— Musings —03.30.2014 09:40 AM
Do you wonder why I think the so-called deleted email scandal is a load of bullshit?
Wonder no more. And THINK about it.
— Musings —03.30.2014 09:40 AM
Wonder no more. And THINK about it.
Just get copies from either our CSES or from NSA.
Looks like someone has taken a page from the Warren Kinsella handbook. Great to see.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/03/30/wynne-threatens-legal-action-against-hudak-over-claim-she-possibly-ordered-alleged-gas-plant-coverup/
We’ll have to wait and see.
Ford also threatened to sue some of his former staffers and didn’t.
1) Did the people involved know emails ultimately resided on servers? Some people are dumb that way. But the IT guy (Faist) should have known.
2) Can it be against the law try to do something, unethical or no, that you are in fact incapable of doing?
3) Even deleting emails off a hard drive is pretty darn hard if the person trying to recover them has the proper tools.
I admit this one has me flummoxed. If these guys really were trying to delete stuff then it was doomed to failure, and somebody should have told them as much. Particularly frustrating in that the gas plant story has already been told; whatever gets recovered is not likely to alter the story much.
1.2 billion loonies down the toilet, and a naked attempt to cover-up the folly…. Nothing to see here folks.
Did someone hack, or attempt to hack the server(s) that store all the emails?
Are the police stirring the political pot? It sure as hell wouldn’t be the first time.
Massive, aggressive, loud defensiveness on the part of a team that was always known for its discipline and focus is highly suspicious.
It’s not the emails, it’s what they may contain. Focus not on the email search, but on the gas plant issue itself. Therein lies the focus, and just perhaps, the scandal.
Depends on the server setup.
Some old systems download the e-mails and delete them from servers. (I hate those ones, by the way! Computer crashes can make you lose e-mails permanently.)
Government systems should automatically make the backups, anyway, just so that people aren’t tempted to purge them.
Yes. This is still the case with a number of POP-based email systems that download and store the emails locally. IMAP and Exchange systems often save a local copy but retain a centralized master. That’s why when the system crashes you can still read the emails you’ve already read in your mailbox but can’t access any new ones. There is the potential for various email systems to have been used – the public service’s, or the legislature’s, or the party’s – so it would all depends on the technical specifications of each one.
Warren,
One observation, question and opinion.
You seem to be upset about this.
If there was nothing to hide, why was it done?
My opinion is: Deniability.
Sorry about the double entry. The captcha code frigs me up all the time. One day I’ll get it right.
another good reason to not put everything on a computer. It can be found. Try old fashioned pen and paper, it shreds and it burns.
If Hudak has proof, why doesn’t he just offer it or is this just another fishing expedition prior to an election or to take the focus off of the Toronto Mayor’s race. If something was done which was actually against a law, which is one the books, then why isn’t there a real “investigation” where people ask questions and others answer or have their lawyers say, “don’t answer that”.
It is all such a waste of time. I’m sure Ontario has more serious issues to deal with.
Control in politics/policy is an illusion. Most “cover-ups” are attempts at risk management, meaning lowering the risks.
Gasgate: while you can’t erase an email trail completely, you might think you can get away with delaying or impeding investigation.
Robogate (and “Fair Elections Act”): you might not keep people from voting but you can still try to impede or discourage them.
Duffygate: you might not get people to keep quiet about misdeeds but you can try to reduce the risk by paying some bills.
“Cover-ups” involve judgement calls that can backfire because even attempts to simply reduce risk might show or confirm intent.