>

i can only imagine what a dumpster clarence “porn guy” thomas’ gmail account is.
good to know that even at the highest levels of our government, nobody pays attention to the IT and information security rules. >

I swear, man, the whole world is just duct tape and zip ties. >

which are fraying if we're being honest. >

If we drill some more holes in the planet, we can fit some more zipties! >

Do you think she can take it? >

She can. We won't. >

The planet's fine. The people are fucked! >

That's what they don't get. We are giving the planet a fever. There isn't a Tylenol big enough. >

I got a FEver, and the only preSCRIPtion… is more mass extinction events >

I thought it was more cowbell >

I work at a law firm. This sounds like every senior partner. >

I did an internship at the BigRed&Co last semester and one of the partners I worked under is one of those MBA/JD types.   
Refused to use his work email for anything. Only his iPhone.   
Sticky notes with his password just chilling wherever he sat. His RSA SecurID was always getting lost.   
The Smart Card that goes into the work laptop was never where he left it. The computers also used biometrics and he complained about that to the end of time. 
Cool guy though. Talked all the time of how expensive it is to buy his wife a ‘farm house in Hawaii’ >


MBA/JD types.

Is this a type? I have no exposure to the legal world so I'd love to know lol >

Haha definitely. It bridges the gap between the legal/business domains so you’d see them more in the ‘In-house/General Counsel’ category and on the consulting side he was particularly distressed debt/private credit niche :)  
As for personality: extremely smart and completely out of depth on nearly everything that wasn’t directly under their expertise haha so the notion of cybersecurity was an obstacle to that end >

Interned with a law firm as well. They're all ass holes and don't give a shit about IT rules but I liked em overall and they took me out to really fancy lunches all the time. Great humor too! >

I both love and hate this comment. Cheers friend >


The problem with the justices’ use of emails persisted in part because some justices were slow to adopt to the technology and some court employees were nervous about confronting them to urge them to take precautions, one person said. Such behavior meant that justices weren’t setting an example to take security seriously.

That sounds like a bunch of elitist old farts who act like they're gods or something. Of course everything is screwed up in the SCOTUS with that attitude. It's time to put term limits in place for justices through a Constitutional Amendment. >

It's not an age issue, it's an attitude problem that comes with percieved importance with the positions they fill.  Rules for thee but not for me... and all that >

Yeah using any sort of email/computer is 100% an issue for older people. Anyone over like 50 just doesnt understand how it works at the basic level. >

Some of us have been using computers since the 60s and PCs since the early 80s.  The people over 50 that you know or are related to are not all the people over 50. >

I know that, and youre right. I shouldnt have put a number on it and just said, in general the older someone is the less likely they are to understand how a computer works and what/how the security of said thing works. >

I also think you're drastically overestimating how much the average person under 50 understands about how computers and IT security work.  Most younger people know how to use apps and that's about where their knowledge ends. >


Most younger people know how to use apps and that's about where their knowledge ends.

Oh, for a while here I was assuming that the younger generation would all have solid computer skills, just come out of high school with a good view of the fundamentals and a working knowledge of Office. How silly I was. >

You would be... stunned.  
Get into anything beyond opening an app or changing your wallpaper and a huge chunk of all age groups glass over.   
Admittedly younger generations are better with knowing where to seek that info out, but that's also heavily influenced by where they're brought up. 
Friends of mine from poorly funded schools were lucky to get any experience in the office suite or basic troubleshooting.  
Source: I end up being the IT guy for my wife's family. All ages. >

I have come to assume that at least 90% of the time, people doing stuff are doing a shit job of it. The Supreme Court and other elites are no exception. >

Yep. People suck at doing stuff. Myself included. >

So when are the GOP going to investigate the SCOTUS for using personal email servers? >

Was classified information being distributed? If yes then they deserve as much scrutiny as anyone else. >

How tf would you know without investigating? >

By hiring the Russians to hack the email servers and release all of the information into the public willy-nilly. 
/tinfoil >

Let me guess, they think rules and laws don’t apply to them cause they are justices on the Supreme Court. >

At this point it's news that someone was following procedures >

Only way to ensure that information security procedures are followed is accountability. SCOTUS justices are entirely unaccountable to anyone, therefore SCOTUS will never be compliant with information security procedures. >

SCOTUS enters in agreements with various agencies for access to classified info, same as the rest of the government. 
How thats enforced? Then it gets sticky. >

Leaving a burn bag in the hallway is crazy bc that means you’re gonna walk all the way to the hallway but can’t just walk to the shredder. So lazy! >

Fwiw, why ISN’T there a classified shredder in each of their offices? Why do burn bags or unclass shredders when you can just get a classified shredder in there that costs less than each of their office chairs? >

I work at a government agency that contracts with a shredding company 
The amount of paper I produce daily that I end up having to get rid of, if I was the one who personally had to shred all of it, would genuinely take me anywhere between five to ten minutes of continuous shredding. It’s just practical have a box or a bag that you can then give to the company to shred for you >

I’ve worked in 100% shred offices for 22 years. I’ve been the person who sits at the shredder for an hour. It’s not hard. Grab a chair and if your shredder isn’t self oiling, grab a bottle of oil, and get to it. If each SCOTUS had their own shredder in their office they wouldn’t even need a shred bin, they could just shred shit as they no longer need it. 
The only excuse for this is “we were too lazy to do what hundreds of thousands of other people do daily.” >

Okay, sure
So I’ll sit there for an hour and in the meantime, the families I service will go without the food I’m supposed to bring them, I won’t visit the kids that haven’t been seen by their school in the past three weeks, and I won’t visit the DV victim who’s husband left imprints of his fist on her stomach before throwing a shampoo bottle at their three month old because he wouldn’t stop crying.
It’s not about being lazy. It’s that it saves me time so I can go do actually important things that the shredding company can’t do for me. And the justices have bigger things on their minds than sitting at the shredding machine for hours on end. And so do the staffers. It’s more efficient to free people up to do their jobs if it’s someone else’s job to actually shred that document. That they need to be much better about their security isn’t in dispute. They absolutely failed at that, and need to do better. But shredding documents themselves is incredibly inefficient >

They have aides. How is everyone so “but shredding is hard!” Shred as you go or have your aides do a shred party as the end of the week. It’s really not that hard. And given the option of them fucking up with their burn bags, seems like a pretty obvious answer. >

Alright, I’m not engaging with you until you acknowledge that not only did I never say that shredding is hard, but also that I’ve outright said that it’s not about it being difficult or being lazy. Let me know if you’re willing to acknowledge that you’re making words up and putting them in my mouth >

Oh, I’m sorry, “but shredding is inefficient!” But no, don’t engage with me because it’s apparently so inefficient to shred as you go (as opposed to letting everything pile up, clearly not in any sort of secure manner) that no one other than an expensive, hired company should have to do. Sounds more like Fraud, Waste, and Abuse to me…let’s waste government funds to make someone else do something we’re fully capable of doing ourselves because…idk, shred as you go is too hard? 
It’s all excuses. Period. But hey, seems like we’ve become the country that just lets all government officials who mishandle sensitive and or classified information off with a slap on the wrist, so I guess it’s all good. 
You really don’t need to reply if you honestly think hiring a 3rd party vendor is better than just shredding the shit as you go. It’s REALLY not that hard and you don’t have to worry about compromising national security that way. >

Also didn’t say that shredding was inefficient
Honestly, what’s the point of replying to you if you can’t keep what I said vs what you think I said straight in your head? I’m not gonna spend my time telling you to read what I actually said and take the time to understand where and how it diverges from what you understood >

“But shredding documents themselves is incredibly inefficient.” 
-You, 39 mins ago >

People assume being in high places makes people more intelligent and responsible than they are. Nope, these people who control our lives are just as dumb as the rest of us. Good reason why they should impose term limits on all government officials. >

What is the logical connection between a supposedly popular misconception that people in high public service are smarter (btw, do let me know when someone off the street actually has a bright view of bureaucrats) and term limits? 
Please think for one moment the practical consequences of enforcing term limits on senior officials. If you think the revolving door between corporate lobbies and bureaucrats is bad now, just try and imagine the corruption clusterfuck when senior bureaucrats have to find their next job in, say, a decade. Imagine you’re at the height of your career as a senior policymaker at the FDA at 45 and you’re term limited out at 55. Who would be hiring you at 55 in pharmaceutical regulation that isn’t the government? 
This is how you guarantee a government composed of people that are either corrupt or… incompetent to the point that career advancement is of no concern nor possibility. >

Alternative Headline: Source of Roe v. Wade Overturn Leak Identified >

I wouldn’t be surprised if the leak wasn’t just an insecure file server or an accidental cc on an email at this point >

Email thread to which some idiot hit “reply all” >

And china thinks they need a spy balloon to find out stuff…. Wow >

Personal emails?
Where are the republican chants of 'lock them up'...or are they only upset when Hilary did it... >

They have conveniently forgotten that her predecessor, Colin Powell, used personal emails when he was SOS and he told her she should do the same.  They didn’t seem to want to investigate him. >

or Jared and Ivanka and Melania... >

Impeachment and unseating time >

Why does the Supreme Court need burn bags anyway? >

Burn bags are used to destroy classified or confidential information, which the court would likely be subject to having for certain types of cases (i.e. national security issues), regarding threats to the court itself and the safety of the justices, or if a case involves confidential information subject to publication bans (i.e. names of victims/people that can't be released to the public). >

This was always bound to happen when you don't make old people learn how technology and confidentiality works. 
Funny, you'd think as a department full of lawyers they'd have this shit covered >

The question really is, did they use private email to avoid scrutiny? Or was it out of convenience?
For example, Gov Walker installed a parallel wireless network in the state capitol, explicitly to avoid using the existing state wireless network. President Bush used private email (RNC accounts) for all kinds of politically sensitive communications, to avoid it being on government servers. Gov Bush of Florida used his own hardware for emails, and then took it with him when he left office. 
Others, like SoS Powell and SoS Clinton appear to have used private email out of convenience, not to hide it.
Out of all the people who did this, only Hillary Clinton was singled out, for political purposes. Nothing was ever done to any of the others. >


The question really is, did they use private email to avoid scrutiny?

There is no scrutiny to avoid. Governors, and their staff, and presidents, and their staff, are subject to records retention laws and information requests from the public. This doesn't apply to the Supreme Court. Any internal communications rules are of their own making, and they don't have to disclose any of it if they don't want to.
Add to your list that Andrew Cuomo ordered his inner circle staff to either talk (unrecorded) or use Blackberry PIN messaging because it doesn't leave a trail at all. You delete the message and it's gone forever. This ensured no one could ever request those records, unlike the other instances you mention where the records were still on email servers. 
One newspaper made a records request to the state for all emails to and from Cuomo, and they came back saying there was not one record they could produce. He completely avoided email so he could keep his communications away from the people. 

Out of all the people who did this, only Hillary Clinton was singled out, for political purposes.

Her problem was that she was also trafficking in classified information over her private email. The unclassified information was just a records retention issue as were the others, and not a criminal act. Purposely mishandling classified information is a criminal act. >

Be nice if CNN could just come out and say “Supreme Court Damaged Beyond Repair”. >

Supreme Court Operations Terribly Uselessly Stupid >

We need a good T word between Operations and Uselessly. I'm too dumb to think of one right now. 
Tragically? Truly? Terribly? Triumphantly? 🤔 >

Thanks, I added "terribly" >

Their communications should be public record anyway. >

100$ GOP will ONLY attack the democratic appointed judges. 
It is funny how bad the US with security. >

Are there people left that don't think Alito was the leak? It's pretty obvious at this point. >

My mind isn't completely made up yet. I could still see a scenario where Thomas was talking about work with his best friend and she is the one that then helped get the draft opinion out there. >

Maybe they can sort through that and figure out which justice is leaking info. >

All six of them. >

There are 9. >

So they all got fired, right? >

This is what we get when stupid elect stupids into the Supreme Court. >

The body is geriatric and rotting >

This should be a huge story - not seeing it anywhere else in the media >

Butter fucking emails, right? >

Rules are for the plebes. Stop pestering me. I have women to oppress. -Amy Coney Barret probably >

This happens in every industry and business at every level.  If you think your job is an exception, you probably haven't looked high enough. 
I'm not saying I like it, but as someone who has worked in IT For decades, this isn't surprising at all. >

what if a suprme court justice fell for a nigerian prince scam? i feel like kavanaugh might fall for it. >

Just an absolute joke that the entire Judicial branch is left to regulate themselves with no oversight from Congress. >

I dunno, Congress has been a bit of a shitshow for the past 30 years, they might not be the best choice for "oversight". >

Pour Hillary another glass of something strong while the GOP spins the hypocrisy yet again. >

HoW iS tHeRe InFo LeAkS aLl tHe TiMe! reeeeeee >

People at the top never think the rules apply to them. >

Oh yeah ‘oops my scandalous self accidentally left my burn bag open in the hallway while I was inside the door for hours completely dummy move am I right? Haha’ - entirely by accident /s >

Having a law degree does not mean they have common sense or intelligence. >

Seems like they’re covering up the leak >

Bunch of old people who have to print docs vs reading them on a computer or tablet are too old for office. >

They should be using work phones that We the People issued them and they should be using them for all official business and I don't know why they use burn bags since we the people should be knowing all of the business that is being conducted by our employees >

We once had an "all hands" type meeting about IT security and phishing and not using work email for private activities etc. And when they wheeled the projector cart into the meeting room, all of the fucking login information was on a laminated paper that was packing-taped to the front of the cart.
Facepalm~ >

So the article doesn't name the Justices? Lame. >

IT doesn't get paid enough for this shit >

But they ARE elitist old farts, and they ARE above the law/rules/consequences. >

Weren't they going to tell us who leaked the information on the abortion ban and then they found out who it really was and then it just died. No faith left in these slackers they're just sitting around saying as little as possible getting rich and fat. In America the fat lady never sings but the orange dude sure does lie a lot. >

Abortion band? I’ve searched Spotify for their album but not having much luck, can you direct me? >

You probably won't find it it'll have one letter off >

Where’s all the republicans chanting “lock them up!” ??? >

At least they didn't sell out top secrets to China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia. >

Are you telling me that the most corrupt SCOTUS in a century is…. irresponsible? >

When you teach a child (0-110) that anything they do will suffer no repercussions and that they will even be rewarded for the fuckups that really harm others... they'll be learning a lesson for life, but responsibility won't be it. >

For some justices this is the first time they dealt with anything government. >

Is this a feature, not a bug with a "republican values" majority scotus? >

So Biden took classified documents home both as a senator and as vice president, and the Supreme Court is being sloppy as well. What is wrong with our government? >

The corruption in American knows no bounds, does it? >

Nope, not one iota. >

So, “Lock them up,” right? >

The Supreme Court is no longer a legitimate institution. It needs to be abolished. >

Are you serious?  You want to abolish one of the three branches of government and an important check in the power vacuum of our federal government? >

They've trained us to throw everything away, rather than fix things. >

Feels like a bunch of made up, or exaggerated stuff to cover the fact that Alito leaked it. >

GOP and its master FOX News only cares if judges are liberals. >

They’re comin for your birth control >

I guess the buttery mails are irrelevant to apolitical institutions such as SCOTUS. /S >

Dang, he couldn't even give it a month. >

"I'm a totally fair and unbiased judge who follows the letter of the constitution, now send my brief to RoevWadeSucks@hotmail.com and forward it to my other one BeerDrinkingConservative4Life@geocities.com " >

Pack the court make it weaker, there is no need for lifetime appointments to have this much power! >

Gee, how could somebody possibly leak their decisions early? >

I feel like anyone that has worked with confidential data knows that there’s a lot of procedures in place for dealing with them, but they’re only going to be followed like 90% of the time. >

Their arrogance will be their downfall.