12y ago
In the corporate world, the generally accepted internal policy is that email is not a system of record, and that when documents (including the email itself) are sent or received via email, those must be exported separately and saved in whatever is the system of record. This, of course, flies contrary to the trends in e-discovery from a prosecutorial point of view, but it does make sense.
- forgottenpass 12y ago
  In the corporate world, the generally accepted internal policy is that email is not a system of record Saying "email is not a system of record" is lot like saying "RAID is not a backup". Just because you don't use reliable a long term storage medium doesn't mean you don't have and use those records. It doesn't even fly contrary to e-discovery, it's just a difference in multiple contextual definitions of "record."
- sukilot 12y ago
  That's more like saying "RAM is not durable storage, everything must be saved to disk for durability." It doesn't mean it's OK to run the office solely in RAM, it means the opposite.
drzaiusapelord 12y ago
Palin used her yahoo account for state business. She did violate state law. I'm not familiar with the others, but the issue isn't so cut and dry.
- buttcoinslol 12y ago
  I forgot which Cabinet post Palin was appointed to, can you refresh my memory?
  - briandear 12y ago
    It doesn't matter. Moral relativism is the name of the game. It would be interesting if the anti-Palin crowd would spend some time looking into all of the criminality from members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Have a look at this list of the most corrupt politicians in the US; then perhaps we can talk about Palin using yahoo. http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-announces-list-washingtons-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-2010/ http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judic... The fact is this, Palin matters because she's not a Democrat. Democrats have Stockholm Syndrome. When a Republican is corrupt, much of the time, they resign. When a Democrat is corrupt, they get reelected. Re: Marion Berry, Maxine Waters, Charlie Rangel, Chris Dodd. Tom Delay was another bad one, however he was actually charged with a crime and he resigned. Palin is nothing more than a proxy to rationalize bad behavior. Democrats most definitely don't have a monopoly on corruption; however how Democrat voters deal with the corruption is markedly telling.
    - hga 12y ago
      "Tom Delay was another bad one, however he was actually charged with a crime and he resigned." And was then vindicated in the courts. Texas has a weird arrangement where the very Blue Austin area prosecutor has a remit for political corruption in the entire state. The same officer recently indicted (now former) Governor Perry for threatening a veto, a rather unique take on a constitutionally enshrined executive action.
- briandear 12y ago
dragonwriter 12y ago
> The only relevant question is, "are emails 'records'?" I don't know, I see other relevant questions. For instance, nothing in the quoted law says anything about how they shall "make and preserve" the records, only what purposes those records must be adequate to serve. So, using private email alone doesn't seem to be a violation, it seems to be something that might be the starting point for an inquiry as to whether she made and preserved "ontaining adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities", but it doesn't alone provide an answer to that question whether or not you consider emails as records.
- danielweber 12y ago
  Undoubtedly emails are records. This has been established in previous scandals from both parties that failed to retain them as required. In the corporate world, if there were a legal requirement for compliance, the auditor would verify that all work email is going over work servers, and then review the policies in place on those servers. You could technically let a special employee run their own server, but then that server would need to be audited, and the policies in place there reviewed. "Nah, you can trust Joe" wouldn't cut it. Otherwise the entire point of compliance laws just goes out the window.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > In the corporate world, if there were a legal requirement for compliance, the auditor would verify that all work email is going over work servers Legal compliance audits that I have been involved in tend to go beyond what is unquestionably prohibited by the law and also seek to identify and eliminate activities which might arguably violate the law (and thus create legal risk) including, but not limited to, those which violate organizations internal guidelines which are based on the applicable law but whose requirements may be (generally, should be) more strict than the law itself. There are three different, but related, categories into which this might fall, in decreasing order of breadth: 1) Behavior that would be of concern to a compliance audit focused on the law in question, 2) Behavior that would violate administration guidance related to achieving compliance with the law in question, 3) Behavior that actually violates the law in question. You are arguing, and I agree, that it is #1. There are reports that administration sources have indicated that it is #2 (I see no reason to doubt them, though I haven't seen the actual guidance, so I don't have an informed opinion.) Neither of those, however, is the same thing as it being #3.
Zigurd 12y ago
That can't be the only law that applies. Information derived from classified documents, that should be highly secured, is very likely to have moved through these unofficial channels.

by jeremyt 12y ago

eitally 12y ago

In the corporate world, the generally accepted internal policy is that email is not a system of record, and that when documents (including the email itself) are sent or received via email, those must be exported separately and saved in whatever is the system of record. This, of course, flies contrary to the trends in e-discovery from a prosecutorial point of view, but it does make sense.

forgottenpass 12y ago
In the corporate world, the generally accepted internal policy is that email is not a system of record Saying "email is not a system of record" is lot like saying "RAID is not a backup". Just because you don't use reliable a long term storage medium doesn't mean you don't have and use those records. It doesn't even fly contrary to e-discovery, it's just a difference in multiple contextual definitions of "record."
sukilot 12y ago
That's more like saying "RAM is not durable storage, everything must be saved to disk for durability." It doesn't mean it's OK to run the office solely in RAM, it means the opposite.

drzaiusapelord 12y ago

Palin used her yahoo account for state business. She did violate state law. I'm not familiar with the others, but the issue isn't so cut and dry.

buttcoinslol 12y ago
I forgot which Cabinet post Palin was appointed to, can you refresh my memory?
- briandear 12y ago
  It doesn't matter. Moral relativism is the name of the game. It would be interesting if the anti-Palin crowd would spend some time looking into all of the criminality from members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Have a look at this list of the most corrupt politicians in the US; then perhaps we can talk about Palin using yahoo. http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-announces-list-washingtons-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-2010/ http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judic... The fact is this, Palin matters because she's not a Democrat. Democrats have Stockholm Syndrome. When a Republican is corrupt, much of the time, they resign. When a Democrat is corrupt, they get reelected. Re: Marion Berry, Maxine Waters, Charlie Rangel, Chris Dodd. Tom Delay was another bad one, however he was actually charged with a crime and he resigned. Palin is nothing more than a proxy to rationalize bad behavior. Democrats most definitely don't have a monopoly on corruption; however how Democrat voters deal with the corruption is markedly telling.
  - hga 12y ago
    "Tom Delay was another bad one, however he was actually charged with a crime and he resigned." And was then vindicated in the courts. Texas has a weird arrangement where the very Blue Austin area prosecutor has a remit for political corruption in the entire state. The same officer recently indicted (now former) Governor Perry for threatening a veto, a rather unique take on a constitutionally enshrined executive action.
briandear 12y ago

dragonwriter 12y ago

> The only relevant question is, "are emails 'records'?" I don't know, I see other relevant questions. For instance, nothing in the quoted law says anything about how they shall "make and preserve" the records, only what purposes those records must be adequate to serve. So, using private email alone doesn't seem to be a violation, it seems to be something that might be the starting point for an inquiry as to whether she made and preserved "ontaining adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities", but it doesn't alone provide an answer to that question whether or not you consider emails as records.

danielweber 12y ago
Undoubtedly emails are records. This has been established in previous scandals from both parties that failed to retain them as required. In the corporate world, if there were a legal requirement for compliance, the auditor would verify that all work email is going over work servers, and then review the policies in place on those servers. You could technically let a special employee run their own server, but then that server would need to be audited, and the policies in place there reviewed. "Nah, you can trust Joe" wouldn't cut it. Otherwise the entire point of compliance laws just goes out the window.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > In the corporate world, if there were a legal requirement for compliance, the auditor would verify that all work email is going over work servers Legal compliance audits that I have been involved in tend to go beyond what is unquestionably prohibited by the law and also seek to identify and eliminate activities which might arguably violate the law (and thus create legal risk) including, but not limited to, those which violate organizations internal guidelines which are based on the applicable law but whose requirements may be (generally, should be) more strict than the law itself. There are three different, but related, categories into which this might fall, in decreasing order of breadth: 1) Behavior that would be of concern to a compliance audit focused on the law in question, 2) Behavior that would violate administration guidance related to achieving compliance with the law in question, 3) Behavior that actually violates the law in question. You are arguing, and I agree, that it is #1. There are reports that administration sources have indicated that it is #2 (I see no reason to doubt them, though I haven't seen the actual guidance, so I don't have an informed opinion.) Neither of those, however, is the same thing as it being #3.

Zigurd 12y ago

That can't be the only law that applies. Information derived from classified documents, that should be highly secured, is very likely to have moved through these unofficial channels.