40 replies to this topic

[Bingo]

Last Updated: May 29

The BC Liberal government is facing questions over the allegations of deleted records related to the Highway of Tears after former Transportation Ministry executive assistant Tim Duncan alleged yesterday that he was told to delete e-mails requested under the Freedom of Information Act in November of 2014.

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...illor-1.3093034

 

Last Updated: Oct 22, 2015

Transportation ministry staffer George Gretes could be facing charges after a report by B.C. Privacy Commissioner Elizabeth Denham that reveals he lied under oath when he denied that he intentionally deleted Highway of Tears emails and records. 

Denham has referred the matter to the RCMP, and Gretes has resigned.

According to the report, "triple deleting" means first moving an email to the computer system's "deleted" folder, expunging the email from the folder itself and then manually overriding a backup that allows the system to recover deleted items for up to 14 days. 

Denham says Gretes first flatly denied the accusations, but in a second interview, after being presented with forensic evidence that showed items had been triple deleted, "Gretes admitted that he did not tell the truth in his original testimony and that he did triple delete emails." 

"I cannot overstate the gravity with which I view the false testimony given during this investigation by George Gretes," Denham says in the report. 

Denham also expressed disbelief at the results of an investigation into allegations that emails were being systematically deleted in the office of the premier. 

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...3284029?cmp=rss

 

So, what other emails have been deleted from the Premiers Office?

[http]

How do users have any access to backups at all?  That's a security facepalm, wrong on so many levels that I can't even begin.

[pherthyl]

How do users have any access to backups at all?  That's a security facepalm, wrong on so many levels that I can't even begin.

 

Holy moly no kidding.   Although apparently there is still an audit trail, given they were able to figure this out.  

[Rob Randall]

"Some emails are deleted, some emails are kept. That is I think how all British Columbians manage their email."

-Transportation Minister Todd Stone

 

Read more: http://www.vancouver...l#ixzz3pQMeD8RD

 

 

Ha, ha ha...uh, no, Todd. That's how it works for us, but not for you.

[Mike K.]

I see both sides of the coin here. The media and investigators seem to want access to every single itty bitty email ever sent, but in the course of many years embarrassing or inappropriate things are said, or things are said out of context, and so on. Emails have replaced phone conversations and face-to-face chitchat so I'm not sure if I agree with the need to keep every darned email in the event someone somewhere may want to look at it, regardless of what the issue is.

 

The only reason emails are so popular among investigators is they're darned easy to sift through and take real detective work out of the equation. 20 years ago this option was not available and yet investigators still managed to track down culprits or conduct thorough, unbiased and professionally vetted investigations. So what's happened? Is real detective work too difficult nowadays?

[Rob Randall]

Government employees simply do not have the right to choose what emails to delete. That's insane. If an employee is concerned about an inappropriate email coming to light, a good way to combat that would be to not write inappropriate emails on my dime. 

 

I'm sure the gang behind the Johnson St. Bridge plan would have loved the opportunity to delete a few choice emails before Crockford and Broadland got permission to see them. "Both sides of the coin", bah.

[pherthyl]

I see both sides of the coin here. The media and investigators seem to want access to every single itty bitty email ever sent, but in the course of many years embarrassing or inappropriate things are said, or things are said out of context, and so on. Emails have replaced phone conversations and face-to-face chitchat so I'm not sure if I agree with the need to keep every darned email in the event someone somewhere may want to look at it, regardless of what the issue is.

 

The only reason emails are so popular among investigators is they're darned easy to sift through and take real detective work out of the equation. 20 years ago this option was not available and yet investigators still managed to track down culprits or conduct thorough, unbiased and professionally vetted investigations. So what's happened? Is real detective work too difficult nowadays?

 

Yes, let's throw out the evidence that proves wrongdoing because it'll be much more manly if we do it the hard way.   And the point is so we can return to some romantic fantasy of detective work?

[Bingo]

Yes, let's throw out the evidence that proves wrongdoing because it'll be much more manly if we do it the hard way.   And the point is so we can return to some romantic fantasy of detective work?

 

What is the significance of the "Highway of Tears" emails being deleted?

Were there some clues that weren't being investigated, was evidence lost or was something botched or covered up?

Denham must think there is more to this story otherwise it would not likely have come to light.

[Mike K.]

Everytime I hear about some investigative arm complaining about lost emails I ask myself the same question: 20 years ago, would there have been some sort of a physical paper trail regarding this issue?

If so, then one exists today.

But it's harder to rifle through paper storage and analyze info when you can't CTRL+F key words. And it sure is easy to announce that something was deleted, therefore implying guilt, than to admit that relying on emails is perhaps lazy investigative policy.

I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here.

[pherthyl]

Everytime I hear about some investigative arm complaining about lost emails I ask myself the same question: 20 years ago, would there have been some sort of a physical paper trail regarding this issue?

If so, then one exists today.

 

Not necessarily.  The point of email is that there doesn't always need to be a paper trail.  And the point of enterprise email systems is that there is an audit trail of correspondence.  Not so much when someone can "triple delete" emails though.

[North Shore]

Everytime I hear about some investigative arm complaining about lost emails I ask myself the same question: 20 years ago, would there have been some sort of a physical paper trail regarding this issue?
If so, then one exists today.
But it's harder to rifle through paper storage and analyze info when you can't CTRL+F key words. And it sure is easy to announce that something was deleted, therefore implying guilt, than to admit that relying on emails is perhaps lazy investigative policy.
I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here.

I disagree, Mike. 20 years ago there was a paper trail because that was how information and memos were passed around; that papertrail is now electronic, and, once (thrice?) deleted, is gone - with nothing to track.

[Bingo]

I disagree, Mike. 20 years ago there was a paper trail because that was how information and memos were passed around; that papertrail is now electronic, and, once (thrice?) deleted, is gone - with nothing to track.

Unless you do what many do with important emails...print out some hard copies.

[Mike K.]

Exactly, that's the policy. You print out and file important emails.

Furthermore triple deleting is standard practice. It's nothing sinister.

[Bingo]

Furthermore triple deleting is standard practice. It's nothing sinister.

Perhaps, but in this case the Privacy Commissioner made a point of mentioning the "triple deleting" of information concerning the disappearance of the missing girls on the Highway of Tears.

[Bingo]

The Premier is now appearing to be doing something, but what really changes if someone is determined to delete incriminating emails?

 

Premier Christy Clark ordered her cabinet ministers and all political staff Friday to save their emails after a stinging report criticized the government's access to information practices.

Denham's report released Thursday highlighted negligent searches for records, failure to keep adequate email records, a failure to document searches and the wilful destruction of records in response to freedom of information requests.

"What I have said to staff today: all political staff and all ministers, I have directed that none of them delete any emails they have sent, starting today," Clark said.

- See more at: http://www.timescolo...h.6G4lwlCM.dpuf

 

 

[Rob Randall]

Exactly, that's the policy. You print out and file important emails.
Furthermore triple deleting is standard practice. It's nothing sinister.

That's such a broad statement in that it means nothing. Standard practice where?

Emails are deleted of course, but the rationale must be solid. You delete drafts, junk mail, "where are we meeting for lunch" and "look at Linda's ultrasound pics!", all that crap. If a government worker deletes something deemed important they can be sanctioned for destruction of information. It's clear some went over the line.

Edited by Rob Randall, 24 October 2015 - 06:37 AM.

[pherthyl]

Exactly, that's the policy. You print out and file important emails.

Furthermore triple deleting is standard practice. It's nothing sinister.

 

Where is it policy to print out and file important emails?   

 

Also in what office is triple deleting standard practice? 

[Mike K.]

It is a policy in the branch of government I am familiar with which deals with DND. Triple deleting is also a requirement if it is determined that sensitive information may have accidentally been sent via email. All staff have no choice but to triple delete all emails already "deleted," so anything that's not deemed important which was not printed may get axed.

I can imagine top political brass get these requests as well due to the variety and sensitive nature of their correspondence. Just assuming, of course.

[Wally]

Government employees simply do not have the right to choose what emails to delete. That's insane. If an employee is concerned about an inappropriate email coming to light, a good way to combat that would be to not write inappropriate emails on my dime. 

 

I'm sure the gang behind the Johnson St. Bridge plan would have loved the opportunity to delete a few choice emails before Crockford and Broadland got permission to see them. "Both sides of the coin", bah.

 

There seems to be a simple solution here. Most corporate email systems archive emails. Even if a user deletes the email 100 times then it has no impact on the archive since the email is archived before it even hits the user inbox. Investigators then just search the archive.

 

Having said that, it was noted today in the TC that Duncan is claiming that the deleted emails were likely innocuous and had no bearing on the highway of tears issue. He would know since they were his emails that were deleted. He was reporting the process not a concern over the content of the emails.

[Wally]

How do users have any access to backups at all?  That's a security facepalm, wrong on so many levels that I can't even begin.

 

They don't have access to the backup. This is a feature of outlook which doesn't permanently delete an email right away.

 

The solution to prevent users from deleting emails is bizarre. So users will now have a thousand spam emails in their inbox and they are supposed to somehow function? Seems to me like finding relevant emails will become even harder.