Slashdot Mirror


White House Tape Recycling Possibly Erased Emails

Pojut points us to a Washington Post story which details the White House's admission that it routinely recycled backup tapes from 2001 to 2003, possibly destroying e-mail records from that time period. While the tapes are being analyzed to determine if any of the data can be recovered, the White House also indicated that some e-mail through 2005 may not have been preserved. We discussed the beginnings of this investigation a few months ago. From the Post: "During the period in question, the Bush presidency faced some of its biggest controversies, including the Iraq war, the leak of former CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson's name and the CIA's destruction of interrogation videotapes. White House spokesman Tony Fratto said he has no reason to believe any e-mails were deliberately destroyed."

26 of 251 comments (clear)

  1. Wait by ShakaUVM · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wait, I keep forgetting: Is recycling a good thing?

    1. Re:Wait by someone1234 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What's good for someone is bad for someone else.
      This tape recycling is definitely good for someone.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    2. Re:Wait by gowen · · Score: 5, Funny

      Interesting that the Bush Administration's interest in protecting the environment begins and ends at the point where it enables them to destroy evidence, though. I'm sure the CIA didn't really mean to shred those documents either, but they needed some organic mulch for their sustainable vegetable patch.

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    3. Re:Wait by vought · · Score: 4, Informative
      Article Title:

      White House Tape Recycling Possibly Erased Emails Real-world:

      White House Tape Recycling Erased Emails

      There. Fixed that for you.

      Never attribute to malice what can be explained by simple stupidity....except when it comes to the Bush White House.
    4. Re:Wait by Arancaytar · · Score: 4, Funny

      they needed some organic mulch for their sustainable vegetable patch.


      It's better that they use documents than secret prison detainees for that, I suppose.
    5. Re:Wait by hey! · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's beyond stupidity to think that reusing backup tapes is OK in a situation like this.

      Seriously, anybody who is involved with system administration for an organization like the White House understands the implications of not having archival backups of everything. There is zero chance that somebody did this as an economy measure. The practice of doing questionable White House business using RNC controlled email accounts indicates that people in the administration are very conscious of hiding records of what they do.

      So, somebody made a policy decision to destroy archival backups, and cover their tracks by making it look like they're economizing on tapes and storage. The only question was whether that decision was meant to cover their tracks in specific instances, in which case we have obstruction of justice, or whether it was meant to cover a multitude of unspecified sins they might commit, in which case we have an intentional breaking of records retention laws.

      In either case, at a minimum any person who physically took an existing backup and destroyed it by overwriting it has committed a crime. Everybody on the chain up from them who knew about it also committed a crime. The person or persons who set up the procedure committed at least one crime, and possibly multiple instances of obstruction of justice on top of that.

      The only reason this is not a huge deal is that the administration is so completely and unabashedly lawless that they've convinced a lot of people^H^H^H^H^H^Hsheep that accepting this is not only normal but patriotic. It's like the Big Lie: you can't refute them because they have a ready answer to any refutation. They make everything personal. It doesn't matter how true what you say is, your saying it means you are unpatriotic. There's only one way to deal with people like this: you remove them from power. You can't talk them out of what they are doing. You can't debate them out of their positions. You have to take action, which is risky to you.

      After 2006, Congress could have done something by bringing investigations to the point where impeachment would work. They didn't, and it's not going to be politically possible now. So, we have to wait out the term and sort through whatever evidence they leave behind.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:Wait by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not all information being backed up is vital information even in the white house


      True, but irrelevant. You're arguing that the cost of buying and storing tape media exceeds the probability that they'll contain something valuable. I'm saying (a) this is not true and (b) recycling tapes is illegal and everybody involved in this know it.

      You can fit a lot of "Meeting at the Oval Office at 3:00pm" on a 400GB tape, which you can buy for about eighty bucks. If, doing incremental backups, you use one 400GB (native) tape every day, you need fewer than 3000 tapes. This is admittedly a lot of tapes, and will set you back over a quarter of a million dollars. However, those tapes would only take a tiny corner of the Presidential Library, on which maybe one or two hundred million dollars will be spent. It's not unreasonable to spend a quarter of a percent or less of that cost to ensure there is a complete record, which admittedly does contain things like meeting announcements (valuable) and invitations to lunch (maybe not valuable), but also contain things like policy debates.

      Lets keep politics out of it or any irrational hatred of a person and or his policies, and think of it on an IT level here. Emails back in 2003 were considered junk messages. Backups kept were for cases of system crashes so they can restore data as it was left off, and maybe a year or two back in case something was deleted and needed to be retrieved.


      Thinking of it on an IT level, you'd keep everything because (A) it's not that expensive relative to even the historical value and (B) you'd be breaking the law otherwise. You don't blow of Sarbanes-Oxley or HIPAA because it's not convenient. The law says you retain everything, and history says you retain everything. This was a deliberate crime which is only justifiable if you need to cover worse crimes.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    7. Re:Wait by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      You should not consider archival records of government as historic, they should be considered as evidentiary. A legal record of the procedures of government to ensure accountability, and in the event of dispute either provide defence from litigation or as evidence for the prosecution of criminal offences.

      It is clear when an administration destroys evidence of it's actions it is doing so to hide criminal and treasonous activities.

      The person who destroyed those records should be held fully accountable, and as those records could show evidence of treasonous activities so they should be charged with treason, whether or not they testify against the person in the administration who gave orders to destroy a legal record of government activity.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  2. Re:Is it possible to have a private conversation? by Adambomb · · Score: 4, Informative

    The contested Presidential Records Act was to apply to the president and vice president. Not everyone.

    Chill dude.

    --
    Ice Cream has no bones.
  3. Also revealed at the same press briefing... by Eternal+Vigilance · · Score: 5, Funny

    "White House spokesman Tony Fratto also said to keep sucking, he has no reason to believe the Bush Administration intends to cum in America's mouth."

  4. Plausible incompetence by AsciiNaut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The cock-up theory of history is widely believed. What better way, then, for administrations to circumvent the law and get away with it than by means such as this?

    Plausible incompetence is just as useful a smokescreen as plausible deniability.

  5. White House statement... by secretwhistle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I believe that orginally read "...hopefully destroying email records from that time period."

  6. Luckily there's a backup by supachupa · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's a good thing Bush approved the illegal interception of domestic internet traffic. Now they can just ask the NSA for a copy.

  7. Re:How convenient by Eternal+Vigilance · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's an old joke that, sadly, is far too applicable here.

    A mobster is on trial for multiple murders. The prosecutor, frustrated he may lose the case because of the ease with which the mobster and his associates lie under oath, finally tries to threaten him on witness stand:

    DA (sternly): "Sir, are you aware of the penalty for perjury in this state?"
    Mobster (smugly): "It's less than the penalty for murder, isn't it?"

    Too bad for us there won't even be a penalty for perjury.


    Stay tuned for another exciting episode of Presidential Idol! Who will be eliminated this week? Call in and vote for your favorite!"

  8. Re:Is it possible to have a private conversation? by coaxial · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When it comes to the government the answer is more often than not, a resounding no. With respect to the presidency and vice presidency, the relevant law is the Presidential Records Act. You must preserve all records, and can only destroy them after consultation with the Archivist of the United States.

    These emails are of evidentiary value, and therefore should have been preserved. Destruction of these records is a federal crime. Not only is it obviously a violation of the PRA, but there is strong evidence that this is destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice. Furthermore, things like this don't happen by rouge low level staffers. Decisions to destroy vital records comes from the highest levels.

    People go to jail for these crimes all the time. Will these people? Hell know, the dems are too spineless to actually bring indictments and begin impeachment proceedings, and so everyone will get off scott free.

    As the saying goes, "In a democracy, you get the government you deserve."

  9. Implausible by 1+a+bee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Give me a break.. Lose email? Could this happen at the company you work? Not if it's a company with a half-competent IT staff. To think the White House IT staff is so incompetent that they'd do this by mistake is unthinkable. No, it's not a technical mistake. If it were, White House officials would be running for cover and would hang it on the poor bastard who made the mistake.

    --
    They should subpoena the NSA. Surely *they* have copies..

  10. Re:Is it possible to have a private conversation? by eebra82 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Besides the Presidential Records Act, why shouldn't it be monitored and preserved? Is a president's doings not everyone's business? It's hardly a private conversation as long as it is the plans for a nation and its future.

  11. What's in a name? by TheBearBear · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Allow me to replace the current adminstration with a different government in this summary.

    Pojut points us to a Washington Post story which details the Kremlin's admission that it routinely recycled backup tapes from 2001 to 2003, possibly destroying e-mail records from that time period. While the tapes are being analyzed to determine if any of the data can be recovered, the Kremlin also indicated that some e-mail through 2005 may not have been preserved. We discussed the beginnings of this investigation a few months ago. From the Post:

    "During the period in question, the Putin administration faced some of its biggest controversies, including the Chechnya war, the assassination of Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya, as well as murder of former KGB officer Alexander Litvenko. Kremlin spokesman Tony "Fat Knuckles" Fratto said he has no reason to believe any e-mails were deliberately destroyed."

  12. not-so-plausible deniability by EjectButton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    White House spokesman Tony Fratto said he has no reason to believe any e-mails were deliberately destroyed
    Right, they only had the means, the motive, and the opportunity. But we are supposed to believe it was all an accident. Also we are supposed to believe that years worth of email disappears for the White House and no one notices until congress asks for it. Most places I have worked as a sysadmin if everyone's old email disappeared in multi-month/year blocks my phone would be ringing within the hour.
  13. STFU by uhlume · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My failure to retain records of my communications isn't a violation of the Presidential Records Act.

    --
    SIERRA TANGO FOXTROT UNIFORM
  14. Re:Is it possible to have a private conversation? by jbridges · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The same thing is happening anywhere someone can be sued, not just the President.

    Many companies (like Microsoft) are trying to keep email useful by making it company policy that email is not preserved.

    Once you have something that could be preserved... the temptation is powerful to require people to preserve it, and thereby stifle it's use.

    Imagine what will happen once all phone conversations could be preserved. With all calls going over VOIP systems on computers, it's only a matter of time before it happens.

  15. The computer ate my homework by ElGanzoLoco · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Those dirty, scheming, lying, backstabbing bastards are at it again - covering their ass, just in time before the White House changes hands. Blaming it on 'recycling' too - what a nice "fuck you" to Americans... This administration will go down in history as the most egregiously shameful, dishonest, dirty in the history of the United States. I still can't get over the fact that he managed to get elected again after he stole an election, started a war on fake motives, and let his rich friends get richer on the back of troops and taxpayers.

    --
    Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!
  16. Re:Is it possible to have a private conversation? by tuxgeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's ironic how these assholes are wire taping all of us and keeping records of it all and yet they deliberately destroy the evidence of all the criminal bullshit they're doing and getting away with.

    --
    "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
  17. Re:Before you complain ... by amRadioHed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Trust but verify would have been appropriate in 2001. These fuckers are well past the point where any further trust is merited.

    --
    We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  18. I worked on this during the Clinton Administration by Zeinfeld · · Score: 5, Informative
    Well, technically it's the Office of Administration which is speaking here.. but agreed.. the sworn testimony which states that it is 'best practice' to recycle tapes containing archival data is quite astounding. There is at least one attempt to probe this, but accountability doesn't appear to be high on this administrations agenda.

    I spent 18 months working with the EOP on the security of the email system used to send out presidential press releases. The story that this happened by accident is just not credible.

    First the archives, the archives were a pervasive force that was felt throughout the EOP. Every piece of paper, every tape, every scrap of information had to go to the archive. It was a whole cultural thing. And it was clearly a pre-Clinton culture. The people I was working with had been there since Reagan. They never refered to this as a Clinton mandate, it was the law.

    The idea that a tape could be recycled for any purpose was a total departure from the Clinton era culture.

    Second FOIA, was a constant issue.

    Now we could assume that these changes were only due to the goal of 'restoring' executive power that Cheney and other Nixon era accomplices have advanced. Or it could be that they knew they had much criminality to hide.

    I don't think these legal issues are going to go away after Bush leaves office. We are going to see a constant attempt to suppress government papers that implicate Bush in the criminality of his administration.

    --
    Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
    Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
  19. You will like Grey's Law by beetle496 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Never attribute to malice what can be explained by simple stupidity...
    Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
    --
    I paid the going retail price for a Windows screen reader and got a free Unix computer!