Slashdot Mirror


Boston City Government Discovers Email Retention

An anonymous reader writes "The Boston Globe, covering a battle to unseat the 16-year incumbent mayor, has found out that the city has no email retention policy. A city official who receives hundreds of emails a day was found to have only 18 emails in his mailbox. The city has enabled journaling on its Exchange server in response. The Globe also notes that they had to curtail requests for emails under the Open Records law because for each mailbox, 'City officials estimated they would charge $5,000 for six months worth of email.'"

5 of 184 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Important emails by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Massachusetts has a remarkably good record of producing top-notch crooks in our political ecosystem. It is not surprising that they evolved far enough to realize that email is not their friend in court.

    setenv $EMAIL_STORAGE = /dev/null; export $EMAIL_STORAGE

    --
    I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
  2. New manning slot? by GaryOlson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Everyone raise their equivalent electronic hands who thinks the City of Boston is going to increase manning for the IT staff to accommodate this increase in workload, scope, and new technology implementation?

    No hands. Sucks to be an IT admin for the City of Boston about now.

    --
    Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
  3. Re:Important emails by lysergic.acid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know, if it were just prostitution and extramarital affairs, I wouldn't care if their emails were deleted. Those types of personal vices are rather inconsequential to being a good civil servant. I know that the Republicans saw it as a huge victory when Clinton was impeached basically for having an extramarital affair (and don't tell me that it was for perjury; it was his personal life that was on trial), but, in the grand scheme of things, personal infidelity is probably not the biggest "crime" a public official can commit. I'd choose a president who respects civil liberties & human rights and acts in the interest of the public, but happens to be a philander, over a president who is completely devoted to his wife, but is willing to step on civil liberties, support torture, or sell out the American public to corporate interests. Likewise, I'm much less concerned about a president who lies about his private life than one who lies about justifications for war.

    So, no, I'm not particularly concerned about politicians hiding emails to their girlfriends/boyfriends. We should be so lucky if that's all they were hiding. It's more the potential bribes, nepotism/cronyism, and backroom deals that I'm worried about. Those are the type of things that actually conflict with good governance—in other words, government corruption.

  4. Re:Why tagged "republicans"??? by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Shockingly, there have only been 5 mayors since 1950. Loyal city.

    "Loyal" is not the word I would choose.

  5. End users can't enforce retention by galactic-ac · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I fail to see why it's relevant that an individual end user had only 18 emails when he receives hundreds daily. I would love to have this individual in my organization, less chance of corrupt Outlook .pst files and less to backup from the workstation. Retention policies should have nothing whatsoever to do with what recipients retain in their local mail stores. Retention, compliance, and backup policies are enforced at the server.