Napolitano: I don't use email at all(techdailydose.nationaljournal.com) |
Napolitano: I don't use email at all(techdailydose.nationaljournal.com) |
It is a common practice for people that wish to minimize evidence trails should things come to that. Don't conflate "don't use" with "ignorant of". It is a voluntary choice.
It concerns me that the one in charge of protecting so much is so isolated from what they are protecting. I often worry that the proposals to protect the Internet do more harm than good, and I wish those in charge had more vested interests.
If you believe that, why cite Palin's Yahoo! account as an example?
> [Napolitano is] isolated from what [she is] protecting
Her choice is congruent with the limitations of the protocol, and for that I respect her.
At the same time (at least in Germany) they want to force citizens to use email (accounts) where they have complete control of the servers / infrastructure it is provided from.
In the US they are e.g. strangling GAO that has at least in the past created some level of accountability for government dealing. Other means of oversight are also step-by-step turned into false fronts.
If you go from email (for which regulations for record keeping exist) to other means of electronic communications (e.g. rt-messaging, encrypted messaging with personal / keys linked to your gov. position) you at best increase the efforts for recovery to a level that it becomes infeasible in most cases or make it impossible when [due to strange coincidence] the crypto-keys have been lost.
Guess it more-and-more becomes clear where this is leading to in the long run - zero accountability and arbitrary state power where you have to prove that something is not right (which you then of course can't).
[0]: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20070551-503544.html
Much like the military, it's a solution in search of a problem, and it'll manage to find problems in places where none exist, or where it's presence is inappropriate and unjustified.
I am assuming that getting rid of most of the DHS sub-agencies was an exaggeration. But I can not understand why you would say the military is a solution in search of a problem.
The military is a solution in search of problem? Seriously?
I always suspected he was trying to avoid Nixon's mistake of leaving the tape recording machine running that LBJ installed in the Oval office. I didn't like it then and I don't like it now.
Americans deserve full transparency from their government.
That said, with the adversarial nature of party politics and the limited sophistication of the public's political consciousness, not creating a persistent record may be a rational and understandable choice, even for a public servant with nothing to hide and every reason to feel proud of the work that they do.
I think though that his reasoning is not as cynical as you make it out - there would be some concern that personal email sent to the President from friends, family etc would fall under the official records act.
What is a problem is that the DHS secretary would be so disconnected from technology. I personally think that the US is still quite vulnerable to cyberattacks, and that this should be a major national security priority. (It's possible cyberdefense is kept under tight secrecy and there's a whole lot more of it than I'm aware of.)
who voted for her?
However, email is not: 1) a reliable messaging system, 2) a secure messaging system, 3) a private communication conduit.
By having her conversations recorded and played back in Wal-Marts average citizens could report any suspicious activity she makes to a Wal-Mart manager. What if a Wal-Mart customer recognized someone she was meeting with as a terrorist in disguise. Or that someone had brought more than 2 oz of water to a meeting and that it might be a bomb.
These are important measures that she should be taking to ensure her freedom. Just like the government monitors our conversations at 655 Folsom to protect our freedom, we should monitor theirs to ensure their freedom. Government officials usually enjoy the most amount of freedom in a society, we know that terrorists hate us for our freedom and we know that they've attempted to destroy government buildings during 9/11, therefore the public should be on high alert to help government officials maintain their freedom by monitoring all their communications. It's really the least we can do to protect them from freedom hating terrorists.
Unless she's a terrorist herself, or doesn't love freedom I'm not sure why she would be trying to hide her conversations from us.
I think government officials should have virtually no privacy in their official lives. Unless someone is actually saying nuclear launch codes or passwords out loud, there is no reason for official conversations to be hidden from the public (I'm talking about people making decisions, not the rank-and-file civil servants).
In fact, I think the absurd level of privacy high government officials have today is extremely destructive and dangerous.