comment: >
  
  I used to work for a defense contractor and it was similar.  Every year we had to take the training.  Even those of us who had no clearance still had to take the training in case we accidentally saw classified documents in the office, so that we know how to deal with it and who to contact.
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’re describing what Iron Mountain offers. To my knowledge they shred the documents but they do have guarantees.  I ran operations at one point and had to have actual meetings over these bins because staff were using them for ALL paper discards. If it’s not sensitive just use the regular bin because it’s expensive getting those iron mountain bins emptied. >
  
  
  If it’s not sensitive just use the regular bin
  
  I've seen the exact opposite policy, to the point of not having regular bins for paper recycling (because the extra cost of shredding is worth the risk reduction).
  I still don't understand why companies have such bins instead of actual shredders. Having a poorly-locked bin containing only interesting/sensitive material, which then gets picked up by the lowest bidder seems like an exceptionally stupid idea. >
  
  The shredders you have to use on sensitive documents costs several thousand dollars and have regular maintenance fees that could pretty much replace the device.  Then the shredded items still have to go through proper disposal.
  Shred 
  Then either burned or pulped and on some documents they are burned the ashes mixed with water and turned into a brick. Then that brick is burned again this process is repeated multiple times. >
  
  Then it is fed to piranhas that are injected into the second stomach of a Kobe cow and consequently rocketed into the sun. >
  
  Then... Phase II? >
  
  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 Republicans were so quick to switch from "TREASON!" to "ehhh whatever". >
  
  “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? >
  
  That doesn't fix the problem of zero accountability. >
  
  The "sense of invincibility" is because there is functionally no oversight. Impeachment is the only oversight, and you should know that that is impossible in our current setup.
  You clearly haven't put much thought into this.
  If you "have to consider your career after you move on from your position" you would be much more incentivized to vote politically. Having a 7 figure payday waiting for you because of your votes isn't a good way to remove abuses of the system.
  Like most problems in life there isn't a simple solution to the problem. >
  
  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* >
  
  
  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’ve amazed some coworkers with my use of bcc for emails. >
  
  My coworkers still reply all to things that don't deserve a reply all >
  
  My workplace has a policy to always use Reply All for certain topics. Getting other departments to follow it was like pulling teeth, and one department manager (who wasn't even involved in said email discussions) now has a vendetta against us. >
  
  Mine has no such policy. And I get stuck in email chains that are completely unnecessary. Like "can you change this word in the newsletter" when I have nothing to do with the newsletter >
  
  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.