On Wall Street, a High-Ranking Few Still Avoid Email (reuters.com) 168
The world may be increasingly becoming digital, but a small group of the Wall Street elite refuses to say anything substantive in an email, text, or chat, and some will not communicate digitally at all. From a Reuters report: This group, which includes top bankers like JPMorgan Chase & Co Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon and powerful investors like Carl Icahn and Berkshire Hathaway Inc's Warren Buffett, were eschewing electronic communications long before the probe of U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's emails and the recent hacks of her campaign manager's account made headlines. Some on Wall Street are nostalgic for a time when in-person conversations or phone calls were the norm, but others believe the words they type and send can come back to haunt them. Prosecutors have built insider trading, mortgage fraud and rate-rigging cases on embarrassing emails over the past several years, and they are often the most memorable part. Recent email woes among Washington power players have provided yet another reason for bankers to try to protect private correspondence from prying eyes. Dimon uses email but is known to keep his replies short and factual, favoring "yes," "no" and "thank you."
Smart move (Score:5, Insightful)
Judging by recent stories, sounds like they're pretty wise.
Re:Smart move (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm betting this policy of theirs predates email... it was probably already in place back when written/dictated letters were the norm.
On a related note, I work with someone who follows a similar practice. I've figured out she will call me if she doesn't want something on record. She's not a higher up... more of a not-completely-trustworthy coworker who relies on unsubstantiated appeals to authority as a stick. If she can't reach me by phone, she'll wait until she can catch me in person. With her, I've learned to follow up on any verbal exchanges with an email asking for clarification/elucidation - basically forcing the conversation into a more-auditable mode.
Re: (Score:2)
I have plenty colleagues like this, i also had bosses like this.
Sending them an e-mail prompts a phone call from them where they try to "clarify" things. I play dumb and tell them that "I forget things". If they hand me verbal instructions, I wouldn't do it.
Re:Smart move (Score:5, Informative)
I have a phrase, it is quite useful: "Can I get that in Email?"
If the answer is "no", then I assume I am free to ignore that request. Since they have no record of the request, then they have ability to fire me for not following said request. It is really easy to play that game, you just have to play along. The issue is, you have to play it 100% of the time.
And if they ever try to "Get" you, you play dumb, "I don't recall".
The other thing I find useful is sending an email with a "brief summary" of whatever meeting it was. If they don't respond, then that is tacit acknowledgement the summary is accurate, and it becomes official record. Any non-written "clarification" would be followed up with same.
The problem is, far too many people find sleazy as an acceptable practice in organizations, and actively participate in the sleaze. Don't participate and you have nothing to worry about.
Re:Smart move (Score:4, Insightful)
I have a phrase, it is quite useful: "Can I get that in Email?" If the answer is "no", then I assume I am free to ignore that request.
... And if they ever try to "Get" you, you play dumb, "I don't recall".
Doesn't matter. The boss can still fire you - or lay you off.
The other thing I find useful is sending an email with a "brief summary" of whatever meeting it was. If they don't respond, then that is tacit acknowledgement the summary is accurate, and it becomes official record. Any non-written "clarification" would be followed up with same.
Still doesn't matter. The boss can still say he followed up in-person or by phone. The lack of a further email summary won't matter to his boss.
The problem is, far too many people find sleazy as an acceptable practice in organizations, and actively participate in the sleaze.
Agreed
Don't participate and you have nothing to worry about.
Unfortunately, no. Too many people will believe the sleeze-balls.
Re:Smart move (Score:4, Insightful)
It's much harder for the boss to fire you if you have performed all duties that came to you in written form.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like your employer has to prove to anyone that you didn't perform your duties. Most places in the US it just doesn't matter. They can fire you for absolutely no reason at all, and you can't do diddly-squat about it unless you can demonstrate that it was racially or sexually motivated.
Re: (Score:2)
Well then, fortunately i don't work in the USA so I don't have to put up with that kind of crap.
Re: (Score:2)
Employee: "I don't use email."
Boss: "You're Fired."
Re: Smart move (Score:1)
See, I'm the opposite. Not a backstabbing sleeze or at least I try not to be. However, when I encounter one of those "summarize every conversation in an email" types I cut that person out of my professional life as much as possible, and I will find somewhere else for subordinates who do that too. It tells me they don't trust and can't be trusted if they have to play that game constantly.
Besides, I absolutely can't stand and don't believe in the notion that every communication has to be auditable. I do u
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you have not earned their trust yet. There could be a reason they want a record. When you say you "try" not to be a backstabbing sleaze that is not a ringing endorsement of yourself. I don't know you and maybe you are the greatest person in the world, but trust takes time.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, he's the kind of person you need to have written documentation. He "tries" is tacit acknowledgement that he has to put effort into not being a sleaze. He just doesn't realize that his tendency is towards sleaze, and he "tries" to not be one.
Or, as my dad used to say "Trying is a noisy way of doing nothing"
As for Documentation, it is the key to eliminating confusion and miscommunication.
"My understanding from our meeting is that you want me to drop X and start Y immediately"
"No, I want you to finis
Re: (Score:1)
As for Documentation, it is the key to eliminating confusion and miscommunication.
I'm one of those people who prefers to converse in person and will tend to ignore requests to "follow up" by email.
I've found sometimes it's the "follow up" people who are backstabbers. They will do such things are talk with you at length about an issue, and then post to everyone the same question in such a way as to imply you never had the conversation, making everyone else think you're not willing to share information, just so they can force you to do it all over again, on their terms.
Is it a few minutes
Re: (Score:1)
He "tries" is tacit acknowledgement that he has to put effort into not being a sleaze. He just doesn't realize that his tendency is towards sleaze
I think everyone's tendancy is towards "sleaze" as defined in this thread.
I don't think I've ever met anyone who doesn't jerk other people around to some extent.
I think it's unavoidable, because it's what I see everyone do.
So I figure, the ones making an effort are at least making an effort.
And the ones who think they don't need to make an effort, their actions are worse, but they're not self-aware enough to know it.
I have more respect for people who acknowledge this tendancy in all people, and make the eff
Re: (Score:2)
There are people whose integrity is beyond reproach. For them you can work off the record trusting they will do their part and that you will do yours. I don't think everyone has a sleazeball instinct and I find it a negative view of humanity to think that. I don't like having to have everything in writing either and of course there are examples of people who will use it as a stick which is sleazy in its own right. But I will be damned if I will let a known sleazeball get away with informal conversations
Re: (Score:1)
Clarification is great, and memories suck.
I agree clarification is a good thing. And lack of clarity, bad memory, and the jerked-aroundness that ensues from that is a terrible thing.
But sometimes, some "can you summarise every detail in an email" people appear to be trying to ensure that their boss/peer/coworker is so busy writing every micro-fact down to a ridiculous standard of hyperclarification that it has become a means of CYA-ing the relationship to death and there is hardly any functional work possib
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good advice. One other, never ever delete an email. Ever.
I've had several occasions in different companies where my ass was on the line but, my ability
Re: (Score:2)
I also do this. It's a matter of trust. There are some people I would action a verbal request for because there is trust in the business relatonship. Those can be the most productive. Otherwise, ya, going to need that in writing to satisfy CYA requirements.
Re: (Score:2)
One of my old mentors was known for getting his requests through quickly. He told me it was because the other people knew he would stand by what he asked informally and not try to throw them under the bus if things went south.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely, you can bypass a lot of red tape when there is trust and in the long run you will be way more productive. Your word is your bond. If you say you will do it, you do it, you stand by it and if something goes south you own it. That's how people get to trust you and in the long run, like your mentor can just get it done.
Patsy (Score:3)
I've seen this a number of times.
Not always, but sometimes when a manager contacts you over the phone and asks you to do something there is a very specific reason they are asking you over the phone, in that there is no record of them asking you to do it in the first place. If said thing is somewhat questionable, it will be your ass in the fire, not the managers who could simply say that they said nothing or that you must have "misunderstood" what they really asked you to do.
Most times it is just innocent si
Re: (Score:2)
The other thing I find useful is sending an email with a "brief summary" of whatever meeting it was. If they don't respond, then that is tacit acknowledgement the summary is accurate, and it becomes official record. Any non-written "clarification" would be followed up with same.
Even when we are not talking about the ugly scenario of potential angry disagreements on or over the horizon, it is a very useful practice to have a summary email to capture the actionable information. It so happens that perfectly honest and competent people sometimes do talk past each other, and not be clear in their minds whether a discussion actually implies an agreement for a future course of action. A summary email is a way of saying "Hey, this is what I think we agreed to. PLEASE, let me know if I
Re:Smart move (Score:4, Insightful)
I didn't know you worked at the Clinton Foundation.
Re: (Score:2)
The best part about your childish "Nu-uh. You are!" posting, is that I am voting for Jill Stein, just like I did in 2012. I think she is the best person running this cycle, and I have made this point many times recently.
As to my post above, I just couldn't help but take a dig at Hillary. Really, it didn't even follow from the post by 93 Escort Wagon. But is sure got your panties in a bunch.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember to cash the check.
He has a habit of cancelling his debts.
Re: (Score:2)
So, are you just too busy to read? Or are your panties in such a bunch you refuse to?
Third option: You're too stupid to understand, that's why you support Hillary.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong
In any election this close, voting 3rd party IS aiding the slimiest, most despicable fraud ever to run for President...
No, I'm not voting for Hillary either.
Re: (Score:2)
All while being so obviously willing to throw anybody under the bus at a moments notice that her closest personal aid keeps home copies of all email as 'life insurance'. Then forgets about them being on her perv husbands laptop.
I bet that she deleted the emails off her own laptop (or just had it paved over, and no they didn't share a computer, be real) but forgot that she had backed up her user folder to Carlos Danger's computer.
Or maybe Carlos grabbed a copy and called it 'life insurance'. The folder
Re: (Score:2)
I'll be glad after next week's election has come and gone... hopefully half of this incessant childish sniping (from whichever side wins) will go away at that point.
Re: (Score:2)
I do apologize for using your previous post for childish sniping. It was all in good fun.
And considering the continued attacks against Obama, McCain, Palin, and Romney, I doubt things will settle down any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
And considering the continued attacks against Obama, McCain, Palin, and Romney, I doubt things will settle down any time soon.
Oh man, I think I need a drink...
Re: (Score:2)
That brings up an interesting point. What sort of investigation into Clinton's email did the FBI do? It seems probable that her staff handled about 99% of Clinton's email. I'm no FBI agent, but it seems to me that if you're investigating Clinton's emails, you'd seize and search her closest aide's computer, and probably all of her staff's computers on the very first day.
This election seems to be about choosing the oligarchy we've been living under or switching to dictatorship...
Re: (Score:3)
That brings up an interesting point. What sort of investigation into Clinton's email did the FBI do? It seems probable that her staff handled about 99% of Clinton's email. I'm no FBI agent, but it seems to me that if you're investigating Clinton's emails, you'd seize and search her closest aide's computer, and probably all of her staff's computers on the very first day.
That's the thing. No one is allowed to do such a thing to a Clinton. So, it wasn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention the whole 'Aid/Lawyer' trick.
I'm betting soon, all senior aids in DC will have law licenses. So they have privilege. Soon the human to lawyer ratio will approach 0:1. (Remember law students still count as 0.3 of a person, their soul still being in escrow. Interns will keep the human count above 0.)
Re: (Score:2)
I've figured out she will call me if she doesn't want something on record.
This is legal 101 where I worked. If you think you may have a patentable idea call the lawyers. Never anything in e-mail.
Re: (Score:1)
Never write, what you can talk. never talk, when you can nod. Never nod, when you can wink
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Judging by recent stories, sounds like they're pretty wise.
Brian Pagliano would have quite a number of job offers from Wall Street once the Clinton investigations are over, assuming he doesn't go to the slammer
That's just common sense for crime organizations. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's just common sense for crime organization (Score:4, Insightful)
Well if you think Wall Street moguls are a bunch of crooks, let's see who they want to win:
http://www.businessinsider.com... [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Based on WHAT? Has he done a single trustworthy thing in his life?
He can't even speak a single sentence without denying he said it in the next one...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Anyone who thinks just being honest in their communications will protect them in a lawsuit has never been closely involved in a lawsuit.
I once saw it stated like this: Testifying in a recorded deposition that you are working toward a GED, actively participate in Big Brothers charity, and have had three job interviews this week will be presented by the prosecutor as: you are an unemployed, high school dropout, who likes to hang around young children.
God help you if you ever made a comment in email that ther
Re: (Score:2)
"Anthony Weiner is an Republican Puppet of the KGB! "
If you want subscribers to your newsletter, you have to do better.
Re: (Score:2)
Having half a million bits of information show up on an old investigation is the opposite of your "starting" or "not concrete".
Can't wait until this election is over and we can get back to being screwed over by the 1% regardless of which corrupt party wins.
Re: (Score:2)
and your sociopathic coworkers.
Email, Yeah (Score:1)
Of course they avoid emails.
Traders communicate using IRC and custom chat systems with no logging. Senior management sends order by phone or in person or again on a private channel. CEOs do most non-face-time communication over phone or SMS.
Nobody even take minutes anymore. I don't really believe they really ever did. Communication on Wall Street is as ephemeral, cloistered, and unaccountable as every other part of the business.
Re: (Score:3)
Every channel you mentioned can be monitored by the authorities. Or the Russians. Or your competition*.
*Indirectly [slashdot.org], that is.
Re: (Score:2)
A beeping phone lines that record all conversations.
But there is no way to insure nobody goes to side channels. There basically can't be a way.
On the record (Score:5, Interesting)
That defines separation of class (Score:5, Insightful)
You know you are in the underclass when you find it useful to have proof of what you have done.
You know you are in the upper class when you find it useful to not have any proof of what you have done.
The obvious conclusion of those statements is that money is a direct replacement for proof.
Re:That defines separation of class (Score:5, Insightful)
You know you are in the underclass when you find it useful to have proof of what you have done.
You know you are in the upper class when you find it useful to not have any proof of what you have done.
I suspect its more like...
you know you did something where you are in the right when you find it useful to have proof of what you said and did.
you know you are in the wrong (illegal, unethical, whatever) when you find it useful not to have any proof of what you said or did.
While there is a correlation between the 'upper class' behaving illegally and unethically, and the 'under class' trying to keep the shit from landing on them there are plenty of (bottom class) criminals who (if they have 2 cells in their brains to rub together) also know better than to leave a 'paper trail'.
Re:That defines separation of class (Score:5, Funny)
Criminals with two brain cells to rub together aren't bottom class criminals, they're lawyers and politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect its more like...
you know you did something where you are in the right when you find it useful to have proof of what you said and did.
you know you are in the wrong (illegal, unethical, whatever) when you find it useful not to have any proof of what you said or did.
Not necessarily. I recently had a minor dispute with a cow-orker. I know I was right, but I'm sure she thought she was right as well. We both included our boss in the email conversation. That way, if there was any need for his involvement (there wasn't), he would have had the whole conversation, not just a he said/she said scenario.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure how that refutes my argument. It seems in this case you both 'knew' you were right, and you both wanted documentation.
Re: (Score:2)
You want everything to just be verbal because it is easier, and you can clarify things and/or change your mind ("I meant sky blue, not royal blue").
I as a customer, want everything in writing too, so that when (not if) a contractor does something wrong we have what was specified *in writing* so we can get them to fix it 'on their time and their dime'.
And I've dealt with lots of contractors who don't seem interested in doing things in writing. And then the inevitable arguments... "you said you'd remove and dispose of the old wiring panel as part of the job.", "you said you'd take care of the permitting"...you said you'd manage the sub-trades, and now th
Re:That defines separation of class (Score:4, Interesting)
You are completely right of course.
That being said, I would add that if you're Warren Buffet, you're going to have everyone try to impress you with unsolicited insider trading knowledge. So that's another reason you wouldn't want a work email address for him.
Because what happens when you receive insider information by email about a company you were already going to invest in? If the inside information only confirms that you should buy their stock, do you cancel your original plan to buy their stock now because you would seem guilty of insider trading? Or do you stick to the original plan of buying the stock and try to prove to the Feds that you didn't make the buying decision using the information you received?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You know you're in the underclass when you can't avoid being recorded to get what you want done.
You know you're in the upper class when you can avoid being recorded and still get what you want done.
Wrong definition (Score:2)
It's funny how Americans always think money is the same thing as class.
I don't think you are thinking of the same definiton of the word "class" I am using. I am speaking of categorization only, not worth in any sense.
Power and influence is the direct replacement for proof
Both of which are easily obtained by money; your statement is merely a superset of what I was saying.
there's no guarantee that having money will give it to you,
There I disagree. You can always find some way to convert money to power. It
Re:On the record (Score:5, Insightful)
>Where I work, sometimes you want it on-the-record. I want proof I said something, or did something, far more often than I'd ever want to be able to deny such actions later on.
I also try to make sure any important communications get logged in email. If I have a phone call, I will email the client and summarize what we talked about. Not only does this minimize miscommunications (which can be very costly), but it has led to me winning a lawsuit when the client claimed I had never communicated with them and wanted to cancel an upcoming event I was going to speak at, despite having a contract and all that. So I printed out my copious email communications with them planning the event, put it and the contract in front of the "judge", and he took a look over the evidence and awarded me the full amount on my contract plus legal fees.
Without the emails it would have been very hard to prove just through phone records that the event had been planned and booked six months in advance of the event date.
Re:On the record (Score:5, Insightful)
Where I work, sometimes you want it on-the-record. I want proof I said something, or did something, far more often than I'd ever want to be able to deny such actions later on.
That's because you're a peon. Perhaps well-paid and well-respected, but a peon nonetheless, compared with those who effectively run the world. The farther up people are on the ladder of power, the harder it tends to be to tell the difference between them, and the criminals recognized as such by the justice system. Most of them cover their tracks, live substantially covert lives, and have adopted 'plausible deniability' as a second-nature practice. It might simply be prudence, or it might be the vestige of a guilty conscience in an otherwise sociopathic makeup. Whatever it is, it seems to go with the territory.
Re: (Score:3)
Where I work, sometimes you want it on-the-record. I want proof I said something, or did something, far more often than I'd ever want to be able to deny such actions later on.
That's because you're a peon. Perhaps well-paid and well-respected, but a peon nonetheless, compared with those who effectively run the world. The farther up people are on the ladder of power, the harder it tends to be to tell the difference between them, and the criminals recognized as such by the justice system. Most of them cover their tracks, live substantially covert lives, and have adopted 'plausible deniability' as a second-nature practice. It might simply be prudence, or it might be the vestige of a guilty conscience in an otherwise sociopathic makeup. Whatever it is, it seems to go with the territory.
Less conspiratorially if you're a peon no one cares enough to go looking through your emails for dirt. If you are important then people will actively go digging for anything with which to remove you as an obstacle.
As was once written: Give me six lines written by the most honest man in the world, and I will find enough in them to hang him. [wikiquote.org]
Richelieu was guilty of a bit of hyperbole, but with thousands of emails to choose from there's bound to be something with which to hang you.
Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
I know I, as a lowly mid-level person, am very careful and exact about electronic communication. Whatever side of the Clinton email thing you're on, how would you feel about having the last 10 years of your private communication dumped out in an investigation? Would you be comfortable with your emails showing up in a publicly searchable court record even if it was unrelated to you? People have forgotten the basic premise that was drilled into my head when email first arrived -- don't write down anything you wouldn't be comfortable posting in public for the world to see.
Executives are one of the last groups of people in a company to have the privilege of not communicating via email, text, etc. Everywhere I've worked, the execs' secretaries were the only ones sending out emails (logged in as the exec.) This is a big problem in the finance industry, because only the mid-level and below is captured in electronic communication. It makes it extremely hard to build a body of evidence in any legal case directly affecting the executives of a company. It's one of the reasons why lawsuits target the company only, and end with a settlement where the company does not admit any fault.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I know I, as a lowly mid-level person, am very careful and exact about electronic communication. Whatever side of the Clinton email thing you're on, how would you feel about having the last 10 years of your private communication dumped out in an investigation?
I'm honest, so it doesn't matter. Also, if my emails were subpoenaed, I would turn them over. Looking at my friends' email and business associates' email wouldn't turn up any emails that I hadn't turned over since I would perform my legal obligation.
This is only a problem if you're a dishonest scumbag.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm honest, so it doesn't matter.
If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him - Cardinal Richelieu
Do you tend to close the door when you go to the toilet when there are other people around? Then you've got something to hide even though it's totally accepted that everybody uses the toilet. It is utter nonesense that being honest means you don't need privacy. Privacy isn't about hiding things that are unacceptable, privacy is about keeping perfectly acceptable thing
Re: (Score:3)
I close the door, but I shout out a play by play and color commentary.
Re: (Score:2)
What you and the other commenter don't seem to get is that Hillary's emails were under subpoena, so she was legally obligated to turn them over (and not doing so was a criminal act). I'm not saying I want everybody to read my email. What I am saying is that I would comply with a subpoena and I would have nothing to lose because I'm honest. If Hillary was even the least bit honest she would have had nothing to lose.
The DNC/wikileaks issue is related but obviously those emails weren't under subpoena. But
Nothing to hide != Nothing to fear (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm honest, so it doesn't matter.
Apparently you are naive too. Just because you have nothing to hide does not mean you have nothing to fear. It is VERY easy for a lawyer or law enforcement to make even innocent sounding statements into something incriminating. Your honesty may not be any protection and in fact might serve as "evidence" to hang you with.
This is only a problem if you're a dishonest scumbag.
You REALLY need to watch this video [youtube.com] about why you should never talk to the police.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm honest, so it doesn't matter.
Apparently you are naive too. Just because you have nothing to hide does not mean you have nothing to fear. It is VERY easy for a lawyer or law enforcement to make even innocent sounding statements into something incriminating. Your honesty may not be any protection and in fact might serve as "evidence" to hang you with.
This is only a problem if you're a dishonest scumbag.
You REALLY need to watch this video [youtube.com] about why you should never talk to the police.
I know to never talk to the police. However, if there's a valid subpoena for information that I have I will turn it over. That's the legal thing to do.
And note that if I didn't do that I'd end up with consequences. Unlike Hillary, someone would prosecute me.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no excuse not to maintain work emails on work only machines that you're not willing to have aired. Executives may occasionally be nefarious, but the reality typically revolves around competence.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
People have forgotten the basic premise that was drilled into my head when email first arrived -- don't write down anything you wouldn't be comfortable posting in public for the world to see.
This is good advice for the entirety of the internet. The idea of any form of privacy online is laughably naïve. It isn't even possible.
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes well we have public records laws that applied to Hillary that do not apply to the rest of us. Being Secretary of State is a privilege, you get all kinds of opportunity afterward to enrich yourself thru public speaking and consulting as well as other legal grey areas around what is and isn't insider trading etc. All that before you consider all the fine meals out at the worlds fanciest eateries and stays at the best hotels etc.
In exchange for all this you give up a little privacy, I don't feel bad for her she knew what she was getting herself into. She could have had a nice career back home in Arkansas as an attorney and enjoyed all kinds of privacy if that is what she wanted. She chose public life, and that means the rest of us have a right to know what she was up to!
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever side of the Clinton email thing you're on, how would you feel about having the last 10 years of your private communication dumped out in an investigation?
I don't have to imagine. I already know. My employer already has access to my work emails.
And whoever takes over my job one day will have access to my work email (both what's in my inbox and what I've sent over the years from it, not to mention the emails I've deleted since everything is on backups).
And if anything, if I took my work home, and maintained a separate email address, a separate addressbook, separate financial books, or separate meeting minutes, I would expect to raise red flags with my employer
Re: (Score:1)
I don't think that's the relevant issue because that question leaves out a lot of choices Hillary Clinton made which led to this happening to her. She chose to co-mingle personal and professional emails, she chose to have a campaign head who wasn't facile enough with an email account to pick a good password for his account yet also choosing to do
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
What she did wrong was use her own potentially vulnerable e-mail and server instead of a government-issued e-mail. They (the republicans) also believe she lied about it, but so far they have no evidence that she is guilty of perjury
Ethically, she messed up. Legally, she's fine. She broke policy, not the law.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
No one asked him, under oath, during the course of a sexual harassment law suit against him.
Plausible deniability (Score:2)
Rules for Email (Score:3)
If you are a politician (or work for a politician), never write anything that would look bad in a headline in the Washington Post or NY Times.
If you are a corporate executive, never refer to anything that might be illegal or immoral or unethical. Not even as a joking reference - words can be taken out of context.
For everyone, be aware that whatever you say will stay around until the end of the Internet and may be accessible by anyone or any organization.
Social media (Score:3)
God doesn't use e-mail (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you ask him, he'll probably put it the other way around. God's doing his work. He knows his priorities.
Eventually they'll be compelled to (Score:2)
Seems like email and voice recording to the net (Score:1)
Given that these have been the source of successful prosecutions and large awards to those VICTIMIZED by those voice and hand written conspirator communications.
At least, that is the logical inference from the article.
They don't need emails, phone logs work too (Score:3, Interesting)
I had an uncle who was prosecuted for insider trading maybe 10 years ago. He was on the board of a multi-billion dollar international merger. They didn't have any emails or anything like that and they didn't need it (sadly, system is screwed up). He had the best lawyers money could buy too. He wasn't a poor man by any stretch of the imagination.
What they had were phone logs and his business colleague's testimony who had supposedly received the insider tip and who had bought stock.
So the way this works is they let the person who they accuse of having received the insider information off the hook in exchange for testifying against the person who they claim gave the information.
Do you see a problem with that? I do. There was zero evidence other than that from a compromised source that can't be trusted to provide non-biased testimony. The reason it is biased is because the source is exchanging testimony against the accused for a lenient sentence (ie no jail time). It doesn't matter if my uncle didn't do the crime because they've given incentive to another to testify that he did.
They were basically just going to demonstrate that my uncle communicated (phone call records) around the same time my uncle's business colleague made a buy totally ignoring the other logs that showed they communicated regularly. An intelligent person would realize it is completely plausible and likely that it was all a coincidence.
Juries and judges put people to death all the time based on such coincidental "evidence" and blackmailed testimony. And don't give me that non-sense about how one can get up on the stand and testify that the crime didn't happen. They throw people in jail for doing that when they don't believe them and of course they don't believe them if they don't side with the prosecutor's story. The people being made to testify know what they have to say without being told what to say.
Our system is f'd.
I should also point out that they accused my uncle's brother of receiving insider info too. They dropped his case only because he had kept detailed written logs of his trading and they didn't want to lose at trial. If the logs had been introduced as evidence at trial it would have been apparent his trades were not based on insider info at all. Rather it was based on public information which is allowed. I'm not sure exactly what these logs might have included, but I guess they were notes detailing public info that would have demonstrated what he was taking into account during his decisions to trade on these and other unrelated stocks. I don't think it's something most people would have had so most people would have ended up serving time had they been accused despite being innocent.
The time is now (Score:2)
Though the decryption process can be rather rough on them.
This is news? (Score:2)
I've always only committed to emails what I wouldn't mind becoming public knowledge.
For sensitive business I always pick up the phone, and I am pretty sure I am not the only one who operates this way.
Old Boss (Score:1)
One of my old bosses used to respond with just OK and then later he said OK just means I just received the email (what a wanker)
I used to take the piss and respond with just the number "204" (HTTP code for No Content he never got the joke)
Never write if you can speak (Score:2)
"Never write if you can speak; never speak if you can nod; never nod if you can wink." --Martin Lomasney
Normal (Score:2)
It's part of the 'Don't talk to the Police, ever!' strategy.
All criminals know that.
Good plan (Score:2)
Between work and home and carrying a phone, I spend 95% of my waking hours within arms reach of a computer that can send email.
If I was as rich as these guys I would never send another email in my life. My communication would all be pgp-signet-ring couriers. 3 at a time with different messages to keep my enemies confused if one gets captured and the message encrypted.
However this may be some kind of technomedieval delusion.
Re: (Score:2)
Status symbol? (Score:2)
I think it is a status symbol, being so well off that you don't have to worry about always being onlline, like most of the middle classes are. There is something about the rich and powerful choosing some sort of "handicap", almost, to show off the fact that they can afford to rely on the efforts of others - like in Imperial China, when the high-ranking officials would dress in ridiculously impractical clothes with far too long sleeves to indicate that they rarely needed to use their hands; or now-a-days whe
In other words... (Score:2)
In other words: Quod licet jovi, non licet bovi.
That's either a usual pissing-contest like display of power ("I have people to do email for me"), uncureable backwardness ("Yes, I'd like to send this letter to the Prussian consulate in Siam by aeromail. Am I too late for the 4:30 autogyro?") or a obvious cover-my-ass just as any petty criminal would to to avoid leaving tracks.
So, why again should we use that as a role-model? Why are we letting get them away with it to begin with?
An age thing, perhaps... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Sounds like people are responding the way they always do to oppressive surveillance: censor their words and funnel their beliefs into less traceable action instead.
Re: (Score:2)