GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: House panel to take up bill requiring electronic e-mail storage

• 48680
  

  I would tend to agree with Anonymous in that "Electronic storage of emails is an insignificant added effort ..." and "Honest, hardworking "servants" of the public interest have no problem "showing their work." Well, most of us don't. It only takes a semi-competent system administrator to back up the servers and an adequate filing system to make such available.

  It would seem that those who THINK they know best and, supposedly, have our best interests at heart, but can't seem to express their reasoning to our satisfaction are the ones that wish to hide their communications and thoughts from the light of day. Don't be a "decider", be a leader.

  Tip off Posted April 16, 2008 1:35 PM
• 48651
  

  This is a serious bipartisan issue that strikes at the core of what it means to be a public "servant." Electronic storage of emails is an insignificant added effort to the government and should apply across all boundaries executive, legislative and judicial branches. Honest, hardworking "servants" of the public interest have no problem "showing their work." The goodwill of the American people is what is at stake, so everyone get on-board and help Rep. Waxman bring us into the 21st century!

  Anonymous Posted April 16, 2008 8:36 AM
• 48610
  

  Here we go again with Waxman/Reed high tech legislative syndrome. As with the issue of DoD classified file-to-file (F2F) transfers brought before congress in General Wesley Clark's testimony, the same vulnerabilities applies to email. Under PRESENT security practices and standards, there is NO way the DOJ can prove that "content" is original or unaltered. A backlash to this kind of thinking is to back emails up off-shore or use attachments as carrier content for hidden embedded covert correspondence. This practice is better than encryption and there are only twelve, time consuming, deciphering programs that analyze this type of content. Government would never get through the log jam it would create for an investigation. Congressman, rethink the problem or get someone that can. Such legislation is very questionable.

  A correction to the earlier posted comment; the White House computers were trashed by Clinton staffers as well as emails erased. It is a good example though but get your facts right.

  R. E. Smith Posted April 15, 2008 1:38 PM
• 48576
  

  Do you think Waxman will add Congress to this law??? Not on your life

  Dan ketter Posted April 15, 2008 10:28 AM
• 48566
  

  Lets get the facts straight - when the Clinton Administration left the White House offices they trashed the executive offices and rendered useless computers, servers, faxes, & phones (not to mention some unflattering graffiti). All of it done ON PURPOSE to make the transition of the new administration more difficult. Of course these people should have been prosecuted for the destruction of federal property, but the Bush Administration decided not to pursue prosecution of the individuals involved.

  FedUp2 Posted April 15, 2008 9:55 AM
• 48519
  

  Clinton Administration had installed an email system that provided EXACTLY what the NEW legislation is suppose to enforce. The Records Retention Act also states as such. The BUSH administration tore out what the prior administration put in, ON PURPOSE I would say.

  iggy Posted April 14, 2008 4:26 PM