Slashdot Mirror


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."

37 of 407 comments (clear)

  1. Am I missing something? by Jaysyn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
    1. Re:Am I missing something? by Madball · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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).

    2. Re:Am I missing something? by MollyB · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    3. Re:Am I missing something? by Madball · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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."

    4. Re:Am I missing something? by Madball · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's a close relative of slashdot, dedicated to typo's.

    5. Re:Am I missing something? by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ______ - 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

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    6. Re:Am I missing something? by FireStormZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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..

      --
      "Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
    7. Re:Am I missing something? by neoform · · Score: 5, Funny

      You haven't been to the idle section, have you?

      No I haven't, is it pants?

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    8. Re:Am I missing something? by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    9. Re:Am I missing something? by pressman · · Score: 4, Funny

      Slashdot.... where naivete meets rampant paranoia and cynicism.

      --
      Pooty tweet
    10. Re:Am I missing something? by Enry · · Score: 5, Informative

      You can always track his campaign promises. As of right now, 7 are kept, 1 stalled, 14 in the works, and no status on 488. Not a bad start after 3 days.

    11. Re:Am I missing something? by crmarvin42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    12. Re:Am I missing something? by digitig · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

      Look at the article -- the Republicans use Yahoo!, the Democrats use Google. Of course /. comes out in favour of the Democrats when there's such a clear and significant issue dividing them!

      By the way, isn't a majority endorsing the Democrat position an accurate reflection of opinion in the USA as a whole? Maybe they should put it to a vote or something to find out.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    13. Re:Am I missing something? by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

    14. Re:Am I missing something? by ahoehn · · Score: 3, Informative

      I donno, seems like the real story is how backwards the whitehouse is technologically. A few quotes from the Washington Post story:

      "It is kind of like going from an Xbox to an Atari," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said of his new digs.

      And:

      The team members, accustomed to working on Macintoshes, found computers outfitted with six-year-old versions of Microsoft software. Laptops were scarce, assigned to only a few people in the West Wing. The team was left struggling to put closed captions on online videos.

      And finally...

      Another White House official whose transition cellphone was disconnected left a message temporarily referring callers to his wife's phone.

      Several people tried to route their e-mails through personal accounts.

      But there were no missing letters from the computer keyboards, as Bush officials had complained of during their transition in 2001.

      And officials in the press office were prepared: In addition to having their own cellphones, they set up Gmail accounts, with approval from the White House counsel, so they could send information in more than one way.

      This doesn't seem to have much to do with trying to circumvent any sort of records keeping, but rather a way to function for a few days while a #&$%@# up system is worked out.

      Though I admit, I would be more suspicious of the last president doing this then the current one, but I suspect with the last guy we wouldn't have heard about for 3 years until a whistle blower leaked it.

      --
      Mod my comments down. It'll be fun.
    15. Re:Am I missing something? by crmarvin42 · · Score: 3, Informative

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

      did you skip this line when reading my post?

      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.

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
  2. This submission is a troll by Hays · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:politicians != understand IT security by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yes, email sent to gmail addresses is insecure, unlike email sent to regular whitehouse.gov addresses, which is magically encrypted by the NSA's army of highly trained ninja code monkeys as it leaves the senders' machines.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  4. wh.azzup@gmail.com? by rabalde · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can anyone confirm that Mr. Azzup is a staffer? :o)

  5. Re:How long? by east+coast · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  6. Re:Kind of a side note... by confused+one · · Score: 5, Informative

    I know this is /. and I know people can't be bothered to read...

    However, if you'd been following the story, you'd know the White House IT people dropped the ball. When the Obama staff walked in at 12:01 to take over, they had phones that didn't work, computers that didn't work, users couldn't log in, and the e-mail servers, for which the White House is infamously known, seemed to be down.

    What bothers me is that, knowing this was coming, they didn't have everything tested and ready to go at the throw of a switch (or literally, the click of a mouse). I'm not even going to get into the whole, the staff isn't familiar with the Windows platform and wants Apple issue, because that was covered extensively a few days ago, except to say, it's not as if they haven't had since November to plan for this transition...

  7. Re:email transfer by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 3, Informative

    Will those emails then be transfered to the official email server?

    Most likely, yes. FTFA:

    In addition, Cherlin noted that any e-mail sent to the Gmail accounts "could be forwarded to White House accounts and subject to the Presidential Records Act."

  8. Re:politicians != understand IT security by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:Kind of a side note... by Spasemunki · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:Kind of a side note... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I went to school with someone who was on the Bush IT team. Nice guy btw. Anyway while Bush did actually work with Obama from a security standpoint, there was no such working together when it came to IT. Not implying anything malicious either, it just didn't happen. Bush's people were VERY busy making sure nothing that wasn't supposed to be there would be hanging around for the Obama people to come across.

  11. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  12. Re:Parent is troll by jmauro · · Score: 5, Informative

    When this was started it was noted in official White House policy that these email accounts will be archived with the rest of the official White House email. The issue with the previous administration was that they were using RNC accounts precisely because they wouldn't be archived and therefore can remain hidden from the press and future historians trying to delve into what made the Bush White House tick.

    It's the archiving that is the problem, not the private mail service.

  13. Re:How long? by sampas · · Score: 5, Informative

    IT staff at the White House are actually career staff (not political appointees) at the Executive Office of the President. Their infrastructure is run mostly by contractors with five-year contracts assigned by the previous administration. (You can find vacancies there on http://www.usajobs.com/ if you search "Executive Office of the President.") To get an email address there, you have to actually be employed at EOP (White House is a part of EOP) and fill out the requisite paperwork. Using non-government emails for official government business a violation of the Presidential Records Act. It's been illegal for quite some time, and Obama criticized Bush for doing it. There's also nothing to prevent me from using wh.whatever@gmail.com and sending fake orders out.

  14. This is not the same thing as Palin's situation by Anonymusing · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
  15. Re:Please Stop All the Obama Stories by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Obama is the most technologically fluent President ever.

    You know, this gets tossed around a lot, and it bugs the living hell out of me. Who the fuck cares? It's irrelevant! Praising Obama for using technology is no different than something like praising him because he likes rock music. It's a completely superficial thing, and doesn't affect his ability to be president in the least.

    What's not to like?

    So far? Lying to us, ranging from the petty ("My grandma survived WWI, which she was born after") to the serious ("I oppose telecom immunity in the wiretapping fiasco"). Spouting elitist bullshit that implies only those pitiable poor people are religious, and favor strong gun rights (and, by extension, implying that these are things which are to be stamped out, rather than the purely personal choice they are). He appointed a man who didn't pay his fucking taxes to be Secretary of the Treasury. If you or I don't pay taxes? We go to jail. If Obama's buddy doesn't pay taxes? He gets appointed to a high government position.

    The tragic part about Obama, especially his FISA vote, and Sec. Treas. appointment, is that he's shown us that, contrary to what he'd like us to believe, he's just another politician serving his ends, not ours. And yes, there is stuff to like. I'm happy he ordered the closing of Gitmo (assuming he doesn't quietly back down on that, but we'll see). I'm happy he's been pushing an open government, not a closed one (again, only time will tell if this is sincere, or mere rhetoric that is spouted while the public's eye is focused upon him).

    I hope he makes our country a much better one, but so far, there's as much bad as there is good. Let's not pretend the man is unblemished. At the same time, let's not pretend he's worthless either, since he seems to be doing some good. As usual, the die-hards on both sides are wrong.

    --
    "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
  16. Re:politicians != understand IT security by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's not just Republicans using insecure communications?

    The issue was never security. Dude, it's unencrypted e-mail, there's no such thing.

    The issue was an attempt to dodge records retention laws that allow "we the people" to keep an eye on what our employees - public officials - are doing.

    Since 1) the official e-mail accounts are not yet available, 2) it seems to be only for a few hours, and 3) in TFA, an Obama staffer notes that "could be forwarded to White House accounts and subject to the Presidential Records Act," these concerns don't seem to apply. (Though I wonder WTF these folks couldn't either be provided with the new e-mail addresses earlier, or hold the transition accounts a little longer.)

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  17. Why would Bush have anything to hide? by bigtrike · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Why would Bush have anything to hide? by Main+Gauche · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why would Bush have anything to hide? Only criminals require privacy.

      Congratulations, you've reached a level of irony we thought to be unattainable.

  18. Re:Kind of a side note... by jcochran · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I used to work in WHCA (White House Communications Agency). I don't know how the PC side of things was or is being handled, however I'm quite aware of how the mainframe side of things is handled. And I'd be very surprised that things are working at 12:01. For the mainframe, on the day of inauguration, full system backups are performed. These backups are then sent to the national archives. After the backups are made, then *everything* associated with the old administration is removed from the system. Only after this is done are new accounts created. I think it would be reasonable to assume that simular procedures are done on the PC side of the house. And somehow I don't think that PDC's are designed to be effectively wiped at the "flip of a switch". Additionally, I don't think that the PCs sitting on each person's desk can be remotely sanitized. And yes, even though they're instructed to not save anything on the local PC, they still do. And it still needs to be cleaned up.

    And unfortunately, this can't be done ahead of time since frankly the government continues to function under the old administration until the new one enters. So effectively none of this work can even start until after business hours on the day before inauguration.

  19. Re:Kind of a side note... by jank1887 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Welcome to the government. Each needs to go through CAC setup. That's an "in person, get your photo taken and wait for the card to print, oh, whoops, this one didn't laminate right, let's retake..." type of process. Email and network access is non-existent before CAC access. Or, likely something similar. Every agency's a little different.

  20. Re:That thing that just went over your head... by Miseph · · Score: 5, Funny

    "I wonder what kind of ads showed up next to White House emails concerning political appointments?"

    Buy SENATE SEATS Online Now! {www.blagojevich.com]

    Anyone who didn't see that one coming from a million miles away deserves a shot in the balls.

    --
    Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
  21. What the HELL. by Arancaytar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I love Gmail, but this is ridiculous. Google has no contract with the government, its terms of service void most liability (that's what "free" means).

    It also uses a non-reserved namespace. Right now, within a few minutes, I could sign up for wh.obamma, wh.barrak-obama, wh1te.house and any number of other unclaimed addresses and possibly pick up sensitive email sent to misspelled addresses.

    Regardless of whether all email is encrypted or signed (and remember, this is the government, half of which is probably using Outlook), this is a bad idea. Kudos for using Gmail, which is the best webmail service in existence, but this shouldn't have been necessary.

    Who the hell is running IT at the White House? Shouldn't they have set up .gov accounts for the entire administrative staff some time back in November? What was the hold-up?