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."

44 of 185 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

    3. 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
    4. 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".
  2. 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 MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  3. 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 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.

    5. 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!
    6. 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.

  4. 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 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 ----
    2. 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.

  5. 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 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
    2. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.

  8. 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?
  9. 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 Tubal-Cain · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  10. 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.

  11. 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
  12. 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*!

  13. 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!
  14. 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 ----
  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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

  18. 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..."
  19. 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

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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).