Why 'climategate' won't stop greens

[a_unique_person]

For quick deletion when necassary?

Hey, I don't know but this doesn't answer any of my questions.

I can accept that this is from the lunitic fringe and it's largely nonesense. But there is an email that is very troublesome and I'd like to understand it. That's all. Nothing sinister.

Look, if there are no answers and we need to wait for the investigation then by god just say so. I support Obama. I support Cap and Trade. I've no agenda. Just be up front.

If they were serious about deleting old emails, they would have just deleted them. The FOIA directory was for the FOIA request.

 

[RandFan]

Plenty of laws don’t have penalties...

These aren't laws. They are called suggestions. We don't call suggestion law in America. I don't think they do it in the UK either. You are apparently affraid to tell me where you are from so I can't verify if you folks call suggestions laws.

 

[RandFan]

Record keeping 101 all documents receive a destruction schedule, some schedules may specify “keep indefinitely”, others may receive a schedule that says “keep for x number of years” while most working documents receive a schedule that says destroy when no longer needed.

If this is being rigorously enforced it can be taken as far as "all e-mail must be either deleted of moved to a document management system within x number of days"

You are being disingenuous. The subject line is FOI and specific emails are referenced. That has nothing to do with ordinary record keeping.

 

[RandFan]

If they were serious about deleting old emails, they would have just deleted them.

Perhaps they didn't want to delete emails unless they were told to.

The FOIA directory was for the FOIA request.

You claim this.

Given the **** storm that has come from the affair it seems very possible that the FOIA directory was simply a storage to delete the emails.

Again, I honestly don't know but I had honestly expected something far more reasonable when I cam here in search for answers.

 

[lomiller]

See post #114.

All I see in post #114 is you comparing this to conspiracy to commit murder, which doesn’t even work as an analogy for a couple reasons. First that is a crime in it’s own right with it’s own laws. Second, if you follow though with murder you will have committed a crime where destroying this data would have violated no law at all because.

 

[RandFan]

All I see in post #114 is you comparing this to conspiracy to commit murder, which doesn’t even work as an analogy for a couple reasons. First that is a crime in it’s own right with it’s own laws. Second, if you follow though with murder you will have committed a crime where destroying this data would have violated no law at all because.

It America you can destroy scientific data. It's legal. It's even legal, I believe, to destroy government paid for data.

However, if you destroy data in the face of an FOI and then conspire to cover it up then that is a crime.

Otherwise the FOI is an entirely worthless concept.

 

[lomiller]

You are being disingenuous. The subject line is FOI and specific emails are referenced. That has nothing to do with ordinary record keeping.

And that allows you to conclude something about the destruction schedules attached to these e-mails how?

That has nothing to do with ordinary record keeping.

On the contrary you can't FOI something that has been destroyed. The destruction schedule tells you when that should happen.

 

[RandFan]

And that allows you to conclude something about the destruction schedules attached to these e-mails how?

I've already told you. My company has a policy for deleting proprietary data. They don't send me requests to destroy specific emails. I just follow the policy.

The destruction schedule tells you when that should happen.

And no need to send out a request instructing people to delete specific emails with "FOI" in the title.

The folks only need to follow the policy obviating any such request.

 

[lomiller]

However, if you destroy data in the face of an FOI and then conspire to cover it up then that is a crime.

which didn't happen, since no data was destroyed.

 

[RandFan]

which didn't happen, since no data was destroyed.

If you conspire to destroy to data and cover it up.

The problem is that you give those who want to avoid FOI's perfect cover. Conspire to destroy data and if there is no FOI then there is no foul.

If there is an FOI then destroy the data and any and all proof that there was a conspiracy.

 

[lomiller]

And no need to send out a request instructing people to delete specific emails with "FOI" in the title.

Sometimes people need to be reminded not to retain e-mail. Most people tend to keep it a lot longer then organizational policy allows.

 

[RandFan]

BTW: Oliver North is a great example. Up and until the investigation it was perfectly legal for him to destroy his documents. He pointed out that the government had provided him a shredder for that very purpose. It was only when an investigation was launched that it became illegal for him to do so.

And BTW, the real point here is the destruction of the emails not the data though that is problematic in its own right but I can understand that much more easily.

 

[RandFan]

Sometimes people need to be reminded not to retain e-mail. Most people tend to keep it a lot longer then organizational policy allows.

From: Mangement
To: All Personell

Subject: Company policy regarding destruction of email.

Please remember to follow appropriate schedules as it pertains to your email.

 

[BenBurch]

http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010030

Took ten seconds with google.

 

[RandFan]

From: Michael Mann <[email protected]>
To: Phil Jones <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 08:12:02 -0400
Reply-to: [email protected]

<x-flowed>
Hi Phil,

laughable that CA would claim to have discovered the problem. They would
have run off to the Wall Street Journal for an exclusive were that to
have been true.

I'll contact Gene about this ASAP. His new email is: [email protected]

talk to you later,

mike

Phil Jones wrote:
>
>> Mike,
> Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
> Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.
>
> Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't
> have his new email address.
>
> We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
>
> I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature
> paper!!
>
> Cheers
> Phil

 

[lomiller]

The problem is that you give those who want to avoid FOI's perfect cover.

not really. The destruction schedule is still in place, and it would be easy enough to show the information was destroyed before the schedule permitted.

The problem here is that most e-mail can essentially be destroyed immediately but is often kept longer and sometimes be accessed under FOI fishing trips if people neglect to destroy it when they should

 

[BenBurch]

So what? I've asked for emails to be deleted too. Especially when they discussed matters that were classified. I cannot even tell you why they were deleted.

 

[RandFan]

http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010030

Took ten seconds with google.

I've not looked at it yet but let me take it at face value.

A.) So I'm a liar? B.) What was your search criteria?

Ben, I strive to be honest and fair. I've said, "I was wrong" many times on this forum. I've apologized many times.

Impugning me isn't really necessary. I came here and asked fair questions and all I got was grief. I'm sorry but that's not ok.

 

[RandFan]

http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010030

Took ten seconds with google.

BTW: Thanks. It doesn't touch on why the emails were requested to be deleted.

 

[RandFan]

not really. The destruction schedule is still in place, and it would be easy enough to show the information was destroyed before the schedule permitted.

The problem here is that most e-mail can essentially be destroyed immediately but is often kept longer and sometimes be accessed under FOI fishing trips if people neglect to destroy it when they should

Amazing. Just amazing. After yelling and screamning someone just finaly answers a question. Jeez.

I don't know enough about FOI fising trips or specific requests to delete email to rebut your contention.

Thank you.

So what? I've asked for emails to be deleted too. Especially when they discussed matters that were classified. I cannot even tell you why they were deleted.

I've never seen that but I'm just an insurance auditor. Understood.

Thanks.