Mitch Ratcliffe of Zdnet Rational Rants reports that President Bush was quite insightful in providing information about his administration’s email retention policy. “I don’t want you reading my personal stuff,” President Bush told the press when asked about why his administration has failed to comply with records-retention laws during his time in office. Ratcliffe then adds: “Unfortunately, Mr. President, nothing you can do at your desk, or in the airplanes, cars and buildings we give you to use as president, is ‘your personal stuff.’ It is the property of the people. As voters, we must demand greater accountability of the next president.”
I think Ratcliffe is right on. There is a fine difference between the use of personal records and public records. Electronically stored information (ESI) which relates directly to the President and his job as head of the United States, is PUBLIC information. I am sure there are limited exceptions and so on and so forth, but his “personal stuff,” the way he phrased it, is not at all accurate. Email archiving solutions, especially in the case of political activity, are truly important measures to have in place to make sure that there is nothing going on that shouldn’t be. Governot Matt Blunt of Missouri has made the news recently in EXACTLY the same way. I agree with Ratcliffe that we cannot let this kind of activity slide. It is time that email archiving be taken seriously.
Permalink
Leave a Comment
Richard Koman of Zdnet reports that a “primitive” email archiving system could be largely responsible for the missing white house emails. When president Bush first took control of the white house, Koman writes, he disposed of an Automatic Records Management System which was used by the Clinton administration under court order. What did the president replace the system with, you might ask? Well, not a whole lot. According to Zdnet, the email retention policy implemented by Bush was teeming with security issues. “In mid-2005, a critical security issue was identified and corrected. During this period it was discovered that the file servers and the file directories used to store the retained email were accessible by everyone on the EOP network.” In the years after this, Koman adds, “the national archives tried repeatedly and failed to get the white house to comply with archival regulations.” Now in 2008, Congressional staffers recently submitted a memo to the House Oversight Committee (PDF) detailing a “mind-boggling scenario that smacks of willful violation of laws requiring presidential email archiving, IT incompetence and a strong whiff of intentional destruction of evidence.”
What goes on behind the scenes really is amazing sometimes, even though this situation has been in the making for many years. How did it not go public that the file directories used to store the retained email were accessible by everyone on the EOP network in 2005? Roles based permission access is a serious facet of any quality email archiving solution, especially in our nations highest political facility. How could the white house just refuse so many warnings and requests to update their system? How could the president just disregard laws that COMPEL him to archive email? Perhaps the best quote is right here: Stephen McDevitt, an official in the presidential CIO office, “told the committee that a new e-mail archiving system that would have addressed the problems was ready to go live on Aug. 21, 2006. But CIO Theresa Payton canceled the new system in 2006, because it would have required modifications and additional spending.” What? It was canceled for modifications and additional spending? Email archiving is a critical item for the president that is necessitated by law. It is nothing short of wild that Payton gave modifications and additional spending as a reason against its implementation.
Permalink
Leave a Comment
Brian Fonseca of Computerworld reports that “District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly this week issued an order enabling the Washington-based Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics watchdog group to perform limited questioning of White House officials.” The group had filed suit against the White House Office of Administration last May “seeking access to White House e-mail under the federal Freedom of Information Act.” The discovery ordered by Kollar-Kotelly was issued to “determine whether the Office of Administration is subject to the Freedom of Information Act.” This will be a situation to keep an eye on as the office contends “it is not subject to FOI requests.” Additionally, Fonseca provided insight from Mike Osterman, president of Black Diamond, Wash.-based Osterman Research Inc., who said: “many businesses operate under the false assumption that e-mail is not a business record. A lot of people are not implementing e-mail archiving [processes]; they’re saving e-mail, but not in a cohesive or consistent way. Companies can say ‘Yes, we need to archive,’ but [the process] must be policy driven and taken out of users’ hands.”
Even though I probably shouldn’t, I still find it fairly remarkable that the White House simply cannot respond about the whereabouts of many missing emails. With the advent of internet technology there seems to be this general attitude that electronic communication does not have to be held up to the same standard as traditional paper documents. Many corporate executives and government officials seem to think they can pretend conversations never happened by simply deleting email backup tapes. In theory paper copies could just be burned up, but it seems that the ease of conveniently “losing” emails is what makes it so much more noticeable. It does not require a lot to act as if nothing ever happened. However, with industry regulations and legal expectations tightening the grip on corporate behavior, abusing the age of email messaging is only going to get harder to do. It is high time for all organizations to integrate an email archiving solution, especially when the center of the American universe is being thrown into the grand spotlight for this exact reason.
Permalink
Leave a Comment
Simplicato's Weblog 