Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Government United States Communications Politics

White House Ordered to Preserve All Email 259

Posted by Zonk
from the IT-at-that-place-just-got-harder dept.
Verunks writes "A federal judge Monday ordered the White House to preserve copies of all its e-mails in response to two lawsuits that seek to determine whether e-mails have been destroyed in violation of federal law. The issue surfaced in the leak probe of administration officials who disclosed Valerie Plame's CIA identity. ' The Federal Records Act details strict standards prohibiting the destruction of government documents including electronic messages, unless first approved by the archivist of the United States. Justice Department lawyers had urged the courts to accept a proposed White House declaration promising to preserve all backup tapes. The judge's order "should stop any future destruction of e-mails, but the White House stopped archiving its e-mail in 2003 and we don't know if some backup tapes for those e-mails were already taped over before we went to court. It's a mystery," said Meredith Fuchs, a lawyer for the National Security Archive.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

White House Ordered to Preserve All Email

Comments Filter:
  • by Cro Magnon (467622) on Tuesday November 13, 2007 @09:44AM (#21335199) Homepage Journal
    Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
    • by innerweb (721995) on Tuesday November 13, 2007 @10:26AM (#21335579)

      Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

      Once more, the oft quoted post is more tragic than humorous. I doubt the individuals controlling the White House will actually listen to a Judge any more than they pay attention to the constitution. This will probably spur them into a deletion frenzy. They will probably simply find another way to communicate that has less of a trail.

      It is kind of like making it illegal to own guns or use encryption. The criminals never listen anyway.

      InnerWeb

      • by purpledinoz (573045) on Tuesday November 13, 2007 @11:02AM (#21336011)
        What's the point of this lawsuit anyway. If there's a conviction, then there'll be a pardon shortly after. No one's going to get punished, so there's no reason to stop breaking the law.
        • by Chris Burke (6130) on Tuesday November 13, 2007 @12:38PM (#21337421) Homepage
          What's the point of this lawsuit anyway. If there's a conviction, then there'll be a pardon shortly after. No one's going to get punished, so there's no reason to stop breaking the law.

          Getting the facts out into the open. Yes it would be nice if lawbreakers were punished for breaking the law but as we've seen sometimes that's practically impossible. In lieu of that, we can look for a conviction in the court of public opinion, a decision no pardon can reverse -- see Nixon. Or Scooter Libby for that matter. Scooter's conviction was damaging to the administration and the Republican party. If we can score even more solid dirt on someone as high or higher up than Scooter was, that would be even more damaging.

          That's a reason for them to stop breaking the law -- getting people to believe that these are lawbreakers and can't be trusted in office. Irreparable damage to political careers may not be as satisfying as jail time, but it is something. The fear of losing elections should help keep the rest of them in line. For a while anyway. I know how this goes. But if you don't do anything, just throw up your hands and say there's no point, then you've done worse than a token gesture of dissatisfaction, you've given tacit permission.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Yeah, they already have found a way around it. They use unofficial email addresses to discuss their dirty work. They aren't under any obligation to preserve emails sent or received via, say, their Republic National Committee email address.
        • by Zeinfeld (263942) on Tuesday November 13, 2007 @02:34PM (#21339223) Homepage
          Yeah, they already have found a way around it. They use unofficial email addresses to discuss their dirty work. They aren't under any obligation to preserve emails sent or received via, say, their Republic National Committee email address.

          On the contrary, every communication they make regadless of media is subject to the Presidential records act.

          I have some personal experience of this, during the Clinton administration every communication had to be surrendered to the arcivist, even if it was nothing more than a comment scribbled in the margine of a printed paper. The use of an external mail system from the Executive Office of the President was completely forbidden.

          The difference between using the Whitehouse system and the RNC email servers is that the Whitehouse systems are privileged for an initial five years after the President leaves office and can be extended for a further seven. The RNC email system is not a government system, is not covered by any form of privilege whatsoever.

          The other difference is security. The Whitehouse email systems are subject to security review by the NSA. The RNC system was not, they didn't even do security reviews of employees. The systems were not partitioned from systems serving other customers either. So as a result I would not be at all suprised if when the RNC denies having copies of some embarassing email or other if the Ambassador from Venezuela, Cuba, Iran or the like would 'helpfully' turn up with a hard drive full of the missing messages.

  • by Lost Penguin (636359) on Tuesday November 13, 2007 @09:45AM (#21335215) Homepage
    Since AT&T has been spying on everyone since spring of 2000, why not ask them for copies of Whitehouse and NRC.com emails?
    • by pla (258480) on Tuesday November 13, 2007 @09:52AM (#21335283) Journal
      Since AT&T has been spying on everyone since spring of 2000, why not ask them for copies of Whitehouse and NRC.com emails?

      Whoever modded this "funny" clearly doesn't "get" it.

      +5 "insightful (and scary as hell)", not "funny".
      • by k_187 (61692)
        Especially since if they started in spring 2000, it was under Clinton's authority.
        • by pla (258480) on Tuesday November 13, 2007 @11:23AM (#21336269) Journal
          Especially since if they started in spring 2000, it was under Clinton's authority.

          Defensive much?

          I don't give a damn about whether Bush or Clinton or Mahatma frickin' Gandhi started the domestic wiretapping program. I just care that it exists, an affront to everything America stands (or rather, "stood") for. Like torture, any debate over the "legality" of it misses the point completely.

          As for your curious defense of TweedleDum(R) over TweedleDee(D), I also don't care that Bush calls himself a Republican. Clinton? Scum of the Earth, and I wouldn't let him within 50 yards of a female relative; through Janet Reno, he singlehandedly destroyed the last shred of respect people had for the DOJ.

          But Bush??? Personally, I would consider him the single worst, and the least Republican, president in US history - And I include FDR, "The Great Socialist" in that comparison. Republicans (claim to) believe in fiscal responsibility, small government, and minding their own business to the point of isolationism; Bush has racked up a debt that dwarfs his predecessors; made the government bigger and more intrusive than ever; and followed a foreign policy of busybody-ism resulting in massively decreased security for not just us but the whole world.

          And you want to view it as a game of left-vs-right? We may as well argue about who has the nicer cufflinks.

          Our government, regardless of meaningless party affiliations, has declared war against its own citizens. If you think it cares which letter, D or R, appears on your driver's license - Well, enjoy your false sense of security while it lasts.



          As an aside, the letter that appears on my driver's license might surprise you. So do me the credit of having a better argument than whining that "Clinton did it first", hoping that I'll have no comeback to that, as though it excuses anything.
          • by k_187 (61692)
            That would be exactly my point. Its been done before and bitching that SHRUB R BAD misses the point.
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              Shrub is bad, for plenty of reasons that have nothing to do with wiretapping.

              And no, Clinton wasn't any prize either.

              The worst thing is that they are both just symptoms of the real problem.
          • We may as well argue about who has the nicer cufflinks.

            Okay, I have a lovely platinum set of cufflinks. They are round and have a bias relief of an eagle. The eagle's eye is made out of a small (don't know the carat offhand) diamond.

            You are up.

          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by patternmatch (951637)

            If you think it cares which letter, D or R, appears on your driver's license - Well, enjoy your false sense of security while it lasts.

            Since when is your party affiliation listed on your driver's license? Mine certainly isn't.

      • by gstoddart (321705)

        Whoever modded this "funny" clearly doesn't "get" it.

        +5 "insightful (and scary as hell)", not "funny".

        Funny, ironic. Funny, if I don't laugh I'd have to weep. Funny, but weren't they already required by law to retain those e-mails instead of sending their e-mail through the RNP and ceasing to archive for White House?

        Cheers
      • No....YOU don't get it......Whitehouse.com used to be a porn site. The poster should have said 'whitehouse.GOV'.
      • by FangVT (144970)

        Since AT&T has been spying on everyone since spring of 2000, why not ask them for copies of Whitehouse and NRC.com emails?

        Whoever modded this "funny" clearly doesn't "get" it.

        +5 "insightful (and scary as hell)", not "funny".

        Just because something is insightful and scary doesn't mean it's not also funny. Haven't you ever heard someone complain that if they didn't laugh they'd have to cry?

    • by rbanffy (584143)
      +1 scary
  • by morgan_greywolf (835522) on Tuesday November 13, 2007 @09:45AM (#21335217) Homepage Journal
    Does anyone know what tech the White House has? It would seem like the storage requirements for storing every single e-mail sent in and out of the White House would be huge.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by niceone (992278) *
      Yeah, now all the terrorists have to do to bring down the US government is to send lots of emails with really big attachments to vice_president@whitehouse.gov.
    • Another question. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by iknownuttin (1099999)
      It would seem like the storage requirements for storing every single e-mail sent in and out of the White House would be huge.

      First, how do yo prove that emails were deleted? And if you can prove it, how do you prove that they weren't deleted maliciously?

      Second, I once asked a member of the Bar here in GA (a lawyer) about deleting emails and the legal ramifications. He said that as long as I have a company policy of deleting them after X amount of time, then nobody could claim that I was deleting them for

      • Hmmm...I believe the rule, at least in federal cases, is that once you have a reasonable belief that you are going to be sued, you have to stop deleting or trashing anything that may have something to do with the case. This continues throughout the suit. The main problem though is how does someone else prove that you deleted stuff? I think most discovery is done voluntarily also so you can never be 100% sure that everyone is turning over everything.
      • by nomadic (141991)
        Then the judge rules something that I can't remember, but basically you, the email deleter, gets into trouble and possibly loses the case.

        Three things that could happen:

        1. The judge can find that your deletion creates a presumption that the e-mails were damaging.
        2. The judge can enter sanctions against you for discovery abuses.
        3. Depending on the laws the court is operating under, the other side might be able to sue you for spoliation of evidence. Not all locales have this tort though.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Metzli (184903)
      Not trying to trivialize too much, but it's the same requirements that businesses have to meet due to e-discovery rules. If they can do it, one would think the White House could.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by kennedy (18142)
      I do not know what technology the White House uses, but i work for a company that offers an email archiving service for just this sort of thing. Our customer base is mostly lawyers, hospitals, and people who deal with stocks and trading. Generally this service is used to stem insider trading, information leaking and to be ready in case your buisness is served with papers requiring you to produce emails from a specific period of time.

      With our system, all email end up on a WORM device (see permabit) so we can
    • by Stargoat (658863)
      How about we just require the White House to follow the same requirements as GLBA, SOX, BSA, FACT Act, and all the others?
    • by gstoddart (321705) on Tuesday November 13, 2007 @01:38PM (#21338373) Homepage

      Does anyone know what tech the White House has? It would seem like the storage requirements for storing every single e-mail sent in and out of the White House would be huge.

      Well, given the nature of the decisions which are coming out of the White House ... who cares?

      This stuff is supposed to be historical record; I thought they were already obligated to keep all of this stuff (except for that whole sending through Republican Party addresses debacle). The White House has helicopters, airplanes, fleets of limousines, chase cars, private chefs, security personnel, communications officers, Stewards, housekeepers, and what have you.

      If the official correspondence of the head of state isn't worth keeping, then, WTF is worth keeping?? A tremendous amount of resources go into keeping the President doing his work and plugged in. Surely to fsck the technical issues of archiving this shit is a surmountable problem.

      If they're not archiving it now, it's because someone decided to stop the audit trail, not because the resources weren't there.

      Cheers
  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) on Tuesday November 13, 2007 @09:46AM (#21335225) Journal
    She said she has seen some news reports that some court has ordered the White House to preserve all emails, mails and such records. But she has checked her emails just a minute ago and there is no such order there.
    • by gad_zuki! (70830)
      On further examination no emails from Meredith Fuchs are getting past the spam filter. A court order to force her to change her last name to Smithe has been issued by the 9th district court of appeals. It has also been suggested that President Bush seriously think about changing his name to Jones as the email that is missing has the subject line "Meredith Fuchs Bush." That message alone has crashed all the White House spam assassin filters three times today.
  • by InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) on Tuesday November 13, 2007 @09:46AM (#21335231)
    Unfortunately, the court order was sent via email, and was filtered along with all judicial and legislative correspondence, directly to the Trash.

    And so it continues...
  • '"A federal judge Monday ordered the White House to preserve copies of all its e-mails...'

    That'll work...
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Why shouldn't we get to see their emails? After all, if they've done nothing wrong, they have nothing to hide.

    Oh, wait...
  • by RandoX (828285) on Tuesday November 13, 2007 @09:52AM (#21335275)
    A company I worked for was forbidden to keep emails longer than 60 days. Lawsuit evidence discovery was the actual reason they gave. At least they were honest about that... I chose to leave there because of ethical disagreements I had.
    • Lawsuit evidence discovery was the actual reason they gave.

      And it is a good reason. Lawyers have careers because the law is not cut-and-dried and it seems doubtful that anything exculpatory could be in an e-mail. So it is a liability in that sense. Why retain it, kill away.

      The difference is that federal law says that those e-mails are to be preserved because of their historical value.

  • by DuncanE (35734) * on Tuesday November 13, 2007 @09:53AM (#21335289) Homepage
    Firstly I would like to state I'm not an American citizen (I'm Australian).

    I have always felt that freedom is better served by people hiding their truths.

    No one... not even democracy.. has the right to ask someone to hand over their private thoughts. Not even if they are in a written letter. Not even if they are in an electronic email. Not even if that person is a President of a country.

    So while I understand if people what to read George W's email to the Vice-Pres, I have to point out the GW's email to his daughters should be protected to the fullest extent of the law and ... to the fullest extent of humanity.

    • ...and wait, it won't be long before Gee-Dubya starts mailing his daughters and getting them to forward it straight to cheney, and vice versa.

      He's the president, and his communications should be kept private until such time as they are deemed relevant to an investigation into corruption, illegal war, whatever.
    • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Tuesday November 13, 2007 @10:03AM (#21335359)

      So while I understand if people what to read George W's email to the Vice-Pres, I have to point out the GW's email to his daughters should be protected to the fullest extent of the law and ... to the fullest extent of humanity.
      Easy peasy. Don't use official systems for personal business. The taxpayers are the owners of the government systems, so if the president doesn't like the rules for using our equipment, he can get another job.
      • by Sosarian (39969)
        I'm sure it'll be really funny with the President logging into Facebook and Hotmail to send email to his kids.
      • by slapout (93640) on Tuesday November 13, 2007 @11:02AM (#21336007)
        "Don't use official systems for personal business."

        I think that probably covers everyone on Slashdot.
         
      • by Skapare (16644)

        So no one is allowed to call home to the family when on the job in a government position?

        • by Shakrai (717556) *

          So no one is allowed to call home to the family when on the job in a government position?

          Actually, he said "don't use official systems". So by all means, call your family from your personal cell phone while at work. Calling them from the office phone would be "using official systems".

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by DrLang21 (900992)
      There is a distinction between personal correspondence and business correspondence. My e-mails sent from my e-mail address given to me by my employer are in no way private. Certain individuals within this company can read them at any time. My personal e-mails sent from my personal e-mail address are private (or so we like to think). Now it's not a far stretch from here to say that I should not be sending personal e-mails from my work address or work related e-mails from my private address. I don't see why o
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      This isn't Georgy's personal emails home. These are emails guaranteed to be public because they originated at the hands of a government agent. All things a government agent does -unless it has special permissions to be secret- needs to be available to all those who pay for such services. This is law.

      The idea that we can't or shouldn't be able to get at this information is absurd.

      The funny part of all this is that most of the administration uses GOP-provided email services to protect themselves from such req
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by pev (2186)
      As with pretty much every other employment around the world, Bush should expect his work related email (i.e. White House) to be monitored and archived by his employers and as such shouldn't have expectations of privacy. If he want's to write personal emails to his daughters that he'd rather not be read by his employers he should have personal email as everyone else does, no?

      ~Pev
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by db32 (862117)
        Uhm he does expect the government email to get monitored. Hence the two main problems here. They quit archiving them, and they got in trouble for using outside email to conduct their shenanagins so that they wouldn't get burned by the government archiving and monitoring.
    • by dave420 (699308)
      If he's emailing his daughters as President of the USA, then it should be recorded. If he's emailing them as Pappa Bush, then it shouldn't.
    • by canuck57 (662392)

      No one... not even democracy.. has the right to ask someone to hand over their private thoughts. Not even if they are in a written letter. Not even if they are in an electronic email. Not even if that person is a President of a country.

      Consider it public if you type it into a system that is public or owned by someone else. While I agree if it is say a persons personal computer whholey owned and operated by themselves I do not buy into privacy if it is the government's or companies computer. If you want

    • While I agree in general, the President is NOT a normal citizen, and special rules can and do apply.

      First, as Commander-in-Chief he is in the unique role of being both a civilian and a military leader, and members of the military voluntarily surrender a number of the liberties and protections afforded private citizens.

      Second, as Head of State he is the leader of the United States 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. ANYTHING he reads or writes is potentially relevant to his job, and should be retained if neces
      • by bar-agent (698856)
        Let me start with saying that I approve of the court's decision, and thus with the general thrust of your post (*bow-chicka-bow-bow*).

        But,

        First, as Commander-in-Chief he is in the unique role of being both a civilian and a military leader, and members of the military voluntarily surrender a number of the liberties and protections afforded private citizens.

        Members of the military do, however, the Commander-in-Chief is an emphatically and intentionally a civilian position. The President himself is not militar
    • I agree that privacy and anonymity are necessary for preserving freedom. However, I think that concept has limits. Like if I write a letter to someone in which I threaten to kill that person, it should probable be admissible in court.

      Also, it's been traditional for Presidents' private papers and even diaries to be made public for the sake of history, which I think is a good thing. But certainly I expect the actions of public officials to be pretty transparent. If the President's "private thoughts" are

  • Already the case? (Score:5, Informative)

    by necro81 (917438) on Tuesday November 13, 2007 @10:09AM (#21335405) Journal
    I suppose there is nothing wrong with the White House being directed to preserve emails, given their past history [wikipedia.org]. However, one would think that the Presidential Records Act [archives.gov] would already force them to preserve any email that might have evidentiary value (see the third bullet down on the link).

    On the other hand, a Bush Executive Order in late 2001 [wikipedia.org] seems to allow almost anything from the President's or VP's office to be made off limits:

    ...reflecting military, diplomatic, or national security secrets, Presidential communications, legal advice, legal work, or the deliberative processes of the President and the President's advisers...
    Hopefully, this loophole can be closed and tighter retention policies put in place [wikipedia.org], not just for this case, but for all Presidential Papers. To put the Administration's opacity in perspective, Bush's executive order on this subject superceded one put in place by Reagan, and seeks to undermine a law put in place in response to Nixon.
    • by innerweb (721995)

      and seeks to undermine a law put in place in response to Nixon.

      Bush Jr and Nixon have way too much in common. Except, Nixon was a better politician and statesman.

      InnerWeb

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by E++99 (880734)
      I think the first, most obvious question would be, by what Constitutional power can Congress determine the manner in which the President keeps (or doesn't keep) his records? Just as Democrats accuse Bush of using 9/11 as an excuse to subvert the Constitution, the Democrats have used Nixon as an excuse to subvert the Constitution.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by necro81 (917438)
        It is generally accepted that, as a foundation of democracy, government transparency is essential. It is to this end, and for historical posterity, that records of communications within the White House (and Congress, and the Supreme Court) are preserved. The Presidential Records Act has been around for nearly three decades, and it has yet to be overturned on constitutional grounds.

        As a clarification: the manner of the preservation isn't specified by law, only that the preservation be done.

        As another
  • by deniable (76198)
    Just make them follow Sarbanes-Oxley. With their ties to corporate America, it should be a no brainer. That and they'll get some practice with the rules they need to enforce. Put NASA under Six Sigma and get the US military certified to ISO 9000 and maybe 14000. Let me give you a tip, consulting will be the wave of the future.
    • by techpawn (969834)

      Just make them follow Sarbanes-Oxley
      By the time they get all the procedures into place some auditor who thinks they're a lawyer will just come and change the rules. At least that's how it was when I was working with SOX. I would die a little inside each time I submitted paperwork to test the application for submitting paperwork for testing applications... So it would have no effect on the current 1984 Pigs
  • All W has to do is claim that the StupidFilter [slashdot.org] deleted them. Nobody will argue the point.
  • Unless you also preserve the email server logs (and they have to be really detailed in order to make some sense of preservation), preserving all the emails is an illusion. Not to talk about the amount of storage needed, tapes for long term preservation etc etc.
    Forget about the emails: it's more or less the same as the work of mounth: blowing in the wind.
    • see the post about SOX above.. this is ALREADY LAW for any publicly traded company. And yes there is a huge boom in server storage! Forget the White House, imagine GM or IBM having to keep all the mails their employees send or receive... yes, it's being done, it should be trivial for something as small as the White House.
  • Two accounts (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Etrias (1121031) on Tuesday November 13, 2007 @10:31AM (#21335647)
    Remember folks, there are two accounts that we should consider here. As there is an executive order to preserve all "official" communication, the White House emails are likely not that hard to get as they would be breaking federal law if they deleted those emails.

    However, the likelihood of what they are looking for are actually in the RNC emails, those are the ones that should be under federal order not to be destroyed. The current administration (under the direction of Karl Rove) was directed to have most of their communication about political strategy (under which the whole Plame event would have qualified) to be routed through RNC accounts.

    Bush, of course, does not use email. As loath as I am to say so, if he wanted to be secret, not using email is a pretty good way to achieve the lack of culpability for any political shenanigans.
  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Tuesday November 13, 2007 @10:39AM (#21335759) Homepage Journal
    What Republicans told me and the rest of the world for the past 7 years:

    If you're not guilty, you won't mind being searched - so now we have to search you much more closely. Mr Bush, please drop your drawers.
  • by plopez (54068) on Tuesday November 13, 2007 @10:56AM (#21335941) Journal
    Whenever there is misfeasance, malfeasance, nonfeasance, corruption or sheer incompetence you can almost guarantee that a President will hide behind "Executive Privilege". Which I challenge you to find anywhere in the US Constitution, it in fact does not exist. They will use "Executive Privilege" to ignore the courts and grab more power for the Presidency. It is for reasons such as this that I have come to believe that the Constitution must be amended and the office of the Presidency abolished. It is simply too much power in the hands of one person, with the temptation to seize even more power.

    However I see the chances of this happening as slim to know, as many people not only desire a President but actually a King or Emperor. In their world view, they need to see somebody "in charge", even if that person is a travesty.
    • by fyoder (857358)

      It is for reasons such as this that I have come to believe that the Constitution must be amended and the office of the Presidency abolished. It is simply too much power in the hands of one person, with the temptation to seize even more power.

      However I see the chances of this happening as slim to know, as many people not only desire a President but actually a King or Emperor. In their world view, they need to see somebody "in charge", even if that person is a travesty.

      Somebody, by whatever title, gets to be head of state. The trick is to limit their power so much that they are effectively a figurehead, regardless of their title. Here in Canada, that's the Queen, through her representative the Governor General who is officially Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. But if she decided on her own to use the military to 'liberate' her native Haiti or something, it wouldn't happen, even though she looks really cute with her Amazon Brigade [answers.com].

  • Good to see Bush et al getting a little taste of what they are doing to us. One of our founding fathers says it best.

    Those that give up Liberty to have temporary Security deserve Neither - Benjamin Franklin.
    • by Legion303 (97901)
      "Those that give up Liberty to have temporary Security deserve Neither - Benjamin Franklin."

      Sorry, wrong answer.
    • by CmdrGravy (645153)
      You're only quoting half of that quote though, the full quotation is:

      Those that give up Liberty to have temporary Security deserve neither whilst those who abuse their liberty to stand in the way of lasting security and protection from terrorism deserve to lose all that they have, including liberty and security but also, and not limited to, their house, job and position in society.

       
  • The funny thing with "national security" is that they can read all your emails but you can't see any of theirs, even though our Constitution states otherwise. Well it's only a "goddamn piece of paper".
  • I recall reading that this administration was already using an obscurely named .com site for email for this
    very reason. The other effect of this rule -- future presidents won't use email but IMs or IR blasting, etc.

Today's scientific question is: What in the world is electricity? And where does it go after it leaves the toaster? -- Dave Barry, "What is Electricity?"

Working...