Iowa's Governor Terry Branstad Thinks He Doesn't Use E-mail 306
Earthquake Retrofit writes The Washington Post reports the governor of Iowa denying he uses e-mail, but court documents expose his confusion. From the article: "Branstad's apparent confusion over smartphones, apps and e-mail is ironic because he has tried to portray himself as technologically savvy. His Instagram account has pictures of him taking selfies and using Skype... 2010 campaign ads show him tapping away on an iPad. 'Want a brighter future? We've got an app for that.' Earlier this month, the governor's office announced that it had even opened an account on Meerkat, the live video streaming app." Perhaps he's distancing himself from e-mail because it's a Hillary thing.
*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
Why must we keep electing people who are so fucking stupid?
Re:*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
Because smart people don't seem to want the job.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Those who are too smart to get involved in politics end up being ruled by idiots.
Re:*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they go into banking and buy politicians to use as fall guys.
Re: (Score:3)
One of the main problems in the finance sector is that these people actually think they are smart, while driving economies into the abyss. So let's get rid of that false picture
Re:*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, smart people realise that the real way to get power is to pull the strings on the dumb people
Re:*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, smart people realise that the real way to get power is to pull the strings on the dumb people
That only covers a particular subgroup (manipulators). A more general answer is the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Smart people are smart enough to know they are underqualified to make rules affecting millions of other people in both subtle and obvious ways. Dumb people are bereft of self-doubt and will happily charge off the edge of a cliff because, hey, it seemed like a good idea at the time.
Re: *sigh* (Score:4, Insightful)
So there is a choice only between selfconsciuos idiots and too conscious intelligent people?
Well, there is us ....
I'm not entirely sure what it suggests for the fate of mankind, but we're here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The other ones that want the job are people who want power... at any cost. Not usually the type of people you want to have power but, since anybody else would run from the job, that's what we get.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
Because smart people don't seem to want the job.
It's not that smart people don't want the job, smart people aren't electable. During an election they'll inevitably make a comment that hurts a special interest group and get whisked out of the public spot light before the next sun rise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: *sigh* (Score:2)
Re:*sigh* (Score:5, Interesting)
People want easy slogans and pipe dreams. They don't like people better than them in positions better than them. That's why "elitist" is an insult in politics today.
People should stop over estimating their intelligence and their need to have their stupid opinions dignified.
Re: *sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
"Elitist" should be an insult. Unfortunately, though, people also think "elite" is one as well...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:*sigh* (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's not make the equivalence between tech savvy and intelligence, because /., is a perfect example of people who claim to be intelligent, yet painfully ignorant at the same time.
Just because you can use a computer doesn't mean you know how the world works. Heck, tech-savvy people are among the worst people in the world for a job that requires extreme interaction with people who are unpredictable, where how you say something is extremely important (more than what you say), and where how you dress and appear is critical.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
None of them were subject to the draft, so your point may have value actually.
Re: (Score:2)
They buy the vote and the big player like comcrap like the dumb ones that they can BS them on the golf course.
Re: (Score:3)
So because hillary is found to be lying... i mean in the dark about her email, why are we all of a sudden asking everyone about theirs??
Is it to try and shift the topic?
Is it to actually try and get electronic document reform?
is it for nothing but gotya moments on old guys who dont understand tech?
Re: (Score:2)
My hope is that people have figured out that all politicians are lying assholes who think the rules don't apply to them.
My fear is this is just a brief trend and reporters will go back to ignoring the fact that politicians are lying assholes who think the rules don't apply to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Some politicians (i.e. the Clintons) are steamier sacks of shit than the usual, though.
It's going to be a 'fun' 8 years if retread (either retread, actually) manages to get elected.
Re: (Score:3)
Obama has had almost 8 years to stop being Bush III. He obviously is much of a police-state neo-con as the one who went before.
Re: (Score:2)
No it is partisan politics.
If Hillary personal email server was really an issue, it would have brought up years ago before the start of the next presedential run.
But because she is a political threat it is a good discression that the republicans can make a fuss about, and this time the media is on their side, because they want access to her personal email. While the media touts government transparency they really want to see if Hillary is on good terms with Bill.
Now if Hillary stunk up the bathroom. The rep
Re: (Score:2)
I really hope you meant "an indiscretion" here, otherwise I have no idea what you're talking about.
So, enquiring minds want to know: are you semiliterate, or are you trying to say something else entirely?
Re: (Score:2)
There is no law regarding sending classified materials to a nongovernment email server.
Huh? You can just forward classified material to non-secure servers outside of a classified network? I think not!
Besides, the classified materials she had access to are not that important anyway.
As Secretary of State she would have access to incredibly sensitive material.
Re:*sigh* (Score:4, Informative)
Huh? You can just forward classified material to non-secure servers outside of a classified network? I think not!
As Secretary of State she would have access to incredibly sensitive material.
A couple of things, that might set your mind at ease. According to reports:
This is much akin to the media breathlessly discovering that Hillary Clinton also has a private phone number, which maybe official calls were received. Except that because this is "email", it's totally different somehow. (By which I mean, as she's the presumptive Democratic nominee, the nutcases and conspiracy loons are going to do their nutcase conspiracy theorizing, which Blogs and FOX will pick up - because it sells eyeballs.)
Re:*sigh* (Score:4, Insightful)
Those emails she received considered to be official business, her staff forwarded to the State Department for their IT operators to save.
Reports also indicate that there were months long gaps. Throwing that assertion into question.
None of these emails were classified. They appear to have been sent to her unencrypted
Without all of the e-mails, there's no way to verify this statement, but it is probably true. The air-gap between classified and unclassified would probably prevent this, but you'd be amazed at how frequently data spills occur. If there was a data spill, it would probably be the fault of someone sending her an classified e-mail versus her generating one on her unclassified system.
Sensitive material never went through this email system.
This statement is probably completely false. Anything not reviewed and marked for public release is considered sensitive. Note that sensitive is not the same thing as classified.
They only recently were able to figure out how to even just save Secretary Kerry's email; his top staff using the @state.gov address still do not have their email records saved.
But in this case, the responsibility is where it belongs -- on the government and the government employees. By being on Clinton's private server ... who is legally responsible?
This is much akin to the media breathlessly discovering that Hillary Clinton also has a private phone number, which maybe official calls were received. Except that because this is "email", it's totally different somehow.
It is. E-mail is automatically backed up and leaves an electronic trail. At this point, phone calls are not automatically recorded -- although the phone call meta-data would certainly be traced and of value.
(By which I mean, as she's the presumptive Democratic nominee,
I voted for her in 2008. Given her actions and reactions to lots of different things, including the fall that may have caused a concussion, she just doesn't seem to be on the same level as she was 8 years ago. But you're right, any criticism of the presumptive Democratic nominee must only be based on nutjobbery and not legitimate concerns. I, for one, would much prefer that we get this out in the open and properly dealt with before the campaign season begins in earnest. With luck, we'll have a Democratic nominee that is presumptive.
Re:*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
It is. E-mail is automatically backed up and leaves an electronic trail.
No it's not. It's only backed up if you make your mail server actually make backups. There is nothing in the email protocol which implies backups are made. In fact sorting out backups is something you have to deal with if you run a mail server.
Re: *sigh* (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However, destruction of evidence leads to an inference that the information would be damaging.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Not only was keeping a private email server against the law, when asked to turn over the emails, she printed them out on paper, 55,000 pages of paper. What motive would she have for doing that, other than to make any investigation harder?
Think about whether you want police officers to wear cam
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you CAN because there's little or nothing to stop it happening, and the law doesn't apply to the big end of town. Hence the oil company in Nigeria which the Manning leaks tell us wanted to share as little information with US government agencies as possible because they were convinced that merely classifying it would not stop it leaking via someone like Clinton, Libby or whoever. The s
Re: (Score:3)
Armitage opposed the Iraq war, and leaked
Re: (Score:2)
As Secretary of State she would have access to incredibly sensitive material.
Bullshit considering she didn't pass the top level security clearance.
A quick google didn't show this, do you have any links that show she didn't have a clearance? Seems like it would be impossible to do her job without one (or at least, without access to classified and/or sensitive materials).
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit considering she didn't pass the top level security clearance. She had very limited access to classified materials.
Honestly, I think that if the Democrats picked someone who can't get a Top Secret clearance to be Secretary of State, Fox News would have been all over that. This goes double if the Democrats are getting ready to nominate her to run for President.
Think about this for a moment.... We don't have any sort of security clearance and we seem to be able to run this country better than the Powers-That-Be. Maybe this is a feature, not a bug.
Re: (Score:2)
Astroturfer, and a bad one.
Clinton is PUBLIC official.
I am a PRIVATE citizen.
That a public official should be required to save absolutely everything says absolutely nothing at all about what a private person like me can do with my email. Even the spam. Who knows, they could be be making deals with cleverly spam-appearing emails and so those need to be stored for analysis too.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Problem with that is you need stupid people, special interests, and fringe nutcase to extreme of your party in the primaries. Rational smart folks need not apply.
You need to be either a radical socialist or extreme tea party who wants to abolish most of the government who make special rules for corporations and monopolies and very sharp TV commercials with a team of as trot urging posters to troll Facebook to fire up the low information voters with promises of no compromise.
Sorry slashdotters. That is no on
Re:*sigh* (Score:4, Insightful)
Why must we keep electing people who are so fucking stupid?
Well, we're about to elect Hillary Clinton. She's not stupid. She thinks everyone else is stupid, and she's got enough supporters who don't care whether or why she's being feloniously coy about things like her email use (her lawyer just this evening explained that Clinton has destroyed all of her email that wasn't printed out to lamely respond to demands for her records from her tenure at State).
When she's president, don't ask why we elected a stupid person. As why we stupidly elected her. We'll have eight years to think it through. Yay.
Re: (Score:2)
All politicians are emissaries of Satan but Hillary Clinton is only a 1st level Imp while all of the Republican candidates are first level commanders right below the Great Satan himself with a direct link to the orders of the dark lord.
I'd rather have GW Bush back in office again for 8 years rather than ANY of the republicans running for office these days.
But if a Clinton get's elected again, I know at least one thing for sure, that is that she won't start approving tax cuts while boosting spending (gotta b
Re: (Score:2)
Cite one clear-cut law that she broke.
Politicians may be naive about technology, but it seems techies are naive about law. Touche!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that Ted Cruz is only the stalking horse. It's easy for him now while he is appealing to his base, but if he wins the primary, he will be easy to portray as a right-wing nut.
Re:*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
Portray as a nut? He IS a nut.
He had the gall to question Obama's citizenship (born in Hawaii to an American woman and Kenyan father), when Cruz was born in Canada (to an American woman) and has a Cuban father.
But now it's crazy to question his ability to run for the presidency because his mother was American, ya know just like Obama which he claimed meant Obama didn't meet the requirements because the birth certificate is a forgery and he was actually born in Indonesia, a foreign country, just like Canada. But most of the birthers will leave him alone because he's not Black. Though I can't wait to see how he defends all the crazy shit his Dad has said over the years. His Dad would fit in with the west-borough baptist church with some of the shit he's spewed.
Re: (Score:2)
You got a cite for that? I can't see anything but a few far left mud slingers making that accusation. surely if Cruze did question Obama's eligibility, it would be documented somewhere before he started eyeballing the run himself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Got a cite for that? There are people claiming that he was born in a hospital outside the canal zone.
Obama was born in Hawaii, but even if he had not been born on US soil, he still had one parent who was a US citizen. So, all those people who were questioning the legitimacy of Obama as President, where are they now, since
Re: (Score:2)
Due to the nationality of his parents it does not matter.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand that. What I cannot find is where he actually questioned Obama's eligibility. As far as I know, Ted Cruze has never done so publicly and the closest I can tell- has supported efforts to have people prove their citizenship before being allowed to vote.
As for the key difference between Obama and Cruze or even McCain is that in 1961, there was a requirement that the citizen parent reside in the country for at least 10 years (five of which after they were 14 years old) prior to birth and for the ch
Re: (Score:2)
One of those just might be the next president if Hillary ever gains any traction. It was originally brought up by one of her supporters in order to help her win the primaries..
Re: (Score:2)
Native born isn't really the issue. It is pretty easy to argue he isn't native born if you just look at the original constitution. But the 14th amendment pretty much states that if you a citizen you have full rights whether naturalized or born, and of course anyone born in the country is a citizen. This means the whole native born stuff is meaningless now. By the time this amendment was passed the country no-longer worried that England might infiltrate the government and put an Englishman in charge and ther
Re: (Score:2)
But the 14th amendment pretty much states that if you a citizen you have full rights whether naturalized or born, and of course anyone born in the country is a citizen. This means the whole native born stuff is meaningless now.
The 14th amendment doesn't overturn the Article II eligibility requirements. However, there have always been two ways to get US citizenship, by birth and through the naturalization process. Obama and Cruz are both citizens by virtue of the fact that their mothers were US citizens. (Obama is also a citizen by virtue of the fact that he was born in Hawaii.) By contrast, people like Madeline Albright (she was Bill Clinton's secretary of state), and Arnold Schwarzenegger, who became US citizens through the natu
Re:*sigh* (Score:5, Informative)
The issue with Obama as it has been stated is that his mother was 18 at his birth and had not lived for five years in the US after she turned 18. So If your mother was under 19 you can't be president. For me, that fucking bogus. An obvious bug, written into the US constitution.
No, that is not an issue at all. While you have to be 35 years old to be president of the US, the age of your mother when you were born is irrelevant. The text of the US constitution [archives.gov] is readily available online for you to see for yourself: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
You seem to be vaguely referencing the requirements for citizenship at birth for someone who was born outside the US, but that's not an issue with Obama because he was born in the US, and is therefore a natural born US citizen.
Re: (Score:2)
But wasn't this the argument about Hawaii, that it wasn't really a state when Obama was born there, but his mother was a US citizen, etc, etc.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
An explanation was provided. That's not a simple photo of the original birth certificate, it's a scanned copy of a re-issued certificate which was produced by Hawaii and has been certified as such by multiple Hawaiian officials, and OCR software often produces those layers.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/29/expert-says-obamas-birth-certificate-legit/
If you believe that the Hawaiian officials are lying, in particular, Alvin T. Omaka, the state registrar, your avenue to pursue an inquiry into that is
Re: (Score:3)
considering Hawaii became a state in 1959 and Obama was born 2 years later.....
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No way in hell!
She is part of the problem. Old, corrupt, polarizing, etc.
Literally every president - and candidate - since Reagan has been called "polarizing". Look at Romney with his whole "47% of the country will never vote for me, so we need to focus on the remaining 53% to win" thing. Why is it an issue now?
Re: (Score:2)
Literally every president - and candidate - since Reagan has been called "polarizing"
You don't think Carter was polarizing? Or Nixon? LBJ was certainly polarizing. Somebody shot Kennedy, so he certainly qualifies. Maybe Eisenhower wasn't polarizing. But then Truman was. FDR's New Deal and court packing schemes were polarizing. (The New Deal is polarizing to this day.) Skipping back through history (over another guy who got shot, BTW) half the states tried to leave because Lincoln got elected. I'd say polarizing has been the rule, rather than the exception, since Washington left office.
Als
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody shot Kennedy, so he certainly qualifies.
Kennedy was shot by a left-wing nut. Somebody who had renounced his citizenship and gone to live in the Soviet Union, and who didn't like it there and came back to the US.
A nut to almost the degree of a Spartacist or Trotskyite.
Re: (Score:2)
If I were a betting man I would think Ted Cruz will be our next president.
Yeah. Good thing you're not a betting man. If R's run Cruz, Hillary won't need to bring out her base - fear will do that for her.
As someone to the left of the D's, I love it when the wingnuts get their man in - it means I don't have to waste my vote on some retarded D and can cast my vote with a clear conscience for the Socialist or WFP candidate.
Re: (Score:2)
People like you .... no offense bud as notca personal attack by any sense will stay home as unsatisfied with the options.
The Obama haters, tea partiers, and the gop will come in very heavy numbers. So that will be my prediction.
If Elizabeth Warren runs that will change
Re: (Score:3)
As someone to the left of the D's
What the heck is to the left of the D's?
In a normal country it would be about 75% of the population.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you noticed the small place called Europe over the other side of the Atlantic?
Almost all of it bar the openly racist parties is to the left of almost all of the US politically.
Rgds
Damon
Re: (Score:2)
Have you noticed the small place called Europe over the other side of the Atlantic?
Almost all of it bar the openly racist parties is to the left of almost all of the US politically.
That is what they tell you, but frankly I'm not actually convinced that is true...
The parts of Europe that it is more true of, won't survive long term in their current state... They are being held up due to the Euro and Germany more than anything else, but that likely isn't a long term solution...
Re: (Score:2)
The UK and Germany, as relatively solvent and sane parts of the EU are both well to the left of US politics, and various aspects of US outlook from religion to guns to science denial are inexplicable from over here. Not strictly left/right but probably as much to do with the general level of education.
Rgds
Damon
Re: (Score:2)
If I were a betting man I would think Ted Cruz will be our next president. The tea party is very energized and filled with so much anti Obama emotion that a right wing leader will be pushed.
Which is exactly why Ted Cruz will not be the next president.
The current GOP is making the exact same mistakes the Democrats made repeatedly in the late 60s and early 70s (and then again in the 80s). They are too beholden to a very vocal minority that is simply too far removed ideologically from the bulk of Americans. After their candidates have completely bent over to placate the extremists in order to win the nomination, even the most skilled spin doctors can't repaint them as close enough to the center t
It's the ghost of end of term Reagan (Score:3)
They think Reagan won due to being a apocolypse cult wingnut instead of being able to put on a front of being nearly all things to nearly all people. By bringing out people that make Reagan at his worst look like a moderate they think they are hitting the target of emulating a popular President - not understanding by the time Reagan looked weird even the GOP was calling him a lame duck President and counting down the days.
That's the only thing that makes sense as to w
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, the GOP can ride this strategy to grab House and Senate seats, but - like the Dems - they can't acquire the Big Chair without largely ignoring the extremists and moving towards the center.
Counterpoint: Obama was elected in 2008 and 2012
Re: (Score:2)
Hillary. (and democrats in general)
The party of a two term president. Never wins the next one.
Oh really
Lincoln Republican
Johnson Republican
Grant Republican
Hayes Republican
Garfield Republican
Arthur Republican
Not only are there 2 termers in there that's a continuous streak.
Re: (Score:2)
Checking a group distribution list because that's how you get news is not really "using" e-mail.
Checking a group mail is not checking "your" e-mail.
Sending e-mails which demonstrate that you have no idea what you are doing does certain
Re: (Score:2)
Checking a group distribution list because that's how you get news is not really "using" e-mail.
Checking a group mail is not checking "your" e-mail.
Sending e-mails which demonstrate that you have no idea what you are doing does certainly not count as "using" "e-mail".
Obviously, this craptastically ignorant fuckstain is not tech savvy.
I was with you until you said he "obviously" is not "tech savvy". So we know from reading the article that he recognizes that his Blackberry is "old-fashioned". And he apparently doesn't waste a lot of time digging into how the company that makes Blackberry markets them (they call them "smart phones" but there are much smarter phones our there these days).
As for the email? He had his staff set something up and he checked in on a regular bases using an app that probably hid details from him. Did he
Re: (Score:2)
I believe it's PERL but the source is available ( google slashcode )
Re: (Score:2)
Are they really stupid, or smart people playing stupid?
Perhaps it doesn't matter. All that matters is how they act and if they act stupid ...
Re: (Score:2)
He's still smarter than the average voter from what I see.
Generally, I think that anyone who can get elected isn't really qualified for the job. The qualified people can't get elected because people vote on stupid things almost entirely, despite what they say.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure if they are dumb or just act dumb to try to excuse their decision making...
Re:*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
you just demonstrated exactly why (Score:2)
Based on the headline, you've decided the governor is stupid. Presumably, you'd vote against stupid politicians, or at least wouldn't vote for him.
The article expalins that the governor once accidentally sent a completely blank email from his Blackberry - he sat on the button or whatever. A guy whose only email was a blank'one sent accidentally is a guy who doesn't use email. Exactly as the governor said, after he was elected he quit using email, to avoid a Hilary situation. He's exactly right - sitti
Re: (Score:2)
Why must we keep electing people who are so fucking stupid?
This is the result that democracy produces. *SO* many people want to deny it despite all available supporting data.
Maybe because admitting it would demand some sort of corrective action.
Re: (Score:2)
Why must we keep electing people who are so fucking stupid?
Where have you been all your life?
They aren't stupid (most of them, anyway). On the contrary. They:
(A) think WE are stupid, and
(B) want US to think THEY are stupid. While the entire time their hired pickpocket is sneaking into our wallets.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm no political wiz, but it seems to me that the skills required to get elected and the skills to do the job well are nearly orthogonal.
Re: (Score:2)
"I know he can GET the job, but can he DO the job? I'm not arguing that with you. I'm not arguing that with you!"
(memorable quote from a really funny movie)
Re: (Score:2)
Getting elected requires saying false things, convincingly, year after year. To do that requires being a sociopath, uninformed, or genuinely mentally ill. Or more than one of the above.
Re: (Score:3)
Branstad makes more money than you do, or ever will.
Yes, and...?
He also has more influence over more people than you do, or ever will.
But how much control does he really have over his own life?
You think you are smarter than he is? You know more about tech. He knows more about how to obtain power and utilize it for his own benefit.
Perhaps. Whether he's really benefitting himself is matter for debate, but I'll grant you the rest.
For this, he gets access to security,
I don't have to worry about some loony with a rifle coming to visit my house nearly as much as he does, either. There's this thing about standing out that tends to draw attention from crazies...
luxuries,
I can't eat crab or lobster, red wine gives me a headache, and a ceramic toilet seat works just as well as a gold-plated one.
drugs,
"My life is better beca
Might help to look under Branstad (Score:4, Informative)
and you'll find:
"In a court deposition released last week, Governor Branstad acknowledged he has a Blackberry smartphone and receives email on it."
http://whotv.com/2015/03/25/go... [whotv.com]
Crooks Ignore Email and use Text Messages Instead! (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's an example: In Georgia, fired Dekalb County School System Superintendent Cheryl Atkinson did all her business via text messages:
WSB-TV: Lawsuit raises concerns about DeKalb Schools corruption (Dec. 4, 2012)/ [wsbtv.com]
According to the article, the school district was willing to give 12 people their jobs back if the attorney withdrew an open records request for a copy of Superintendent Cheryl Atkinson's text messages.
Re: (Score:2)
because they usually can hide their text messages from freedom of information act requests.
This is probably because IT policies for maintaining compliance with the law and the courts in some regards to retention of public records simply haven't caught up with the new technology.
The electronic records laws generally do not exclude new methods of stored documents or communications. Once upon a time when e-mail was brand new.... e-mail messages were also "claimed" not to be records.
It's just a matte
Ah, Governor Braindead... (Score:3)
Yeah, well, we didn't call him Governor Braindead for nothing. I still would rather have him there than some of his immediate predecessors. Seems to be able to run my home state without completely screwing things up.
In fairness.... (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of contemporary software is so bloated that it's quite a convoluted process to read the underlying e-mail in the form of an actual e-mail in the 'classic' sense.
And while I would concede that Brandstad seems less informed about technology than average, we really could use some clearer terminology to distinguish the proliferation of forms of communication.
All government orders should be recorded (Score:3)
Not literally every government official, but all high government officials should have all their orders tracked. The literal execution of their power should require putting it in writing. At the very fucking least they should have a wax seal and put their chop on whatever document they want obeyed.
This notion that "we don't get recorded if we don't use email" is offensive. No subordinate government official should accept an order that is not duly recorded. State or federal.
Anything out of a mayor's office should get recorded. Governors, cabinet ministers, heads of departments, heads of bureaus, etc. That ay if there is wrong doing, a court can peel the records open and audit when the orders were given.
What's with the lame commentary? (Score:2)
Isn't someone supposed to be editing the story to remove this sort of commentary?
Summary is lacking, as usual (Score:3)
The summary goes on about how he uses Instagram and Skype, but doesn't actually get to the point brought up in the headline, which is that the guy does use email, on his Blackberry, apparently without knowing what it is.
Maybe he doesn't "use" e-mail. (Score:2)
Another Republican says he doesn't use email (Score:2)
so? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No.
Disposable email address [wikipedia.org]
Any more questions?
Disposable email is still email.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the thing, these weren't her emails. They were the official communications of an elected official, OUR emails.