posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 06:55 PM
a reply to: Spinx
Finally someone else who actually recognizes that tape backups are a totally reasonable thing for them to have. Neat fact for everyone, that huge NSA
datacenter in Utah? It uses tape also. Tape is very good for certain applications, far better than other options.
As far as the whole hard drive crash excuse goes, it's BS. Anyone with a bit of tech knowledge could tell you that, but to people who aren't very
technical it sounds like a plausible excuse and gives the lawyers time to come up with other statements as they figure out what direction the line of
questioning is going to take. One of the biggest problems we have today is that those in these high level positions aren't technical people, we have
no technology experts in positions that matter in government so excuses like a hard drive crash or other random technical issues actually work for a
time, and in the long term bad policy gets created which causes these issues in the first place.
It's possible the emails themselves aren't there, data retention laws are a bit burdensome for companies with large amounts of data so I could see an
IT policy where certain stuff that is deemed non essential simply isn't archived beyond a few months. Those in charge would only be all too happy to
implement such a policy because it's easier on their budget. That doesn't make it legal or right but it happens all the time in the private sector so
it's not out of line to believe it happens in the public sector either.
What's important here is what exactly is missing. If it's these emails specifically we have a real problem, this would be like Nixon's missing tape.
If it's large batches of emails of which this is simply a small subset there's no way to prove intent one way or the other and it's just poor data
policy at which point some random IT guy is going to take the fall.
edit on 25-6-2014 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)