Napolitano: I don't use email at all | Hacker News Reader

Napolitano: I don't use email at all

techdailydose.nationaljournal.com

40 pointsra5cal41 comments

For those that do not understand the subtext, the reason Napolitano does not use email is that there is no persistent, written record with her name on it that can be used as evidence against her. This is a common strategy/policy used by many people, particularly among the political class. It is an excellent way to inject ambiguity into any potential culpability.

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.

That's only a reason to avoid government email- personal email remains personal (which is why Sarah Palin allegedly conducted so much 'state' business via personal email).

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.

> personal email remains personal

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.

I believe by "personal remains personal", grandparent meant that the legal requirements for official email do not apply to an official's "personal" email - even when that personal email is used solely to circumvent the legal requirements.

Interestingly, the UK has just clarified that personal email/texts can be made public - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19775763

This is also exactly why she should be forced to use email. Any appointed government position should come under extra public scrutiny.

You know every policy decision is committed to aper and that most of them are discoverable in the federal register, right?

Should all her face2face conversations be recorded too?

In a public capacity, certainly. The DHS should work with other branches of government to ensure that the conversations of all public employees are recorded and sent to the public at large for review.

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.

Best HN comment ever.

No, it's really not. Anything which makes HN more like reddit is not a good thing.

What's wrong with sarcasm/satire as a means for making an excellent point?

Exactly.

Not necessarily every single one, but generally, yes.

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.

It is usually accepted that at the highest level of government conversations should be recorded, yes. If it wasn't for every conversation in the Oval Office being recorded and subsequently subpoenaed Nixon probably wouldn't have had to resign over Watergate.

Why should someone be forced to use one mode of communication when all of her written communication (memos, etc) is already on the record? This sounds silly.

Why does she go on to say that some might call her a "Luddite"? This would imply that she doesn't believe in technology, which could logically be extended to perhaps include "understand" technology.

The implication in that sentence is that people may assume she is a luddite, but they would be wrong in doing so.

I don't know if we can necessarily draw that conclusion from the limited information in that statement. It would seem almost as if she shuns technology deliberately.

Would they be wrong? I'm not certain about that. From the single clip I would believe that maybe she is.

Because she's throwing around the term casually, like people do? "I'm really OCD about this" ≠ actual self-diagnosis of OCD

I'd feel pretty comfortable saying that no cabinet-level official really "understands" technology enough to make decisions on cybersecurity. They rely on subordinates who (hopefully) do.

Very right - it's called accountability.

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).

Of course, some government officials aren't quite so smart and seek to just circumvent any recordkeeping system by using private email accounts hosted by 3rd parties [0].

[0]: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20070551-503544.html

Hey, that strategy is just fine if nobody knows about the account. That can be difficult to maintain though.

Perhaps it could also be argued that she doesn't use it because she understands it too well... Come on, you think that new NSA station in Utah is limited to foreign surveillance?!

The DHS should be broken back up and most of the sub-agencies should be done away with (I'm looking at you TSA).

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.

The military is a solution in search of problem? Seriously?

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?

Not 100%, but to an extent it is. The US has this giant military that's way bigger than needed just for self-defense. It's going to want to do things, whether those things need doing or not, to justify its existence.

And I can not understand how can you not say the military is a solution in search of a problem.

Because self-defense of active threats is not the only purpose of the military. The military does not need to involved in combat to be part of an active geopolitical strategy. It's mere existence and size are themselves an extremely effective tool for peaceful foreign policy.

Intriguing! It makes perfect sense given the nature of her role and position, but I'm curious how she operates at such a strategic level without it - if not to send messages, to receive them? I thought mobile networks would be just as liable to be tapped? What tools would they use to communicate?

I'm curious how this affects the people beneath her as well - if their communication patterns have to be altered to fit in with the boss.

Many other officials don't use mail either – they've staff doing their communication for them … and for the remaining very private communication, they often use personal telephone calls, SMS and so on. That's simply how (at least older or less tech-savvy) officials work.

My first reaction wasn't anger, it was jealousy.

George Bush didn't email either, he didn't want anyone reading 'his personal stuff'.

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.

Interestingly, George W Bush used to be big on personal email but decided to put a stop to it before he was inaugerated: http://gawker.com/5089305/presidents-gotta-give-up-the-e+mai...

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.

I don't see any problem with any elected official not using email. I don't care if they avoid technology for the most part. (I know this may lead to them not being informed about technological issues, and this is a negative, but I'd rather have them be knowledgeable in other areas.)

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.)

>elected official

who voted for her?

This reminds me of the SOPA discussions when some of the panel members openly stated (I think with a chuckle) that they weren't sure how this whole "Internet" thing worked... I don't know much about Napolitano's abilities in this arena, but it seems to me that an important part of being an influencer and a decision maker is knowledge not entirely gleaned from research, briefings, and PSAs.

email is a useful messaging system.

However, email is not: 1) a reliable messaging system, 2) a secure messaging system, 3) a private communication conduit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com