comment: >
  
  Huh, it's almost as if a permanent unaccountable branch of government doesn't give a shit about rules or regulations
context: A burn bag is a security bag that holds sensitive or classified documents which are to be destroyed by fire or pulping after a certain period of time. The most common usage of burn bags is by government institutions, in the destruction of classified materials.
  If anybody didn't know, I had to look it up myself >
  
  I work for a bank-like company that has to meet strict financial-services industry security compliance. We have big locked, closed trash bins with slots in the top around the office. If you have documents containing PII (personally identifying information) about customers or other data subject to security protocols, you slide the documents in the slot, and a secure shredding company shows up periodically, takes those bins for shredding and replaces them with empty ones. 
  How hard could this be for the SCOTUS?
  Edit: a commenter elsewhere pointed out that these types of bins can't be used for classified documents. My point wasn't that this particular solution would work for the SCOTUS but that there are well established, tried-and-true mechanisms that they could adopt appropriate to the info that they need to protect. The SCOTUS is just winging it when every other agency that handles classified documents uses such methods and protocols. >
  
  You cannot use those for classified documents. >
  
  You cant use secure bins but you can leave them in a bag open in a hallway? >
  
  You could if you hired a company with the appropriate clearance to take control and shred it. But something like the nsa has so many caveats and specific projects that it is a bit more complicated. But yes, there do exist many better ways than leaving a bag in the hall. >
  
  But the hall method is so secure. >
  
  And oh so convenient! >
  
  “This has been going on for years,” one former employee said. >
  
  So the SCOTUS is widely understood by staff to be a lawless place? What a molestation of our legal system. >
  
  No accountability means no need to follow laws.  Who's going to prosecute them? >
  
  Again, fucking TERM LIMITS. How is this not a given? They are unelected officials. If anyone should have a term limit, it is those who have not been elected by the people. These fucks are more powerful and untouchable than any sitting president, any elected congressman or order government official from city to state to federal government, while they quietly steer our country without accountability. >
  
  That doesn't fix the problem of zero accountability. >
  
  Pepperidge Farms remembers just a few years ago there were loud call to lock people up for doing work from personal emails...
  Of course, those same people were silent before and after the lock-up calls when it was their people doing work from personal emails... >
  
  This is a planted story to cover for the fact that one of the judges leaked the Dobbs decision. They weren't hacked or something. >
  
  “Alito” fixed* >
  
  Given that Alito leaked the Hobby Lobby contraception opinion over dinner with christian activists who befriended him for the sole purpose of swaying his rulings, I think they are looking for leaks in the wrong places. >
  
  He also leaked the Roe v Wade decision, which is why Repiblicans were so quick to switch from "TREASON!" to "ehhh whatever". >
  
  
  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.
  
  It’s time for term limits. >
  
  I work in a federal agency. Basic competency with Excel makes you a wizard in the eyes of the long-timers. >
  
  I’ve amazed some coworkers with my use of bcc for emails. >
  
  Although bcc comes from a dead tree world, very commonly used many decades ago >
  
  Same with the floppy disk icon used for save. >
  
  I have worked for the US government twice. Once as a system analyst and the other as a cyber security position(can’t be too specific) and we had to do about 5 hours of yearly training on how to handle sensitive information. Cool to see the politicians who force us to do that fail their own rules. This illegitimate Supreme Court is a joke. >
  
  What kinda systems are ya in Kahn >
  
  Mr. Kahn >
  
  So you’ve gotta do your own typing, huh? >
  
  Why are everyday Americans held to a higher standard than government officials? What insanity. >
  
  Why did everyone make a big deal out of Hillary’s emails ffs? >
  
  Puppet theater. 
  The illusion of appearing to be doing something meaningful, while that something simultaneously destroys the credibility of the next likely Democrat presidential nominee. 
  They had nothing, They knew they had nothing. They didn't care. Multiple investigations was the point. Conviction never was.
  And it worked.
  Expect it to continue. >
  
  
  Democrat presidential nominee
  
  Democratic presidential nominee >
  
  
  dem·o·crat
     1. an advocate or supporter of democracy.
     "as a democrat, I accepted the outcome of the referendum"
     2. a member of the Democratic Party.
  
  Both work here, thought I feel that saying "Democratic" requires that you follow it with "Party". But when referring to an individual, "Democrat" works. >
  
  Democratic is an adjective. Democrat is a noun. 
  'Democrat Presidential Nominee' sounds like it's a presidential nominee that happens to be a Democrat, as opposed to 'Democratic Nominee' which is a nominee of/representing the Democratic party.
  I agree both work but they convey slightly different meanings and people are used to seeing the adjective. >
  
  I know you're not disagreeing with me, but I want to go deeper into the semantics:
  They're all nouns. No adjectives. 
  Both democrat and democratic have the same meaning outside of party affiliation: "an advocate or supporter of democracy." 
  "I am democratic."
  "I am a democrat."
  Neither have party affiliation. Both mean "I am a supporter of democracy."
  Republicans can be democratic and a democrat nominee for their pary. Can.....
  I feel it's more a matter of capitalization (making it a proper noun? I'm fuzzy here, but  I think that's the right term) than anything.
  It's simply preference for someone to say Democratic nominee vs Democrat nominee when the party will only ever put forth one party nominee. When that changes, I'll be more selective with my noun - because then neither would work as it would be co-nominee. Until then, I see no need to fret over it, and I really wish people like dude above would quit trying to make me care, as if only they are right. >
  
  Finish that paragraph, and you'll see that I already know this. >
  
  They're technically not "unimpeachable" but... yeah, good look with the political circus in Congress. >
  
  A conservative Supreme Court justice could probably commit murder and there wouldn’t be enough Republican votes in the senate to reach 2/3 and impeach. >
  
  If they did, republicans would invite them to go on speaking tours with Kyle Rittenhouse and that cop who shot Breonna Taylor. Lately being a murderer seems like a quick way to become a celebrity with them. >
  
  While decrying the innocent death of babbitt. >
  
  When there is no accountability, and the people at the top have jobs for life, why would they bother with even the smallest inconvenience.
  The SCOTUS justices are literally gods - non-elected, jobs for life with immense power, impossible to remove, no oversight or accountability. >
  
  Yeah the GOP has never actually cared about OPSEC or data control. >
  
  This is not a partisan problem, as evident by the discovery of Biden having confidential documents in his home from when he was a Senator. >
  
  r/confidentlyincorrect >
  
  Buttery males. >
  
  Oh yeah, didn't they find those on Hunter Biden's Laptop^TM ? >
  
  Lifetime appointments. Never been impeached. Ethical violations get a wrist slap. Fines are a joke. Supreme court appointments are like Presidencies. They're effectively extra legal.
  I'm shocked anyone else is shocked. >
  
  They're like kings and queens more than presidents. At least presidents can be voted in and voted out instead of having a life-time appointment. The US basically has a total of 9 kings and queens. >
  
  "But Hillary's emails!!" was always propaganda that the media willingly gave energy to--and along with Comey et al, helped elect the Putin stooge. >
  
  I mean, sorta. She shouldn’t have done it either. Just because a bunch of other people don’t follow the rules doesn’t make it okay to not follow the rules. But I agree that the disproportionate amount of attention to hers was inappropriate. >
  
  My employer and I, personally, can get insane fines and possible jail time for HIPAA breaches yet somehow members of government can't even get a slap on the wrist for being loose with super classified documents. >
  
  "it's a big club, and you ain't in it." -George Carlin >
  
  Years ago I helped shift hospitals over from physical documentation to electronic medical records.  Nurses caught on quickly and adapted to the new workflows, while the absolute worst people to deal with were the older, veteran doctors.
  These doctors were probably quite knowledgeable and obviously well experienced, but they already had their way of doing things and refused to learn anything else.  Often I'd see them just make a nurse to do it and not click the final signature button.  Which is an absolutely terrible way to handle patient records.
  I can only imagine Supreme Court justices are even worse - after decades on the bench deciding what every single person in the country is allowed to do, pretty sure more than a bit of arrogant stubbornness sets in.
  Term limits, ya'll. >
  
  So breaking regulations and policy. >
  
  Remember when people thought computers would eliminate paper use and handling? >
  
  I’m a bit hesitant to believe that SCOTUS can or should keep anything secret, and I’m more concerned about the existence of burn bags than their lack of security.
  Of all the branches of government, the need for transparency from SCOTUS is absolutely paramount.  I don’t like the secrecy >
  
  Conservatives are selfish and corrupt. It's who they are. >
  
  All our public officials need to take security more seriously. >
  
  So charge them all >
  
  No discipline, that is concerning >
  
  What is with people using their personal email???!! Most of us here have personal and work emails, and I bet damn close to 100% have never sent business emails through personal account. This is doubly important with a job dealing with sensitive data. >
  
  It’s because their work e-mail is retained, backed up, and can be reviewed if need be. Personal email is not especially if no one knows about it. It’s about avoiding accountability. >
  
  "The janitors don't have authorization to go into the secure side so we just leave our trash cans full of sensitive documents sitting out in the hallway for them."
  It's incredibly stupid and yet I've seen it multiple places.
  Where I'm working now there's a back door that has one of those CAC card readers on it and you pretty much need a signed letter from God to get put on the access list. Yet a bunch of people need to get in and out through that door to do their jobs so the facilities guys pop the breaker and the door just sits open all the time.
  Security is surprisingly hard to get right. >
  
  One of the many reasons they have a 7% approval rating. And personally, I think 7% is high >
  
  Wait until they find out their personal email accounts have been hacked.  It's coming. >
  
  But her emails!! >
  
  The Roberts Court is a fucking disaster. >
  
  I'm convinced that conservatives are intentionally leaving evidence where it can easily be stolen >
  
  But their emails! >
  
  Perhaps the burn bags are used as barf bags after keggers with Squee and PJ. Closed barf bags are no bueno after playing devils triangle with the boys >
  
  Will anything be done? No? Cool. >
  
  Cue Republican outrage in…never. >
  
  Not surprised. SCOTUS has no official Code of Ethics. >
  
  You don't fucking say... or as I've heard many times before "rules for thee, not for me... >
  
  It is important for our American friends who watch Tucker Carlson to understand that Mr. Carlson is, in fact, exposing them to Marxist-Leninist propaganda that is identical to the anti-American propaganda of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The cort is rigged and anti-democratic. >
  
  The US government is a joke >
  
  Maybe there was not a leak. Maybe someone was just really careless. >
  
  With security issues like what we've had lately no one else really needs their own spy's..... >
  
  Supreme court is a joke nowadays. >
  
  and nothing is going to happen to anyone. #JustPlucocracyThings >
  
  This is why I can’t believe in government conspiracies. We’re just too incompetent >
  
  Sounds like their personal email accounts should be open to freedom of information requests then. >
  
  Justice Roberts runs a pretty tight ship. >
  
  Yeah, but it’s his court that worries me. >
  
  I totally made that up. Roberts loves government secrecy and dark money. >
  
  Sounds like our whole government is doing a great job lately. >
  
  Buttery males, Supreme Court edition >
  
  Coming up next on Fox: Did Hunter Biden’s laptop leak? >
  
  To determine who leaked the decision, they checked all of the sign-in logs on the fax machines. >
  
  I love buttery males >
  
  If they can do whatever they want then we can do whatever we want
  It’s only fair >
  
  Who watches the Watchmen? >
  
  Welp. That’s probably where the leak came from. This belongs in r/leopardsatemyface >
  
  I still think the Alito theory is as likely.  That dude is a massive fucking turd, who despises citizens. >
  
  Well  of coarse they did >
  
  I’m pretty confident I know which ones did and didn’t do this. >
  
  Won’t someone please think of the buttery males!! >
  
  but her emails >
  
  I get it, why inconvenience Russian intelligence by using secured emails? >
  
  Bro. Can we stop with this sloppy ass handling of sensitive shit? >
  
  They used their personal email servers?  Let’s have hearings on that!! >
  
  Uh huh, sure. Not going to change the fact that Alito purposefully leaked the overturning of Roe months early to 'immunize' GOP candidates during the '22 midterms. Thanks for the Red Trickle, Sam. >
  
  I'd literally get fired for leaving PII on my desk, but yeah who cares right? >
  
  I’m confused. Does the SCOTUS handle classified information? >
  
  No, but draft legal documents would be considered CUI, which has many of the same security and disposal requirements as classified, except you can secure it in any locked container/room instead of specially-approved ones. >
  
  Is there anybody in the government who HASN'T MISHANDLED CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS at this point? >
  
  Hi. >
  
  So Alito leaked
  Also, not at all surprising “many of them were resistant to the technology” this is a byproduct of appointment for life >
  
  Can we stop putting 80 year old men in positions of power.  They don't understand the technology. >
  
  Jfc is there one person in government that understands how security works? >
  
  Hi. Unfortunately I'm nowhere close to being in a role that makes much difference. >
  
  
  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.
  
  Dictators is robes strike again. >
  
  If I used my personal email at work, I'd get fired --- quickly >
  
  No way! Another unqualified career politician/official with no training to handle sensitive information mishandles sensitive information? Shocking. 
  Almost like we should be holding the people who control our way of life to higher standards. >
  
  
  some justices were slow to adopt to the technology 
  
  Typo? >
  
  Fucking privates. Oh, Federal Officials. Fucking privates. >
  
  They leave it out intentionally so that way they can give their party the information