Staff Finds White House in the Technological Dark Ages

[abe_froman]

What expectation of "transparency" do you have? I mean specifically, how do you think that will work? We will be able to view his emails? He will just be more upfront about his intentions? I don't know exactly how the act that allows emails to become public records works, but I would imagine that under any administration, there will be meetings or communications that will surely be kept behind close doors. I don't know all the laws associated with this but was just wondering how you think the average citizen's (read: me) will be effected by the transparency? This isn't a loaded question, because I've heard that he intends to be more transparent with his administration but I've always wondered what that will mean in terms of specific changes or differences.

all email's will be subject to the presidential records act,thus saved for posterity..and i imagine all (non vital to national security)one's will be subject to the freedom of information act as well(i imagine after the fact though)

[DenButsu]

What expectation of "transparency" do you have? I mean specifically, how do you think that will work?

Here are some details (not limited to the technological aspect, but more broadly regarding the reversal of Bush's policy of secrecy, with tidbits of tech mixed in):

Obama Reverses Bush Policy, Opens Access to Some Records

Cam Simpson reports on government secrecy.

Among a flurry of official acts Wednesday, President Barack Obama reversed a controversial Bush administration policy that critics said contributed to excessive secrecy during the past eight years. In so doing Obama sent a clear message about accountability — for both his administration and that of his predecessor.

The move, pushed by more than 60 different organizations, will increase access for citizens and organizations to records that the Bush administration had kept under wraps. The move is certain to ease the path for anyone intent on building a forensic accounting of the Iraq war, the government’s response to the 9/11 terrorist strikes in 2001 and a number of other controversial policies.

Obama sent a memo to the heads of all executive departments and agencies informing them that he would direct his new attorney general to craft fresh guidelines reversing the Bush administration’s application of the Freedom of Information Act across the government.

“In our democracy, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which encourages accountability through transparency, is the most prominent expression of a profound national commitment to ensuring an open government,” the president wrote. “At the heart of that commitment is the idea that accountability is in the interest of the Government and the citizenry alike.”

Since its passage more than four decades ago, the law has given citizens, journalists and others the ability to pry loose public records that government officials would have often preferred to keep secret. Under the Clinton administration, each federal agency was directed to operate from the presumption that records were public in nature and, therefore, releasable. On Oct. 12, 2001, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft issued guidelines that critics said reversed that presumption.

wsj

Obama also said agencies should actively seek ways to publicly release information. "They should not wait for specific requests from the public," the memo states. "All agencies should use modern technology to inform citizens about what is known and done by their government. Disclosure should be timely."

Experts say the full dimensions of the change won't be fully known until the attorney general issues the formal guidance to agencies in the next 120 days. But material ranging from government contracts to how banks are using taxpayer money from the bailout — which are subject to FOIA but often fall into legal gray areas — could now be subject to greater disclosure.

"This is dramatic," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. "The most important thing a president can do is to reiterate that it is important for citizens to know what its government is up to. This is an incredible message he's sending out to federal agencies."

It's a major change from a Bush administration that actively sought to prevent disclosure based on the grounds of national security.

ap

[blenderboy5]

Remember the rumors of the Clinton's trashing the place before Bush came in? Those stories ended up being fake.

I don't remember them being fake. I remember them stealing china and trashing furniture though.

Here are some details (not limited to the technological aspect, but more broadly regarding the reversal of Bush's policy of secrecy, with tidbits of tech mixed in):

wsj

ap

Great move by the Obama administration. While all previous presidents with the technology reduced or refused to send e-mails, Obama's embracing it. Obviously they'll be a lot of e-mails we won't (and shouldn't imo) be able to see but this is a great move.

[Jerry34]

I don't remember them being fake. I remember them stealing china and trashing furniture though.

Well if you google it you can find all sorts of things. But in the end most reports were that some Clinton aides in the Old Executive Building next to the White House broke a bunch of W's off keyboards and played some other pranks. But all the broken furniture, destroyed computers and even reports of Air Force One being trashed were B.S. Just an overblown media thing that I think we're used to.

[DenButsu]

For a High-Tech President, a Hard-Fought E-Victory
By JEFF ZELENY

WASHINGTON — There is one addiction President Obama will not have to kick: his BlackBerry.

For more than two months, Mr. Obama has been waging a vigorous battle with his handlers to keep his BlackBerry, which like millions of other Americans he has relied upon for years to stay connected with friends and advisers. (And, of course, to get Chicago White Sox scores.)

He won the fight, aides disclosed Thursday, but the privilege of becoming the nation’s first e-mailing president comes with a specific set of rules.

“The president has a BlackBerry through a compromise that allows him to stay in touch with senior staff and a small group of personal friends,” said Robert Gibbs, his spokesman, “in a way that use will be limited and that the security is enhanced to ensure his ability to communicate.”

First, only a select circle of people will have his address, creating a true hierarchy for who makes the cut and who does not.

Second, anyone placed on the A-list to receive his e-mail address must first receive a briefing from the White House counsel’s office.

Third, messages from the president will be designed so they cannot be forwarded.

The battle over whether the president could keep his BlackBerry has been fueled to a large degree by Mr. Obama himself, who mentioned it again and again. He would not take no for an answer. In an interview this month, he worried aloud, “They’re going to pry it out of my hands.”

Mr. Obama received his BlackBerry on Tuesday, but officials declined to specify what kind. In a conversation with reporters on Thursday evening, he said, “I don’t think it’s actually up and running yet.”

Throughout the transition, several of his aides talked openly about Mr. Obama’s obsession with keeping his BlackBerry. And some of them, when speaking privately, said they were eager to have his device taken away so the case could be closed.

When asked Thursday whether his advisers were trying to wean Mr. Obama from his BlackBerry, which he often wears attached to his belt, Mr. Gibbs conceded, “Nobody can do that.”

“He believes it’s a way of keeping in touch with folks,” Mr. Gibbs told reporters, “a way of doing it outside of getting stuck in a bubble.”

The presidency, for all the power afforded by the office, has been deprived of the tools of modern communication. George W. Bush famously sent a farewell e-mail address to his friends when he took office eight years ago.

While lawyers and the Secret Service balked at Mr. Obama’s initial requests to allow him to keep his BlackBerry, they acquiesced as long as the president — and those corresponding with him — agreed to strict rules. And he had to agree to use a specially made device, which must be approved by national security officials.

“It’s a pretty small group of people,” Mr. Gibbs said, explaining who would be allowed to e-mail the president.

All of Mr. Obama’s e-mail messages remain subject to the Presidential Records Act, which could ultimately put his words into the public domain, as well as under the threat of subpoenas. That was a caveat, aides said, that did not dissuade the president.

nyt

[cabernetluver]

I don't remember them being fake. I remember them stealing china and trashing furniture though.

BB, you have to quit drinking the wingnut koolaid. All of those stories were proven to be false.

[Drucifer]

I'm confused. Will the new administration be able to bring the white house up to date technologically, or are they stuck with what's there?

I sure hope so.

I'm tech minded. It would drive me nuts if I worked in the administration knowing my home computer was years ahead of what I was using at work.

[behindmydesk]

BB, you have to quit drinking the wingnut koolaid. All of those stories were proven to be false.

can you provide some articles on that. Because I don't remember them being proven false either.

[Jerry34]

can you provide some articles on that. Because I don't remember them being proven false either.

Just google "Clinton administration trashes White House" and then check out a couple of articles. Most of the really bad claims of vandalism were proven false. But there were some dumb pranks played like taking the W's off computers and changing some signs to "Department of Strategery". But most of that wasn't even in the actual White House.

[PHX-SOXFAN]

What expectation of "transparency" do you have? I mean specifically, how do you think that will work? We will be able to view his emails? He will just be more upfront about his intentions? I don't know exactly how the act that allows emails to become public records works, but I would imagine that under any administration, there will be meetings or communications that will surely be kept behind close doors. I don't know all the laws associated with this but was just wondering how you think the average citizen's (read: me) will be effected by the transparency? This isn't a loaded question, because I've heard that he intends to be more transparent with his administration but I've always wondered what that will mean in terms of specific changes or differences.

sharing information on policies, intentions, decisions, etc with the american people instead of an arrogant "this is what we're doing, you don't know what we know" and just blindly expecting trust.

I think it's great that obama will use email. we will have records of his communications, thoughts, intentions, and conversations. whether they are informative, revealing, or damning. He won't act like he's a mob boss who never uses the phone and only communicates through his top guys to avoid indictment. it's going to be nice to have accountability back in the office.

Of course who can blame Bush for not using emails? look what they did when his underqualified appointments got outed/exposed like Mike Brown

[blenderboy5]

BB, you have to quit drinking the wingnut koolaid. All of those stories were proven to be false.

Yeah, I'm not the nutjob. It's a real pain having to read your posts *****ing about everything I say.

And according the US Government Accountability Office, the Clinton Administration was responsible for a bit more than $20,000 worth of damage. This damage includes vandalized or stolen keyboards, cellphones, antique doorknobs, cameras, and some presidential medallions and office signs.

So I guess by "all those stories were proven false" you really meant "I hope he doesn't use google and if he does I'll just ***** about how he's like Sean Hannity."

[blenderboy5]

can you provide some articles on that. Because I don't remember them being proven false either.

That would mean he was telling the complete unspun truth.

[b1e9a8r5s]

sharing information on policies, intentions, decisions, etc with the american people instead of an arrogant "this is what we're doing, you don't know what we know" and just blindly expecting trust.

I think it's great that obama will use email. we will have records of his communications, thoughts, intentions, and conversations. whether they are informative, revealing, or damning. He won't act like he's a mob boss who never uses the phone and only communicates through his top guys to avoid indictment. it's going to be nice to have accountability back in the office.

Of course who can blame Bush for not using emails? look what they did when his underqualified appointments got outed/exposed like Mike Brown

The public will have to wait to 2028 to read the emails, according to this article....http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/...wh/wired_obama

To the general point of transparency... I would tend to agree that the Bush administration was unnecessarily secretive with a lot of their dealings and I would expect that the Obama administration will be more forthright in there dealings. However, there will always be information and communications that will never make it out to the public (nor should they be). There will always be a separation there, so I don't know how you (not you specifically) can say transparency is a tangible thing or how it can be measured. There is a public relations aspect to politics and I feel that getting people to think your transparent is just as good or possibly better than actually being transparent (which obviously could never happen, at least not 100%).

I'm not sure if I'm communicating this in the best way possible, but just my two cents.

[Jerry34]

Yeah, I'm not the nutjob. It's a real pain having to read your posts *****ing about everything I say.

And according the US Government Accountability Office, the Clinton Administration was responsible for a bit more than $20,000 worth of damage. This damage includes vandalized or stolen keyboards, cellphones, antique doorknobs, cameras, and some presidential medallions and office signs.

So I guess by "all those stories were proven false" you really meant "I hope he doesn't use google and if he does I'll just ***** about how he's like Sean Hannity."

HaHa. It was the General Accounting Office. Was that a freudian slip?

From everything I've read and heard there was $15-$20,000 "damage" done to the offices where over 500 employees were transitioning. There were pranks by some of the young aides but the whole media story was way overblown. And the Republicans spent over a hundred thousand investigating it.

[PHX-SOXFAN]

The public will have to wait to 2028 to read the emails, according to this article....http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/...wh/wired_obama

To the general point of transparency... I would tend to agree that the Bush administration was unnecessarily secretive with a lot of their dealings and I would expect that the Obama administration will be more forthright in there dealings. However, there will always be information and communications that will never make it out to the public (nor should they be). There will always be a separation there, so I don't know how you (not you specifically) can say transparency is a tangible thing or how it can be measured. There is a public relations aspect to politics and I feel that getting people to think your transparent is just as good or possibly better than actually being transparent (which obviously could never happen, at least not 100%).

I'm not sure if I'm communicating this in the best way possible, but just my two cents.

I agree that there's a line on what cannot be communicated. I know there are classified items that won't go public and rightfully so. However, taking actions so that no presidential communications ever exist is just over the top. I'm glad that is a thing of the past.