Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Napolitano: I don't use email at all

techdailydose.nationaljournal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 43 posts

Re: Napolitano: I don't use email at all

#31

Post by fpp »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #4

For those that do not understand the subtext, the reason Napolitano does not use email is that there is no persistent, written record with her name on it that can be used as evidence against her. This is a common strategy/policy used by many people, particularly among the political class. It is an excellent way to inject ambiguity into any potential culpability. It is a common practice for people that wish to minimiz…

Very right - it's called accountability.

At the same time (at least in Germany) they want to force citizens to use email (accounts) where they have complete control of the servers / infrastructure it is provided from.

In the US they are e.g. strangling GAO that has at least in the past created some level of accountability for government dealing. Other means of oversight are also step-by-step turned into false fronts.

If you go from email (for which regulations for record keeping exist) to other means of electronic communications (e.g. rt-messaging, encrypted messaging with personal / keys linked to your gov. position) you at best increase the efforts for recovery to a level that it becomes infeasible in most cases or make it impossible when [due to strange coincidence] the crypto-keys have been lost.

Guess it more-and-more becomes clear where this is leading to in the long run - zero accountability and arbitrary state power where you have to prove that something is not right (which you then of course can't).

Re: Napolitano: I don't use email at all

#32

Post by Vivtek »

systemtrigger wrote: post #22
randomfool wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's only a reason to avoid government email- personal email remains personal (which is why Sarah Palin allegedly conducted so much 'state' business via personal email). It concerns me that the one in charge of protecting so much is so isolated from what they are protecting. I often worry that the proposals to protect the Internet do more harm than good, and I wish those in charge had more vested interests.

> personal email remains personal If you believe that, why cite Palin's Yahoo! account as an example? > [Napolitano is] isolated from what [she is] protecting Her choice is congruent with the limitations of the protocol, and for that I respect her.

I believe by "personal remains personal", grandparent meant that the legal requirements for official email do not apply to an official's "personal" email - even when that personal email is used solely to circumvent the legal requirements.

Re: Napolitano: I don't use email at all

#33

Post by ta12121 »

dfc wrote: post #16
zdw wrote: post #3

The DHS should be broken back up and most of the sub-agencies should be done away with (I'm looking at you TSA). Much like the military, it's a solution in search of a problem, and it'll manage to find problems in places where none exist, or where it's presence is inappropriate and unjustified.

The military is a solution in search of problem? Seriously? I am assuming that getting rid of most of the DHS sub-agencies was an exaggeration. But I can not understand why you would say the military is a solution in search of a problem.

    The military is a solution in search of problem? Seriously?
Not 100%, but to an extent it is. The US has this giant military that's way bigger than needed just for self-defense. It's going to want to do things, whether those things need doing or not, to justify its existence.

Re: Napolitano: I don't use email at all

#35

Post by brown9-2 »

jeffchuber wrote: post #6
jandrewrogers wrote: post #4

For those that do not understand the subtext, the reason Napolitano does not use email is that there is no persistent, written record with her name on it that can be used as evidence against her. This is a common strategy/policy used by many people, particularly among the political class. It is an excellent way to inject ambiguity into any potential culpability. It is a common practice for people that wish to minimiz…

This is also exactly why she should be forced to use email. Any appointed government position should come under extra public scrutiny.

Why should someone be forced to use one mode of communication when all of her written communication (memos, etc) is already on the record? This sounds silly.

Re: Napolitano: I don't use email at all

#36

Post by brown9-2 »

alid wrote: post #14

Intriguing! It makes perfect sense given the nature of her role and position, but I'm curious how she operates at such a strategic level without it - if not to send messages, to receive them? I thought mobile networks would be just as liable to be tapped? What tools would they use to communicate?

I'm curious how this affects the people beneath her as well - if their communication patterns have to be altered to fit in with the boss.

Re: Napolitano: I don't use email at all

#37

Post by ams6110 »

BklynJay wrote: post #5
jandrewrogers wrote: post #4

For those that do not understand the subtext, the reason Napolitano does not use email is that there is no persistent, written record with her name on it that can be used as evidence against her. This is a common strategy/policy used by many people, particularly among the political class. It is an excellent way to inject ambiguity into any potential culpability. It is a common practice for people that wish to minimiz…

Why does she go on to say that some might call her a "Luddite"? This would imply that she doesn't believe in technology, which could logically be extended to perhaps include "understand" technology.

I'd feel pretty comfortable saying that no cabinet-level official really "understands" technology enough to make decisions on cybersecurity. They rely on subordinates who (hopefully) do.

Re: Napolitano: I don't use email at all

#38

Post by brown9-2 »

willholloway wrote: post #28

George Bush didn't email either, he didn't want anyone reading 'his personal stuff'. I always suspected he was trying to avoid Nixon's mistake of leaving the tape recording machine running that LBJ installed in the Oval office. I didn't like it then and I don't like it now. Americans deserve full transparency from their government. That said, with the adversarial nature of party politics and the limited sophisticatio…

Interestingly, George W Bush used to be big on personal email but decided to put a stop to it before he was inaugerated: http://gawker.com/5089305/presidents-gotta-give-up-the-e+mai...

I think though that his reasoning is not as cynical as you make it out - there would be some concern that personal email sent to the President from friends, family etc would fall under the official records act.

Re: Napolitano: I don't use email at all

#39

Post by objclxt »

msh wrote: post #8
jeffchuber wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is also exactly why she should be forced to use email. Any appointed government position should come under extra public scrutiny.

Should all her face2face conversations be recorded too?

It is usually accepted that at the highest level of government conversations should be recorded, yes. If it wasn't for every conversation in the Oval Office being recorded and subsequently subpoenaed Nixon probably wouldn't have had to resign over Watergate.

Re: Napolitano: I don't use email at all

#40

Post by glesica »

msh wrote: post #8
jeffchuber wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is also exactly why she should be forced to use email. Any appointed government position should come under extra public scrutiny.

Should all her face2face conversations be recorded too?

Not necessarily every single one, but generally, yes.

I think government officials should have virtually no privacy in their official lives. Unless someone is actually saying nuclear launch codes or passwords out loud, there is no reason for official conversations to be hidden from the public (I'm talking about people making decisions, not the rank-and-file civil servants).

In fact, I think the absurd level of privacy high government officials have today is extremely destructive and dangerous.

Post reply on HN