Slashdot Mirror


Bush's Electronic Archives Threaten To Swamp National Archives

ColdWetDog writes "The New York Times reports that the soon-to-be-disbanded Bush / Cheney White House threatens to overload the National Archives with close to 100 Terabytes of data. This includes the Barney Cam and even 'formats not previously dealt with.' By way of comparison, the Clinton White House dumped less than a single terabyte into the archives. Of course, Mr. Cheney, always the Good Citizen, tried to help out when he 'asserted this month in a court case that he had absolute discretion to decide which of his records are official and which are personal, and thus do not have to be transferred to the archives.' Glad to see that somebody over there is trying to clean up the cruft for posterity."

185 comments

  1. 100TB by edman007 · · Score: 1

    100TB? eh, i can do that in a week

    1. Re:100TB by Firehed · · Score: 5, Funny

      I hear you can't look at porn on the White House computers. NOW does it sound impressive?

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    2. Re:100TB by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1, Troll

      It's not very impressive that the centre of Freedom In The World censors the Internet. The word I'd use is "ironic".

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    3. Re:100TB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not very impressive that the centre of Freedom In The World censors the Internet

      Wait, what? George Bush is Australian?

    4. Re:100TB by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Needle.

      In a haystack.

      "If there's anything we haven't classified or destroyed, let's make it impossible to locate."

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    5. Re:100TB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the last time, *IT'S ART*. Get it right, jeez.

    6. Re:100TB by bensafrickingenius · · Score: 1

      It wasn't a decision based on any moral judgments. It's just that they're still trying to pay off Clinton's www.IluvBBWs.com bill.

      --
      I am not left-handed, either!
    7. Re:100TB by Tennekis · · Score: 1

      Ah yes but can you do it LEGALLY :P Although, the legality of what Bush has done is also *dubious*

      --
      Mr. President, we can't let him in here, he'll see everything, he'll see the Big Board!
    8. Re:100TB by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

      As I say: ironic, huh?

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    9. Re:100TB by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Exactly... 100TB of storage is nothing. Any decent enterprise storage array can handle 10x that.

      With the amount of cash the federal government has, they should easily afford a storage array that can deal with a few thousand TB live.

      Presumably the archives need to be live, because they're not just for backup purposes... there are expected to be many requests for data from the archives.

      As for backups... again that is a situation that large enterprises deal with all the time.

      100TBs of live archives and 100TBs of backups for an 8 year period is not bad.

      And they should start planning their capacity upgrades for the next administration, as Obama's administration will probably generate 1000TB of archives over the next 8 years.

    10. Re:100TB by mysidia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "If there's anything we haven't classified or destroyed, let's make it impossible to locate."

      No problem.. send the media to Google. I'm 100% sure they can figure it out (unless the archive contents are encrypted).

    11. Re:100TB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama's administration ... over the next 8 years.

      I see what you did there.

    12. Re:100TB by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Ask their corporate customers: Google search is pretty good for data organized on Intranets, as web pages, etc. For generic data in arbitrary container formats and storage types? Just adequate.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
  2. Formats not dealt with? by eggman9713 · · Score: 5, Funny

    'formats not previously dealt with.' If they can't open on a typical machine, they are probably just corrupt. Wait a second...

    1. Re:Formats not dealt with? by Atario · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When trying to hide something in plain sight, drown 'em in irrelevant crap.

      --
      "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    2. Re:Formats not dealt with? by d33b33 · · Score: 1

      snigger

    3. Re:Formats not dealt with? by StormyWeather · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh come on, now the Bush Administration is evil because they are giving too much data to the archives? That's complete garbage.

      Sure, Clinton only had 1 TB of data, but for the day that would have easily equaled 100TB now. I mean really, in 2008 I had like 10gb that more than held all of my entire world.

      in `2008 the family desktop machine in my living room has 2 TB of storage with all of my family movies, photos, music etc, and that's just one machine in my house. That doesn't count my linux box, my laptops, or my work desktop in my office.

      I wonder if the people that hated previous presidents complained that they turned over 100 times the shoe boxes of photos that previous presidents did.

      I've thought Bush was a bad administrator since he was my governor, but give me a break this is just silly. Buy some hard drives, and download a codec pack.

    4. Re:Formats not dealt with? by kenh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree, they are evil for witholding information, they are evil for dumping too much information - either pick a side OR admit your hatred of the Bush Administration isn't based on the free-flow (or lack ther-of) of information from this white house.

      In a recent article about Obama, they mentioned that George Bush decided to stop sending emails to his daughters while in office because he didn't want those private note part of a public record at some point. Link to the article. The collection of records knows no real limits (IMHO), and that will only lead to increased data retention for the national archives as time goes on.

      If the president actively browses the internet from the oval office, do the american people have a right to his browser history, dump of temporary internet files, etc.? I certain the answer is "Yes", but I'm not quite sure how that will help historians understand a presidential term...

      --
      Ken
    5. Re:Formats not dealt with? by GigaHurtsMyRobot · · Score: 0, Troll

      No one is asking what Clinton was hiding?... Sad. Even worse, after collecting hundreds of millions from overseas interests, his wife is going to be Secretary of State. Change we can believe in!!

    6. Re:Formats not dealt with? by calmofthestorm · · Score: 1

      National Archivist: "What's a .gpg file and how do I open it?"
      Bush/Cheney: "heh heh heh..."

      --
      93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
    7. Re:Formats not dealt with? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't take the general internet public of curious people very long to pick through 100TB.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    8. Re:Formats not dealt with? by Huwawa · · Score: 0

      'formats not previously dealt with.'

      Why can't the National Archives just use the same program that the administration used to write these files? If all else fails, couldn't the NA just ask the software vendor for a specification of said file formats?

    9. Re:Formats not dealt with? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      even if they ask the producer for that information; the producer isn't obligated at all to provide it, or even provide a license to the NA to use the software for archiving it.

    10. Re:Formats not dealt with? by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      If they can't open on a typical machine...

      Like these files? (all OGG)

    11. Re:Formats not dealt with? by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      Notepad/Gedit/Kate/leafpad/vim/emacs/more/less?

    12. Re:Formats not dealt with? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one is asking what Clinton was hiding?

      Having worked and lived "out of country" for over a decade, I have been afforded the luxury of seeing the US from a truly balanced media perspective and I find it inconceivable that are still any Americans naïve, dumb or mendacious enough to still try to conflate Clinton's infractions with the major crimes of Bush.

      And then a long comes someone like you and I am reminded that there are still are.

      Sigh...

    13. Re:Formats not dealt with? by Tin+Britches · · Score: 1

      OK. So throw away the webcam irrelevances, memos
      about the lunch menu, birthday wishes, what
      new limos the Secret Service just ordered, times
      of arrival to state dinners, whether it snowed at
      Camp David or Crawford. All the frothy-mouthed
      radical lefties will find it easy to just cut and
      paste into an indictment and get the ball rolling.
      Why waste taxpayer money actually investigating
      when the perps already know what's actionable and
      have the technology to self-incriminate so
      quickly!

    14. Re:Formats not dealt with? by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      They should use hard drives full of these files to pack Cheney's man-sized safe.

    15. Re:Formats not dealt with? by Kalriath · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't think the National Archives NEEDS a license. I'm not sure if you US folks have a law like it, but here in NZ the government can infringe copyright on a whim for certain purposes - and archiving is one of them.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  3. Not much of a threat by DrMrLordX · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While the National Archives obviously must catalog and make available all the data in some form or another (honestly I do not know their rules & regs for that sort of thing, and it seems a good bit is missing), the mere act of storing 100 terabytes hardly seems all that daunting. NewEgg has 1TB Samsung Spinpoint harddrives available for $100 with free shipping. You can't tell me the folks over at the National Archives couldn't afford 100 of those plus some additional hardware to oversee the transfer of all applicable data to the drives for storage, at least until a better solution could be found. Hell, have the Bush/Cheney crew do it for them and stick the drives in a closet somewhere until they can sort through all that mess. It doesn't take a $144 million computer system to handle 100 TB of data.

    1. Re:Not much of a threat by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think google have a free service where they lend you a Network Attached Storage box. You load it up with whatever then send it back to them. You still have online access to the data and google indexes it for you.

    2. Re:Not much of a threat by NothingMore · · Score: 0

      You sir, are not familiar with the bureaucracy they call the US government. It wouldn't surprise me if they have to spend $1 Billion to be able to store only 50 Terabytes of the data..

    3. Re:Not much of a threat by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Funny

      You'd think the NSA would have it all archived anyway.

    4. Re:Not much of a threat by Anpheus · · Score: 1

      No, no, they have all of your records for the past 8 years in impeccable detail. When asked if they could help organize the White House files they threw their hands up in the air and walked away.

  4. It's just unreal by Weaselmancer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Mr. Cheney, always the Good Citizen, tried to help out when he 'asserted this month in a court case that he had absolute discretion to decide which of his records are official and which are personal, and thus do not have to be transferred to the archives.'

    Thereby making what he was doing immune to FOIA requests. Nice.

    It's just unreal how unabashedly criminal Cheney is. Nobody ever calls him on it. Anyone in a position to do anything about him (other than Dennis Kucinich anyways) strangely...doesn't.

    Of course, he's also the same guy who shot a hunting buddy in the face. And had the victim apologize.

    Far more dangerous than W. Will not be sorry to see him go. Good riddance. Go retire on your inflated Halliburton stock and please leave my country alone.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:It's just unreal by Chris_Jefferson · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Remember, this is the republican party. If they get back in any time before he dies off, he will be there in the background, pulling the strings of whatever new puppet president they choose. McCain would probably have stood up to him, but I suspect now the republicans blame him for their loss, it could well be back to the "Bush Box" to find their next candidate. Scary thought.

      --
      Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
    2. Re:It's just unreal by martin-boundary · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If particular records are classified as private, does that mean what's on them can be used in court to convict him of private crimes? (not that anybody would have the guts to try it)

    3. Re:It's just unreal by Zorque · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sorry, Right-wingers, that wasn't a troll. Just because this guy said something you don't like doesn't make it any less true, or any less valid of an opinion to express.

    4. Re:It's just unreal by lanswitch · · Score: 1

      senseless reply to undo accidental modding

    5. Re:It's just unreal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What's unreal is the bias being shown here - slashKos at it's finest! Even if you ignore the obvious slant of the summary (kinda hard to miss - who wrote that, the DNC?), the truly ironic thing is that if this story was titled "Bush Administration Doesn't Archive Everything", the crazed partisan outcry here would be screaming "What are they hiding???!!!???"
       
      Sheesh.
       
      Nope, I did not vote for Bush or McCain. I just do hate to see 'politics' and 'partisanship' presented as "the news". Not that the NYT doesn't ever do the same. Wise up, sheeple - they are all liars, up there, and addicted to the power of spending *your* money and rights...

    6. Re:It's just unreal by Firehed · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Does Cheney really follow the rules of typical partisan politics? (If so, someone should let him know - he refuses to follow any other rules) He's involved in too many places to go away just because we elected a democrat.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    7. Re:It's just unreal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If they get back in any time before he dies off, he will be there in the background, pulling the strings of whatever new puppet president they choose.

      And Obama isn't a third Clinton administration? :-)

    8. Re:It's just unreal by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but funny how that only applies to one party here on Slashdot.

    9. Re:It's just unreal by mikael · · Score: 1

      If you change that to "if they go back in time before he dies off", you have the plot for a Summer Hollywood blockbuster movie.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    10. Re:It's just unreal by schon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      McCain would probably have stood up to him

      Two points:

      1. McCain lost any credibility he had when he endorsed US torture of foreigners.

      2. If McCain was someone who would stand up to Cheney, he'd never have been chosen for the Republican ticket.

    11. Re:It's just unreal by Steneub · · Score: 0

      And to illustrate the point further, why not just say that the Jews are controlling the media, keeping the black man down, keeping the spics from getting their citizenship?

      No, no, Republicans are EVIL I tells ya. Baloney. I guess it's not a troll if you agree.

      Mod GP down, -1 troll.

    12. Re:It's just unreal by Chris_Jefferson · · Score: 1

      Probably true. I had real hope for McCain when he was first running, I'd vaguely followed his carrier before and thought he was one of the few people who had some backbone, but then it all fell away, shame really. Of course, the real question is what state Obama will be in after he has been in power for 4 years.

      --
      Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
    13. Re:It's just unreal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In light of the comparison between what each President oversaw... (one a time of relative peace and prosperity, good will around the world - the other a total clusterfuck [two struggling wars, failure to act on intelligence to stop 9/11 or find bin Laden, the flooding of a city with almost no response at all, economic ragnarok, the corrosion of civil liberties, and the hate of the world...])

      I don't see Obama being a third Clinton (if thats possible) in the same light of Cheney or Bush sticking around holding influence over the Republicans.

    14. Re:It's just unreal by StormyWeather · · Score: 0

      Umm, McCain was the loudest critic of torture in the Senate. That's one of the reasons a lot of people DIDN'T like him as a candidate for president. He would have let thousands die rather than twist someones arm. Remember he was tortured, that changed his psyche.

      McCain's problem was that he was a poor communicator of the ideas he had. For example, his health care reform was the best idea he had, but he didn't come out once and say why it was such a good idea. So unless you really wanted to research it, and understood the economics behind it then you would have just thought he was blowing smoke.

    15. Re:It's just unreal by ErkDemon · · Score: 1
      No, Al Gore was supposed to be the third Clinton administration, keeping the seat warm for Hillary.
      But he lost.
      Then Hillary was supposed to win, but she lost the nomination to Obama.

      So Obama isn't part of the Clinton masterplan. He's more like the Mule in Asimov's "Foundation" series, the statistically-unlikely possibility that appears from nowhere and has the planners going "Whu? Where the hell did HE come from?".

    16. Re:It's just unreal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. McCain lost any credibility he had when he endorsed US torture of foreigners.

      False. As one of the few Americans who was tortured for many years, he has a great deal of first-hand knowledge about torture.

      Which is probably why he wasn't keen on the idea.

    17. Re:It's just unreal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow! All you have to do is twist someones arm and it will save thousands of lives? Amazing, I always thought that the concern was torturing people is immoral and unproductive but you make it sound so easy that what you say must be true!

    18. Re:It's just unreal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're as hateful as anyone, Frodo.

      Good riddance to you when you die. (How does that feel?)

    19. Re:It's just unreal by HexaByte · · Score: 2, Funny

      And Obama isn't a third Clinton administration? :-)

      No, he's the second Carter administration!

      --
      HexaByte - he's a square and a half!
    20. Re:It's just unreal by ReedYoung · · Score: 1

      If particular records are classified as private, does that mean what's on them can be used in court to convict him of private crimes?

      Anything classified "private" as in "personal" should certainly not be protected by any "Executive Privilege" and 100% unprotected from subpoena.

      --
      "I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
    21. Re:It's just unreal by Zorque · · Score: 2, Funny

      Expressing an opinion is something entirely different from a troll, and Dick Cheney is an objective scumbag. Anyone who thinks he's an honest or caring person is verifiably wrong. If the comment said something like "Every Republican should die" then that would probably be a troll, but saying that a senior party member will continue to have a large interest in the party after his tenure is both true (for any major party, not just the Republican party) and defensible.

      You really should drop your persecution complex anyway, getting mad at left-leaning people's presence on Slashdot is like getting mad at a cow's presence at a farm.

    22. Re:It's just unreal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give me a break! Y'all are pissing and moaning about the quantity of data while criticizing Cheney for not turning in more.

  5. Seriously big -- Seriously serious! by billsf · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Perhaps within all that data is a DVDrom or two of real juicy material. More importantly, there may (should) be enough info in there to
    convict the former Bush administration's true criminals. Destroying that would be "destroying evidence": Supposed to to a 'serious crime' in the US. If most of it is Windows word/email, that thankfully compresses over 1000:1 to 'human readable' text. Programs such as 'antiword' would be my first line of attack if I was in-charge of this mess. Thankfully I'm not.

    BillSF

     

  6. Disgusting by pnumoman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "I'm told researchers like to come and dig through my files, to see if anything interesting turns up," Mr. Cheney said. "I want to wish them luck, but the files are pretty thin. I learned early on that if you don't want your memos to get you in trouble some day, just don't write any."

    This really says it all, doesn't it? I mean, wasn't this essentially Nixon's view on things? That if the president (or his puppet master, vice-president Cheney) deems it not for the public's purview, it's none of your damn business? I mean, what part of PUBLIC office does this numbskull not understand? (Excuse me, the mastermind understands, just doesn't care.)

    Sickening. What's even worse is that no one's gonna make this administration accountable for anything they've done. In fact, I'm sure no one's gonna really take a hard look at what exactly this administration has done until a looong time later; everyone's too preoccupied with moving on.

    1. Re:Disgusting by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Politician is the only well paid position I know that requires neither any kind of credentials that you're able to do your job nor comes with any kind of responsibility if you do a bad job. What's the worst thing that could happen? You don't get reelected? Duh, if you don't manage to line your pockets sensibly in four years you're doing something wrong anyway.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Get elected
      2) Leave office before impeachment
      3) Garner retirement and Secret Service protection for the rest of your life
      4) Speaking tours!
      5) ????
      6) Profit!

    3. Re:Disgusting by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I think 5 is "getting a Nobel prize".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm told researchers like to come and dig through my files, to see if anything interesting turns up," Mr. Cheney said. "I want to wish them luck, but the files are pretty thin. I learned early on that if you don't want your memos to get you in trouble some day, just don't write any."

      Translation: "I did it, but you can't prove it."

    5. Re:Disgusting by Zippy_wonderslug · · Score: 1, Informative

      Secret Service protection is now limited to 10 years after leaving office. Clinton has done pretty well on the speaking circuit, over $30 million in the first 4 years out of office http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2007/clinton-speeches/ Everyone involved seems to make out pretty well if they so choose.

    6. Re:Disgusting by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      rather "write books"

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    7. Re:Disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sickening. What's even worse is that no one's gonna make this administration accountable for anything they've done.

      See, that's kind of a point of working in White House. Perfect place for chicken-hawks.

    8. Re:Disgusting by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Legally there are distinctions between public and private data release, even ( especially ) if you are an elected official.

      As along as the legal boundaries are followed, then the politician is completely in the right and your 'feelings' are null and void.

      Don't like this idea? Lobby and get the laws changed.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    9. Re:Disgusting by dbIII · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I mean, wasn't this essentially Nixon's view on things? That if the president (or his puppet master, vice-president Cheney) deems it not for the public's purview, it's none of your damn business?

      Looking from overseas I find it sadly funny that people who call themselves "Republicans" really want to act like absolute monarchs instead. Hopefully future administrations will act a little bit more like the government George Washington and others wanted instead of like some 18th century German principality.

    10. Re:Disgusting by StormyWeather · · Score: 1

      Actually Nixon's stance was that the president was above wrongdoing as long as he felt whatever he was doing was in the best interest of the nation. That may be the same thing Cheney thinks, but Nixon had no problem writing memo's and documenting everything because he felt that he was above the law.

    11. Re:Disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "I'm told researchers like to come and dig through my files, to see if anything interesting turns up," Mr. Cheney said. "I want to wish them luck, but the files are pretty thin. I learned early on that if you don't want your memos to get you in trouble some day, just don't write any."

      This really says it all, doesn't it? I mean, wasn't this essentially Nixon's view on things?

      It's also Obama's view on things. Obama is giving up email for the same reason when he takes office.

      So much for "change", "yes we can", and all the other bullshit. Obama is just another POS, albeit more left-wing then most.

    12. Re:Disgusting by tobiasly · · Score: 1

      I mean, what part of PUBLIC office does this numbskull not understand? (Excuse me, the mastermind understands, just doesn't care.) Sickening. What's even worse is that no one's gonna make this administration accountable for anything they've done. In fact, I'm sure no one's gonna really take a hard look at what exactly this administration has done until a looong time later; everyone's too preoccupied with moving on.

      Exactly, it's time to move on already. I mean, Clinton has been out of office for almost 8 years now. What's the point of stirring up the past again?

      Or, were you talking about Bush? It's hard to tell. Every time a president gets ready to leave office, the zealots on the other side start to complain about what criminals they were and how they should be prosecuted for their crimes and all of the dead bodies that were left behind and can't understand how it's not obvious to everyone what a snowjob they're pulling on everyone. Get over it already.

    13. Re:Disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know that the legal boundaries are being followed?

      The laws don't need changing, just enforcing.

  7. Data volumes grow exponentially by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Data capacities and volumes appear to be following the approximate path of Mooreâ(TM)s law â" doubling every 12â"18 months. If Clinton submitted 1 TB eight years ago, I would expect Bush to submit (very) roughly 1/8 * (2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 32 + 64 + 128 + 256) = 64 TB.

    A president ten years before Clinton would probably only have submitted ~1 GB of digital data. This is to be expected.

    Stop complaining. Google handles this volume of information every minute.

    1. Re:Data volumes grow exponentially by toddestan · · Score: 1

      It's true. It all started back when President Eisenhower submitted exactly 1 byte to the National Archives when he left office.

  8. 100TB.... by Kid+Zero · · Score: 1

    Is any of it actually interesting?

    1. Re:100TB.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nah, just the 99Tbyte of VP porn ;)

      oh and maybe 1Mbyte of iraq truths...

    2. Re:100TB.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100 TB should be the limit that governments are allowed to keep. (1/4 MB per citizen)
      Currently the NSA is probably tapping into and storing more than 100TB a day.

  9. You must be kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If someone isn't too bothered about criminal acts when in power, explain to me why they should worry about data deletion being illegal?

    1. Re:You must be kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      We demand honest criminals!

  10. Does it have videos of their perpetual risk game? by TheSeer2 · · Score: 1

    Risk, it's how they make decisions to attack countries.

  11. dot dot dot by SinShiva · · Score: 1

    conflict of interest with the RIAA and the MPAA :]

  12. More to it than that by an.echte.trilingue · · Score: 4, Informative

    They have to store it without losing any of it. That means redundant storage distributed geographically. The cost of doing this is pretty significant.

    What's more, the interest is not just historical, they should be able to access this information immediately. For example, when the new administration is looking to negotiate a deal with North Korea, they need to know exactly what the old administration was doing and why. They need to know what overtures the US has made and why. Additionally, they need to know what overtures the North has made and what they could mean. It will save the new administration lots of time to read the old administration's analyses instead of having to generate their own. Theoretically, the transition team should be assuring that this kind of institutional knowledge is passed, but in reality something always gets missed.

    With this amount of data, you are looking at something a lot more complicated than a mysql database and a web based front-end. To be quite honest, I would be surprised if there is any off-the-shelf software capable of this task.

    --
    weirdest thing I ever saw: scientology advertising on slashdot.
    1. Re:More to it than that by story645 · · Score: 1

      For example, when the new administration is looking to negotiate a deal with North Korea, they need to know exactly what the old administration was doing and why. They need to know what overtures the US has made and why.

      But shouldn't all that data then (at the least) be archived in whatever database they already use for that stuff (probably kept at some intelligence agency) and/or in the Secretary of State's computer system or whatever databases he or she, and whoever else needs the info, already uses. Also at the archives for posterity, sure, but why keep the working copy there if it adds to the cost unnecessarily?

      I doubt there is any pressing need for the Barney cam (and probably some of the other date in the 100TB total) to be protected or accessible at anywhere near the levels of some of the other stuff, and most of the data will mostly be accessed by different people.

      --
      open source modern art: laser taggi
    2. Re:More to it than that by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Funny

      they need to know exactly what the old administration was doing and why

      The 'what' is probably relatively easy to answer. The 'why', I doubt even they know...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:More to it than that by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      It should be in those databases, but sometimes it's not, simply because someone mentioned something in passing in an unrelated e-mail, a document was saved in the wrong directory, or a file got the wrong name and it wasn't opened to check the contents. A semi-manual review is about the only way to go through these documents to check them.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    4. Re:More to it than that by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      For example, when the new administration is looking to negotiate a deal with North Korea, they need to know exactly what the old administration was doing and why. They need to know what overtures the US has made and why.

      But shouldn't all that data then (at the least) be archived in whatever database they already use for that stuff (probably kept at some intelligence agency) and/or in the Secretary of State's computer system or whatever databases he or she, and whoever else needs the info, already uses. Also at the archives for posterity, sure, but why keep the working copy there if it adds to the cost unnecessarily?

      I doubt there is any pressing need for the Barney cam (and probably some of the other date in the 100TB total) to be protected or accessible at anywhere near the levels of some of the other stuff, and most of the data will mostly be accessed by different people.

      The impression I have of the way Governments operate is that only specific bits of information are preserved in the long run, and these specific bits were defined by legislation and convention hundreds of years ago. I think the secretary of state's computer system will get taken from the building and erased the minute she leaves office.

      I don't think there exists specific Secretary Of State groupware, just waiting to bring Hillary up to speed and pass on her next hundred tasks.

    5. Re:More to it than that by mrphoton · · Score: 1

      Do they have internet in North Korea? I don't think they do.

    6. Re:More to it than that by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They have to store it without losing any of it. That means redundant storage distributed geographically. The cost of doing this is pretty significant.

      The cost for 100 TB of data storage from Newegg is currently $9322. So the cost for 100 backup systems, distributed geographically, would probably be less than a million dollars, after government bulk purchase rates are figured in. When we are giving 7,000 times that amount to the banks, etc., and hoping that they will be able to survive and pay the loans back, I don't think the cost is too much to worry about, when the figure calculated is an obscene amount of redundancy.

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    7. Re:More to it than that by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      They have to store it without losing any of it. That means redundant storage distributed geographically. The cost of doing this is pretty significant.

      We are talking about the U.S. Government. Even if we can't afford it, we will spend it anyway.

      You are also ignoring the possibility of an agency already having what's required.

      I'm sure the NSA could set up a colo for the Whitehouse if needed, for instance.

      Heck, I would feel a lot better with that data living under the NSA's roof than some random Whitehouse hodgepodge.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    8. Re:More to it than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Break it into 1TB chunks. Do a 100:121 reed-solomon encoding so you can lose any 10 chunks and still recover the data. Make 4 copies of every chunk. Make copies any time you drop below 4 copies of any chunk. That's 484 TB plus some spares, around $50,000 plus a few new machines a year. You have to lose at least 44 specific chunks at once to permanently lose data. You need to lose 4 specific chunks at once to even need to look at the reed-solomon encoding. And costs are dropping fast.

      This is small potatoes for the US government. I'm glad they're giving the whole 100TB.

    9. Re:More to it than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This post is hogwash.

      The State Department has continuity from one administration to the next, as does the rest of the government.

  13. For the uninformed.. by will_die · · Score: 1

    The Cheney is about if records he does as President of the Senate are covered by the law. The position of the Vice President is that only work ordered by the President are covered those done as being a leader of the Legislative Branch are not. Also the group bring the suit are tryng to get access purely political conversations which the national archives have already ruled are not to be archived.
    If all you haters really want to look at something slimy how about the case was made that the NSA was "not an agency of the government" so keeping communications by the national archives was not required.

    1. Re:For the uninformed.. by Yvanhoe · · Score: 3, Funny

      Because, clearly, he has an archive folder as "president of senate" and "vice president". It is far from insane to suppose he also has a folder labeled "questionable documents" he will put in the archive less likely to go public.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    2. Re:For the uninformed.. by Boronx · · Score: 1

      "Leader of the Legislative Branch"... that has a Limbaugh Horse Hockey smell to it. If the Files of the President of the Senate contain anything more than discussions about tie votes and parliamentary procedure, then we've got some fraud on our hands.

  14. Empty the junk mail folder by g3head · · Score: 1

    Delete the spam and you'll probably save 80TBs, just be careful about deleting things from Nigeria...

  15. Cheated by sugarmotor · · Score: 0, Troll

    The American people are being cheated, once again.

    Stephan

    --
    http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
    1. Re:Cheated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's "Troll" about this?

  16. I smell a big pile of... by Evil_Ether · · Score: 1

    Any one else thinking they are trying to hide something of interest in all that pile of ... data?

    --
    If taxation is legalized theft, then Capitalism is a prolonged rape followed by a slow death.
    1. Re:I smell a big pile of... by Psychotria · · Score: 1

      Who cares? Honestly. At no other point in history has this amount of data storage even been conceivable. Sure, in the past, noteworthy exchanges have been recorded, but not every single utterance, pondering, debate, brainstorm, or written word that somebody "in office" had the misfortune of dealing with. I am not in the US and I am not a US citizen (never have been) but, really, is that email regarding the shopping list all that important? Are those mundane communications tossing ideas back-and-forth all that important? Is the colour of the shoes that Mr XXX wore on 99/99/9999 important? I guess to somebody it might be. In 50 or 100 or 200 years I guess that the waste of money that it is will become more apparent. Delete it all and I daresay the rest of the world will move on as if nothing had happened.

    2. Re:I smell a big pile of... by Evil_Ether · · Score: 1

      I'm not in support of this and I'm not a US citizen either.

      I don't think the world cares about shopping lists but there might be information that the world does care about that could be harder to find because of the extra information

      --
      If taxation is legalized theft, then Capitalism is a prolonged rape followed by a slow death.
    3. Re:I smell a big pile of... by Psychotria · · Score: 1

      Evil Ether, I was not really directing my comment at you, or evaluating your first comment. The fact that I replied to you with my ideas was only because your comment provided a nice stepping stone. That and the fact that the "steaming pile of... data" prompted me to think of the "steaming pile of shit" that this crap load of data probably amounts to ;-)

    4. Re:I smell a big pile of... by Evil_Ether · · Score: 1

      Ah sorry I thought you misunderstood me turns out I misunderstood you. Teach me to smoke and post XD

      --
      If taxation is legalized theft, then Capitalism is a prolonged rape followed by a slow death.
    5. Re:I smell a big pile of... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      is that email regarding the shopping list all that important?

      That's the sort of thing they got Oliver North on - although the shopping list was for things like a convertable and air conditioning for his house embezzled out of the money from selling guns to Iran. The funny thing is the emails were all deleted individually which would have taken ages - and that attracted enough attention that the backup tapes were taken out of their cycle and stored seperately. Questions by either Poindexter or North about how long the tapes were kept before being reused raised furthur suspicions so apparently those tapes were then moved offsite.

  17. Wouldn't work here by an.echte.trilingue · · Score: 4, Informative

    Problem is, some of this information is classified, and most of it isn't. Some of it legitimately contains private information that should not be made public yet (things like job applications). It contains personal information that should probably be permanently removed from what the public sees, such as employee social security numbers.

    What isn't classified or private needs to be available to the public, what is classified or private needs to be available to people with the proper credentials. Some of it will be automatically declassified in 5 years, some of it in 7 years.

    In short, somebody has to look at it before it is added to an index. Probably security will dictate that the classified information is stored on different machines, probably different networks, than the publicly available stuff. You might be able to write an algorithm that automates this process, but Google certainly isn't it.

    --
    weirdest thing I ever saw: scientology advertising on slashdot.
    1. Re:Wouldn't work here by John+Sokol · · Score: 3, Funny

      >somebody has to look at it before it is added to an index.

      Sure, they can just outsource it to India...

      --
      I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
    2. Re:Wouldn't work here by Meest · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A question that should be asked. Is why was there not a network admin/security offical managing this data durring the administration? Did all of this data just get dumped into a hard drive with no organization?

      Sounds like another bad excuse for not planning for the future... This should have been proactivly handled and organized. Now the "Oh Shit" factor is very large and daunting.

      Time to hire a security/system admin for the president administration...

    3. Re:Wouldn't work here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you RTFA (I know, I know) you'd see that the information is principally in email systems and in a records management system storing all the textual material (e.g. documents, but also spreadsheets, pictures, audio, videa and everything else people like to plonk in those systems).

      By focussing on volume of data, the article is a bit misleading. It's 100Tb of stuff in several different email and records management systems, with no easy or obvious way to suck all the data out of them and preserve it and the context it was found in.

      So some bespoke coding will almost certainly be required to interface with all this (largely unknown) data and data formats, and reconstruct it all in a generic preservation system. You also need to preserve a lot of the contextual metadata you discover. It's a big job.

    4. Re:Wouldn't work here by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      My guess is that what they're talking about is the data being federalized. Sure, this admin did this mail server, this admin did this webserver, etc. etc. Now they are getting *all* of that data, and it's no surprise it's a big unorganized cluster fuck. After all, who would be in charge of that? An IT Czar? Imagine trying to propose that and sell that to the American public and the special interest groups. Civil Libertarians would be concerned about a Big Brother controlling all government data. Conservatives would worry about Yet Another Big Government Bureaucracy.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    5. Re:Wouldn't work here by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the Executive branch hires the admin who has been managing this data and we happen to be getting to the end of an administration that does everything they can to prevent the office of the president from being held accountable to the good citizens of our nation.

      From the very beginning with Executive Order 13233 to the present day with Cheney claiming whatever he wants are personal papers. They just don't think we have any right to know what they are doing.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    6. Re:Wouldn't work here by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      Security and Admin won't do any more good. If the mandated retention is 6 months on Inboxes, then the admin dutifully archives every 6 months to tape, wipes the mailboxes, and files it away for security. As long as that tape is "available" (remember, retention legally means GONE, daily and weekly backup tapes for operations are not "archive") for the archivist the admin has done his legal duty... anything more than that, like choosing formats or organizing is the President's job to tell somebody to do.... and many executives purposefully leave organization out to make it very hard on legal.

    7. Re:Wouldn't work here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >somebody has to look at it before it is added to an index.

      Sure, they can just outsource it to India...

      That goes without saying; if it wasn't outsourced to India, it'd be an Ameridex, not an Index.

    8. Re:Wouldn't work here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did have a security/sysadmin. He died in a plane crash last week.

      Absolute discretion indeed.

  18. deciphering the code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "he 'asserted this month in a court case that he had absolute discretion to decide which of his records are official and which are personal, and thus do not have to be transferred to the archives."

    Rough translation "Official"=Legal Activities, "Personal"=Illegal Activities. It just proves that Congress is beyond useless that they won't even try to stop this blatant disreguard for the law.

  19. Speak and Spell by retech · · Score: 1

    Who knew a Speak and Spell could amass that much data? Maybe it's the high scores from Minesweeper and Solitaire that did it? Perhaps Bush's tutorials from Mavis Beacon's typing?

    I'd really have thought with Bush's user level and Cheney's underhanded nature you'd have been able to archive their entire administration on a few floppies.

  20. We've been saying this for years by an.echte.trilingue · · Score: 5, Insightful
    For years I have been listening to people here rant about the potential for records to get lost due to proprietary formats. Nobody listened, and now it is happening:

    The contingency plan, quietly approved by the National Archives on Nov. 7, emphasizes the difficulties posed by large numbers of White House records created with proprietary commercial software.

    --
    weirdest thing I ever saw: scientology advertising on slashdot.
    1. Re:We've been saying this for years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, there are advanced national and international programmes for digital preservation around the world. Quite a few people in those programmes have participated in these discussions.

      But the message hasn't entirely got through to all the other government departments, who are still stuck in a paper mentality. Most are willing but don't know quite what to do (and certainly aren't sure how much it will all cost), and a few are actively difficult to work with, for whatever reasons.

    2. Re:We've been saying this for years by mabhatter654 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly, back in 2001 do you really have a way to restore, read or repair Office 97 and exchange 5 files? Especially if the data has been archived "according to law".. which means they wipe everybody's current mailbox every 6 months to a backup tape and start over.. now you have 8 years history of backup tapes of varying formats and varying versions of the software, none of it overlapping in time frames.

      This is the same game Microsoft pull when you sue them they can produce lots of "documents" but your ability to actually read thru them and get something meaningful is greatly diminished. With paper, every body expects boxes of 8 1/2 by 11... with a computer you can make every page take the secret decoder ring from your box of Cracker Jacks!

    3. Re:We've been saying this for years by NiceGeek · · Score: 1

      To be fair, stuff like that is usually sent to "electronic discovery" firms, who have the means to convert/process data like that.

    4. Re:We've been saying this for years by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Those firms usually want to get paid.
      An ounce of prevention...

  21. Make that 101 TB by SupremoMan · · Score: 2, Funny

    As a last addition, 1 TB of data was added to the archives. It contained all the news footage, replays, and parodies of the shoe-throwing incident.

  22. I'd rather go hunting with Cheney by unassimilatible · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Than go driving with Ted Kennedy.

    And where in the Constitution does it say that the Executive cedes power to Congress by a mere passage of a law (FOIA)? I thought the actual Executive was in charge of that branch.

    For all of you constitutional purists, I'd ask where in Article I Congress has the right to limit executive authority, whether it's FOIA, FISA, the War Powers Act, "congressional oversight," etc. I am looking but can't find in the Constitution where Congress can do this without ratifying a new Amendment.

    Oh, and we are still waiting for that big Clinton records dump into his library that we've been promised. I guess we'll have to wait until Hillary is elected president in 2016 - wait, re-elected in 2020 - before they dump everything.

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
    1. Re:I'd rather go hunting with Cheney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and we are still waiting for that big Clinton records dump into his library that we've been promised. I guess we'll have to wait until Hillary is elected president in 2016 - wait, re-elected in 2020 - before they dump everything.

      Funny, the press makes no mention that Clinton has not provided those records. We'll get all of them of course. Nothing to hide there. Why sully a hero of the Fourth Estate with trivialities?

      Posted anon to avoid the new left-wing thought police.

    2. Re:I'd rather go hunting with Cheney by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      For all of you constitutional purists, I'd ask where in Article I Congress has the right to limit executive authority, whether it's FOIA, FISA, the War Powers Act, "congressional oversight," etc. I am looking but can't find in the Constitution where Congress can do this without ratifying a new Amendment.

      I assume by "executive authority," you mean "the authority to keep everything classified forever"?

      Article 1, Section 8

      The Congress shall have Power To . . . provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

      and

      To make Rules for the Government

      AND

      To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States [TheoMurpse's note: This is Washington, D.C.]

      and

      To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

      Have you ever read the Constitution?

    3. Re:I'd rather go hunting with Cheney by unassimilatible · · Score: 1

      I assume by "executive authority," you mean "the authority to keep everything classified forever"?

      No, just that the Executive decides what is done within its own, co-equal branch of government.

      Article 1, Section 8

      The Congress shall have Power To . . . provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;


      Yes, and how the hell does that clause grant Congress a check over another branch? That's a new one. Provide means it has a duty itself to do something, not tell another branch to do something.

      To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

      Nice try, that's rules of government (as in, "the governing of") of the military, not the Executive, you dumb bunny. You conveniently left that part out.

      To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

      Any constitutional expert will tell you that the N&P clause does not grant power over the other branches. It is meant to carry out the defined powers in Article I. No expert I've read has ever called this a check on the executive (it isn't).

      There simply isn't any FOIA power vested in the government of the United States under the Constitution, so Congress has no business making such a law under the N&P clause.

      But nice try reinventing the Constitution.

      --
      Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
  23. Wow! So many HDs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    100 TB! Wow! That's about 60 hard disks or so! And I don't even want to imagine how much money you'd have to pay for those drives - it'd be a *four digit sum*!

    1. Re:Wow! So many HDs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100 TB! Wow! That's about 60 hard disks or so! And I don't even want to imagine how much money you'd have to pay for those drives - it'd be a *four digit sum*!

      It would probably cost just over $9000!!!

    2. Re:Wow! So many HDs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      139*67 = about $10k, just over 4 digits, but of course, you'll want that to be redundant, so $20-$30k after duplication. Of course, I'd prefer it be all online storage as well, but somehow I doubt our government rolls this way.

      With the way storage has stalled over the last year, I'm guessing HD companies are preparing for the SSD future.

  24. Right, because White House personnel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    should be surfing the Net for porn.

    Don't let your dogma run over your karma. The White House is for work, not play. I realize Clinton may have confused you about that.

  25. the next white house team... by acedotcom · · Score: 4, Interesting

    100TB seems like a lot, but can you imagine how much data the Obama administration might leave? Considering that they seem more 'connected' then most other politicians.

    there is always talk of obsolete formats here on /. but can you imagine the baggage left by some of these administrations?

    --
    they say it is often more relevant then the comment above, all we know is its called the Sig!
    1. Re:the next white house team... by StormyWeather · · Score: 1

      It's not really any administration's fault they use proprietary formats either. I have one of the first DVD video cameras. The format it records into is awful, and it's almost impossible to convert to anything else other than playing the movie off the camera, then recording that stream into another format. It's very aggravating.

  26. It's real enough by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Mr. Cheney, always the Good Citizen, tried to help out when he 'asserted this month in a court case that he had absolute discretion to decide which of his records are official and which are personal, and thus do not have to be transferred to the archives.'

    Well, since he was on the PUBLIC payroll at the time, ostensibly doing the PUBLIC'S business, then I guess in turn the PUBLIC should decide how much of that "private" time was paid for by public funds... and hit Cheney for fraud, for every minute he did "private" work on the PUBLIC payroll.

    Seriously... this man has acted so criminally toward the citizens of the United States that I would be extremely sad and upset if he does not end up in prison, in solitary confinement, within 2 years.

    1. Re:It's real enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he has acted so criminally then list some, and not just made up items from the various hate sites you will have to start searching to find them.

  27. Personnal mails? by Kindaian · · Score: 1

    I believed that US had a law forbidding the use of the governmental emails and the like for personnel things and vice-verse (one with a specific law, the other due to the use of governmental resources for personnel use).

    But i may be wrong...

    1. Re:Personnal mails? by will_die · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is policy that dictates usage for personal communications and that varies by branch and office.
      What you do have are laws preventing the use of federal systems for purely political uses. This is what was the problem with the mailing system a year or so ago. People were given blackberries and other systems for political and party related messages and because of government requirements not given those same types of tools for government business. People being people and since they had those tools available to them tended to use them for all types of messages.
      The other big problem was that law there was no penalty for not recording the email for the national archive but there are penalties for using government systems for political reasons.

  28. Gah. Unclosed tag. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    i /i

  29. These aren't the bytes you're looking for... by SeaFox · · Score: 1

    The New York Times reports that the soon-to-be-disbanded Bush / Cheney White House threatens to overload the National Archives with close to 100 Terabytes of data

    Does anyone else find it ironic this is the same administration that couldn't keep track of a few years worth of official emails? I seem to remember a lack of storage space being one of the excuses, too.

  30. Fascistic states of America by louzer · · Score: 0, Troll

    So they want to erase history now.

    --
    Heroes die once, cowards live longer.
  31. Alt. headline- Bush solves unemployment problem? by FlacoFuerte · · Score: 0

    Why not just add more archivists? Problem solved.

  32. hide it by Joebert · · Score: 1

    If you can't delete the records, just hide multiple pieces in soo much garbage data that you would be dead and gone by the time anyone was able to put it all together.

    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
  33. Re:64 TB by conureman · · Score: 1

    That should be enough for anybody.

    --
    The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
  34. Before this turns into a political flame fest: by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you think this is bad today, this is only the tip of the ice burg. The national archives better ramp up for a drastic increasing curve of data to store as each new president is elected.

    Not that i have the answer, but i can see it happening. Just look at the exponential increases in personal information for the average citizen.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Before this turns into a political flame fest: by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      They're just a bunch of sniveling sots. Petabyte class storage solutions are common place and while pricey for the common man, they're well within reach of the corporate world and comparable to the cost of a single outing in Air Force one.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  35. Re:Does it have videos of their perpetual risk gam by kennykb · · Score: 1

    Video of the Risk game is already up.

  36. Of course, scrubbed like Nixon's tapes by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    IOW, these guys have been cleaning anything relevant and creating lots of BS crap to put in there. By the time it is figured out, Cheney will be dead and W will be senile. Hopefully, these traitors are able to at least be caught on tax fraud.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  37. Maybe we can find out how by dbIII · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Maybe we can find out how someone can have the goodwill of nearly every nation on earth (even Libya offered to help!), a tame congress, wartime expediency in letting anything you like get through, signing statements to change anything you don't like, a booming economy, a military grudgingly ready even to abandon the Geneva convention if ordered and access to experts on every subject yet STILL muck it up so badly.

    1. Re:Maybe we can find out how by martinQblank · · Score: 1

      Ummm...perhaps it was *because* there was a tame Congress and near uni-lateral global support after 9/11 thus providing an environment with no functional checks and balances. A distinct unwillingness to listen to opposing viewpoints seems to have also played a role.

  38. From the article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "some five times the contents of all 20 million catalogued books in the Library of Congress."

    Slashdot translation:

    approximately 5 LoCs

  39. VHS and DVD are not proprietary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The NYT aritcle asserts that the records are in proprietary systems akin to VHS or DVD. Well VHS and DVD are NOT proprietary systems. They are technologies of different eras. The fact that there is a transition from VHS to DVD is called progression of the state of the art. Hard disk drives will be considered quaint in 20 years.

    The administration generated more electronic records in the 2000's than the administration in the 1990's. Suprised?

    Technology is allowing us to save much more material. Probably too much.

  40. Here's the real question by jayhawk88 · · Score: 1

    Is there an 18 minute gap in the Barney Cam tapes?

  41. Check the record by MarkusQ · · Score: 4, Informative

    Umm, McCain was the loudest critic of torture in the Senate. That's one of the reasons a lot of people DIDN'T like him as a candidate for president. He would have let thousands die rather than twist someones arm. Remember he was tortured, that changed his psyche.

    He may have been loud, but he wasn't very firm. When Bush effectively nullified the ban on the military using torture with a signing statement, McCain said and did nothing. When congress tried to extend the ban to prevent the CIA from using torture as well, McCain voted against it.

    He may have been against torture at some level, but not as much as he was in favor of getting the nomination. When the two goals came into conflict, he caved.

    --MarkusQ

    1. Re:Check the record by FlyingBishop · · Score: 1

      He recognized that his dissent would do nothing to mollify his rabid colleagues, and so wisely chose not to provoke their ire by continuing to shout at them, knowing that his shouting would have no effect.

      In politics, you sometimes have to say your piece and then shut up. This is appropriate. If our politicians let massive insults to their beliefs stop them from moving ahead, nothing would get done. It sucks, but when you have such wildly differing opinions trying to arrive at a consensus, it has to happen. The alternative is autocracy. I'll take compromise any day.

      Compromise is not weakness, it is necessity.

    2. Re:Check the record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compromise is not weakness, it is necessity.

      Only since "The Hammer" got himself evicted by his own republican-revolution era "guilty until proven innocent" ethics rules? Because back when he was "in charge", there wasn't a single republican talking about compromise. After all, the democrats had lost congress and the presidency fair and square giving the republicans the right to do whatever they wanted.

    3. Re:Check the record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If our politicians let massive insults to their beliefs stop them from moving ahead, nothing would get done.

      You say that like it's a bad thing.

      I wouldn't call voting to extend immunity to the CIA for torture "saying your piece against torture".

    4. Re:Check the record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Loud but not firm? You're just making shit up now. When politics is nothing but a calculus to you, son, you're doomed to be the bitch to a lucky formula inventor.

    5. Re:Check the record by MarkusQ · · Score: 1

      Loud but not firm? You're just making shit up now.

      No, I'm recounting recent history. Check the links. McCain spoke out against torture right and left, but when the time came to do something about it, he caved. Twice. And then continued to make the same damned speeches about how much he opposed it. Check the record.

      When politics is nothing but a calculus to you, son, you're doomed to be the bitch to a lucky formula inventor.

      And when bananas are nothing but earwax, mom, it's time to wash your bike.

      No, seriously. What does your statement even mean?

      --Markus

  42. Okay. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1, Insightful

    (1) Conspiracy to get the United States involved in a war, in order to personally profit himself and his business associates (Halliburton).

    (2) [As a result of (1)]: Treason

    I don't pay attention to any hate sites. But his actions have been pretty blatant.

  43. Yeah, Republicans suck! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not like they out and out STOLE files from the national archives that were incriminating or used the FBI and IRS to attack political enemies and then hid the files. No no... only Republicans are in the wrong... on Slashkos.

    Meanwhile Obama'a new imperial administration, creaking in, wants to use private Blackberries and is already mired in a criminal investigation to sell a senate seat. But that doesn't have anything to do with Slashkos... because it doesn't deal with tech...er... it's not Republicans doing the scandal.

  44. Maybe Obama can set an example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and release his ENTIRE contributors database. One can dream!

  45. Well, just imagine the next one by xant · · Score: 1

    Obama's probably already stored a few TB just with the fundraising email campaigns.

    --
    It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
  46. Barney Cam... WTF? by religious+freak · · Score: 1

    Barney cam... FTW!

    I don't know if it was worth the 10 minutes of my life I just spent watching it, but it was cute.

    --
    If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    1. Re:Barney Cam... WTF? by Metaphorically · · Score: 1

      I got 6 minutes in then stabbed myself in the eye. But yeah, cute.

      --
      more of the same on Twitter.
  47. Um, back up a minute... by e-scetic · · Score: 1

    Is it just me or does 100 Terrabytes seem rather paltry, especially if a good chunk of that is video? I have a 2 TB NAS I use for video clips and it's not enough...

    My guess is that the "unknown formats not previously dealt with" refers to shitloads of the photos being in ridiculously large RAW or TIFF format, or digital vids in likewise raw formats that can only be accessed with software like Premiere, AfterEffects, etc.

    Maybe Bush & Co. didn't know they could adjust the settings on their cameras? Heh, every camera was good for maybe 5 shots?

    1. Re:Um, back up a minute... by HexaByte · · Score: 1

      If the files are a type of RAW format, and the Bush Administration didn't save that, instead keeping the JPEGs, the conspiracy theorists in /. would be screaming that they were trying to hide something by only supply low quality JPEGs, not the 'whole RAW file'.

      --
      HexaByte - he's a square and a half!
  48. Ballony by MarkusQ · · Score: 3, Informative

    He recognized that his dissent would do nothing to mollify his rabid colleagues, and so wisely chose not to provoke their ire by continuing to shout at them, knowing that his shouting would have no effect.He recognized that his dissent would do nothing to mollify his rabid colleagues, and so wisely chose not to provoke their ire by continuing to shout at them, knowing that his shouting would have no effect.

    No, he loudly and publicly proclaimed his absolute unconditional refusal to endorse torture. Then, when his bill to prohibit it was quietly circumvented, he said and did nothing. Given the opportunity to vote for a revised bill that would have had teeth (by specifically prohibiting the CIA from torturing people, thus closing the loophole) he voted against it.

    And then, on the campaign trail, he continued to play up his POW history and his objection to torture.

    That isn't wisely refraining from shouting at your colleges, that's showing your true colors and folding like a hypocrite when it counts, and hoping the saps you pander to are too dumb to notice.

    --MarkusQ

  49. In such a smart community... by Tatsh · · Score: 1

    I really do believe most people who post here are very smart and intelligent people involved in some of the most important fields we currently have: technology of all kinds.

    So why are we paying attention to this? Does this matter? Does it matter that some content is going to stored away (as IF the public will be able to access it easily and as IF the information will even matter)?

    To me, this is a sign of Slashdot turning into Fox News and any other mainstream media. Slashdot is supposed to be the other side to me, the proponent of open source (led by SF) software and open standards of all types. Beyond that, science and technology breakthroughs, which are immense in the science section.

    I know why this is a Slashdot story. It has the word terabyte in it. Therefore it goes in hardware? This should go in politics (the debauch of Slashdot IMO right next to user sent mail). Politics have no influence on technology and laws are only put in place to suppress it and admit we have no solution currently to a problem. Drugs: Let's jail all these people to our now mostly privatised jail system. Why? Because they had merely them. How? Because the US government pushed Afghanistan to produce more poppy seeds and become the world's largest producer for heroin. Check the facts, and do not read mainstream news.

  50. Good point, but understated. by ReedYoung · · Score: 1

    The cost for 100 TB of data storage from Newegg is currently $9322. So the cost for 100 backup systems, distributed geographically, would probably be less than a million dollars, after government bulk purchase rates are figured in. When we are giving 7,000 times that amount to the banks, etc., and hoping that they will be able to survive and pay the loans back, I don't think the cost is too much to worry about, when the figure calculated is an obscene amount of redundancy.

    I concur with your $1,000,000 estimate. It might be 10 times more to use all of the newest and very most reliable hardware and with armed Blackwater guards, the sky's the limit. The cost might also be 10 times less with used parts from eBay and bargain real estate, which is basically falling from the sky thanks to Cheney/Bush, but my guess is that $1 million is right around the center point where value and cost are at the optimum ratio -- more than adequate performance, but not so much more than adequate that money is wasted. The only thing you missed is that the cost of the failed asset redistribution plan is not a mere 7000 times the estimated cost to store the White House's files, it's 700,000 times more. 7000 times one million is only seven billion. Henry Paulson's taxpayer giveaway to failed "lenders" costs seven hundred billion USD, so you need another factor of 100. 7000 times is already a dramatically large multiplier but the reality is 100 times worse again, and considering risk analysis, it's even worse than that.

    Redundancy in information storage is considered desirable because each copy reduces the total risk of losing all copies, or increases the probability of retaining at least one copy of each bit if you're a glass-half-full type. But in bailouts, redundancy normally is the result of criminal recidivism and considered a bad thing itself, in addition to the crime leading to bailout, because each repeat suggests higher risk of subsequent needs for bailout, recidivism.

    Obviously, a foreclosed homeowner or bankrupt recent student with outstanding education loans (for education that might or might not have been outstanding) or car owner with no means of paying back our loans has made one or more financial mistake and would benefit from a personal bailout. Equally obvious are two crucial differences between us and AIG, Citi and Bear Stearns. Correctly estimating the risk of loans is not our primary duty, and we have each made just one such mistake, or very few. We're better at their jobs than they are. At a maximum, any one person is highly unlikely to ever be guilty of one or few of those mistakes because credit applications include existing debts and past repayment history. We should of course assume that some borrowers have multiple loans they can't repay, but the point remains, the number is very small compared to seven hundred billion.

    The bottom line is that a bankrupt homeowner, or bankrupt recent college graduate, or bankrupt credit-enabled purchaser of such a poor investment as a depreciating motor vehicle, each demonstrate just one poor financial judgment, in a field which is not our specialty and not a measure of our professional ability. AIG, Citi and Bear Stearns, demonstrated incompetence in their own professions, in their roles as our lenders and as investors in more such loans, so unwise they necessitated their own, brand-new euphemism: "troubled" assets. They have made each and every one of the same mistakes as all of their customers, multiplied by the total number of their financially overextended customers. The fact that lenders' behaviors have led to a need for even one bailout demonstrates redundant incompetence by each company needing bailing out, compared to one or few financial mistakes by working borrowers in need of a bailout. A broke teacher or carpenter or other laborer is still good at his job, still good for something. The same cannot be said of a broke banker. Failed financial companies are by definition an unjustifiable cre

    --
    "I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
  51. Cheney's personal files by belmolis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Government employees aren't supposed to be using government computers for non-government purposes. I can't complain if Cheney has a few shopping lists and personal emails lying around, but truly personal files should be few and small. If he claims that any substantial portion of his files are personal, he's either lying or he has been misusing government property.

  52. What are the odds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are the odds for anyone who is a product of the Chicago political machine being "clean"?

    Obama is just as bought and paid for in advance as any other politician ever was. The thing is, the US electorate was so sick of the bushlerites that even a Chicago mobster looks good in comparison. Which is pretty damn sad really.

  53. In the Information Age sensorship is the haystack by bussdriver · · Score: 3, Informative

    No need to draw attention by stopping something; flood the infonet with too much bad information and create a bigger haystack. Not to mention all the FUD that can be done much easier now. You could even put out almost true information with slight crazy distortions to make the truth look bad.

    The IMPORTANT INFORMATION WAS LARGELY DESTROYED ("mistakenly lost") and whatever might be useful will take forever to dig out and make any sense of.

    Criminal neglect never applies to politicians and don't think that they do not know this.

  54. Re:In the Information Age sensorship is the haysta by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Hey I'm tired. I know I have typos in there. Hell, why does English need this old junk like the letter C anyhow? K and S fill the void just fine.

  55. Hard Drives are cheap. by iVasto · · Score: 1

    I don't understand the problem. 1tb hard drives are about 120 USD. 120*100=1200 USD. Ok, then you need backups. Either way, it is only a couple thousand dollars. What is the problem? Do the national archives need a federal bailout or something?

    1. Re:Hard Drives are cheap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TU HABLAS MATH?

      120*100 = 12,000$

  56. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1 Terabyte hard disk drives are less than 100.00 USD. Surely the National Archives could afford 10,000.00 USD?

  57. You know what, folks? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    I am pretty damned sick of these "Troll" mods that I see being used against anybody who has a real opinion other than the "mainstream". This site is supposed to be for DISCUSSION, and there can be no true discussion without alternative views.

    Yes, I have been victim, but I have seen many, many other victims as well.

    Let's try to be ADULTS here, people, and accept the idea that others can hold opposing views without being "trolls"!!!

  58. the 'lost' emails .. by rs232 · · Score: 1

    "the soon-to-be-disbanded Bush / Cheney White House threatens to overload the National Archives with close to 100 Terabytes of data"

    Does that include the lost emails, the ones that were on the non-existent backup tapes ?

    --
    davecb5620@gmail.com
  59. so what's the problem? by happy_place · · Score: 1

    So is the complaint that the bush administration has designated too much material to national archives, thus overflowing the system, or is it that Cheney is not giving the NY Times enough of his materials? I mean, you really can't have it both ways. Either you complain that there's too much stuff being stored, or you go after your boogeyman Cheney. I would think that the reason there is so much being stored is because of the grief that the administration has received about deleting ANY records, for the innuendo that it contained a smoking gun that would unveil the "ultimate evil". Good for Cheney for not playing that game.

    --
    http://www.beanleafpress.com
  60. 100 TB is just 67 1.5TB disks or 10 servers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    100TB can be easily fit on 10 servers, carrying 6 1.5 TB disks each. An impossible feat for a superpower? Apparently so, when private torture videos and records must be cleaned from the crop, together with plans for illegal wars, spying, fraud, etc.

  61. Moore's Law: well, yeah! by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

    This includes the Barney Cam and even 'formats not previously dealt with.' By way of comparison, the Clinton White House dumped less than a single terabyte into the archives.

    2^(8/1.5)=40, so the fact that Bush's term ended 8 years after Clinton's would automatically account for 40% of the increase. Reckoning that digital records are more widely used now than even a decade ago easily takes care of the remainder.

    Yeah, 100TB is a lot of data, but no more than expected. The National Archive better gear up for at least 10PB from President Obama, given those two factors alone.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  62. Priorities by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    The collection will include top-secret e-mail tracing plans for the Iraq war as well as scenes from the likes of Barney Cam 2008, a White House video featuring the first pet.

    The swamp of data will have to be severely redacted to fit into the archives. I guess that the records of secret renditions and pre-war Iraq intelligence have to go to make way for the pet video.

    I mean, you've got to set priorities.

  63. Hey, maybe Mr. Bush can go to yobama for a bailout by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can fool some of the people all of the time and you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can find a fool that will believe all that liberal BULL S*** all of the time. Guess you're it...

  64. Old Adage Applies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you can't dazzle them with brilliance...
    Bury them in Bullsheet...
    (intentional misspelling there...)

  65. Seen Bushisms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See this:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7809160.stm

    "It takes a village idiot" totally euphemises what has happened.
    What has happened is that George HW Bush (Bush Senior) has manipulated his own son like a puppet to get corporations' work done through misuse of the post of US President.

    The Govt machinery is merely a tool in the hands of US Inc. and the President, the chief puppet.
    That's a normal situation in most "democracies".

    But for a father to do this to his own son, is shocking beyond comprehension, beyond imagination. Just what is the mind of Bush Senior made of? Pure venom? Acid?
    What is it that makes a father use his own son as a puppet to extend his cruel regime by two full terms? What kind of family is this?
    Or were they all conned by someone else?

    The last place to ever be in the world is a member of Royal family like this one.
    No. Never. Ever.

    This also means that there are such positions up the evolution chain. I shudder to think about those. If this is possible in higher beings, then my god, this place is fucking crazy.