Obama Staffers Followed Palin's Email Lead On Inauguration Day

theodp writes "Using Yahoo's free e-mail service to conduct government business was good enough for Sarah Palin. And now the Washington Times reports that Obama staffers turned to Gmail on Inauguration Day to conduct their business. Those wishing to contact members of the incoming Obama administration were instructed to contact staffers at wh.LASTNAME@gmail.com until official White House e-mail addresses became available."

Comments

Am I missing something?

[Jaysyn]

Are they kicking & screaming about it being a private account or something? I mean it doesn't sound like they are hiding anything by publicly asking people to use it to contact them temporarily.

Re:Am I missing something?

[Madball]

Yes, you are. There's free email available, free! And people have actually used it. This is a momentous occasion.
Seriously though, I found this to be perhaps the least interesting ./ item ever, and that's saying a lot. The only sort of interesting (barely) part is that the staffers have now had 4 email addresses in 4 months (barackobama.com, ptt.gov, gmail.com, who.eop.gov).

Re:Am I missing something?

[Madball]

I agree, but I can see a scenario someday whereby someone files a Freedom of Information Act request to Google. Must they comply?

Firstly, something tells me that 99.999% of emails to/from staffers directed to this account on this particular was logistical/planning. Secondly, unlike the Bush/RNC, they aren't going to continue using the accounts in an effort to hide anything. Thirdly, Obama has already made it clear that this White House is going to be much more transparant. Finally, pretty sure FOIA would be served to the White House, not Google. His answer, should someone want the emails, "pfft. Take them."

Re:Am I missing something?

[commodore64_love]

______ - insert whichever politician you dislike, McCain, Palin, or Obama

"It's not a great idea to run a government using web e-mail accounts. That's the word from experts, anyway, reacting to news that ______________ used web e-mail. The practice is dangerous, said experts, and can run counter to laws ensuring government is open and accountable -- By using non-governmental email systems, "Your information is out there available, beyond the official mechanisms there to protect it," said Amit Yoran, the nation's first cybersecurity chief. Yoran is now CEO of Netwitness Corp., a computer security firm for government and private entities.

"_______'s use of the private account to discuss public business - a practice reportedly shared by top aides - also raised concerns from open-government advocates, who fear the practice could impede the spirit of laws designed to preserve government communications and documents. Recently, the office has fought to withhold some emails from public release, saying they were exempt from disclosure because state law protected certain categories of communication, such as those related to the "deliberative process."

"Lawyer Meredith Fuchs of the Washington, D.C.-based National Security Archive has experience on this issue, having fought with the Bush White House over how it preserved emails, and why it allowed key personnel to use private email accounts controlled by the Republican National Committee. She believes ______'s email habits echo the worst practices of the Bush administration. "Maybe they did it because they thought the records wouldn't be disclosed," said Fuchs. "That raises issues possible destruction of evidence issues - if they expected litigation."

- http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=5830813&page=1

Re:Am I missing something?

[FireStormZ]

"Thirdly, Obama has already made it clear that this White House is going to be much more transparant. Finally"

And Bill Clinton Promised to be the 'most ethical administration in history', W promised to 'change the partisan tone', ..., ...

Its frightening that you take a politician *especially one from the Chicago political machine* at his word..

Re:Am I missing something?

[dkleinsc]

Its frightening that you take a politician *especially one from the Chicago political machine* at his word..

I wouldn't either, but in this case the Executive Orders he's been signing (particularly the one about FOIA requests) in the last couple of days indicate that he's prepared to back that one up with some action.

Re:Am I missing something?

[crmarvin42]

How is this funny? It's more informative. It's highlighting the doublestandard that exists on this site for Bush v. Obama, or more generally Republicans v. Democrats. As a Republican I was just as upset about the Bush administration trying to hide official communications behind RNC email addresses, as the rest of the people on this site.

I'll grant that potentially the Obama team is only going to use these until they get white house addresses and then move all the emails they sent or received into their new accounts, which is the right thing to do. However, there is no guarantee that they would have if this wasn't being reported, or that they will even now.

You can choose to believe that Obama is some how different from every other politician in washington if you so choose, but it is pure ignorance to assume that EVERYONE in his administration, from Cabinet members to secretary's for the secretary's secretary are just as noble.

Re:Am I missing something?

[1u3hr]

I'll grant that potentially the Obama team is only going to use these until they get white house addresses and then move all the emails they sent or received into their new accounts, which is the right thing to do. However, there is no guarantee that they would have if this wasn't being reported, or that they will even now.

They ANNOUNCED the fucking addresses. OF COURSE they knew it would be reported.

The Bush staff had government accounts and chose to use RNC ones specifically to avoid oversight. And they did it for YEARS.

This submission is a troll

[Hays]

This is clearly a transitional measure, and not a concerted effort to hide communications from mandated records keeping procedures as Bush and Palin are accused of.

Re:How long?

[east coast]

The problem is that every administration brings in their own IT staff which, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't get their hands into anything until day 1.

It's a pretty poor system, IMHO. Imagine a complete refresh of IT staff in an office. There would be chaos for weeks.

Re:politicians != understand IT security

[morgan_greywolf]

Because whitehouse.gov mail is more secure? It's e-mail, people. You know. SMTP. It's sent in plaintext over the wire through SMTP servers.

That's why stuff like PGP, GPG, etc. exist.

Re:Kind of a side note...

[Spasemunki]

The delay is not in clicking 'create account' on the administrative interface, or running a list of names through a Perl script; it's in processing the paperwork that ensures that the people getting accounts are who they say they are, and that their account access is appropriately restricted.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

This is not the same thing as Palin's situation

[Anonymusing]

Palin staff: already had government e-mail accounts, but used Yahoo accounts to conduct business that they did not want to reveal to the public.

Obama staff: losing one e-mail account before they gained their next one, so for a few hours they needed transitional addresses, and Gmail was free and easy to use.

If Obama staff continue to use Gmail for government business, THEN we can equate these two situations. But not until then.

Why would Bush have anything to hide?

[bigtrike]

Only criminals require privacy. The Obama team has as much clearance as Bush did and should have access to everything.