comment: >
  
  but her emails
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. >
  
  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. >
  
  You've got to go back in time Marty! >
  
  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 >
  
  This is a really dumb nitpick and not even correct >
  
  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. >
  
  They're technically not "unimpeachable" but... yeah, good look with the political circus in Congress. >
  
  Which is why the messaging should be for the Supreme Court justices to resign themselves. Biden should threaten adding 4 Supreme Court Justices unless all 3 of Trumps picks resign. If they all resign, Biden would offer as an olive branch and only add 3 justices. 1 of the 3 justices would be a conservative member as to maintain a balance on the court. That's the political hardball we need >
  
  Lol as if Kavanagh or Barrett would ever relinquish the power willingly. They are corrupt to their bones, and will stay until dead or impeached forcefully. >
  
  That's the obvious point. You add 4 justices and use them being added by an insurrectionist as grounds for why the court is not fair and balanced. You even give them an olive branch (even when it really isn't) as pretext. It's called political maneuvering. It's also a pretty good one to expand the courts. As long as the dems have the senate, they could confirm new justices. >
  
  Well with Sinema and Manchin being part of the 50 needed, there is a 0 percent chance of that happening. >
  
  "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. >
  
  I also think nobody should really care about that in 2023. During the 2016 presidential election I get why some voters might have been up in arms but it's ancient history now and unfortunately we currently have much bigger problems now. >
  
  Buttery males. >
  
  Oh yeah, didn't they find those on Hunter Biden's Laptop^TM ? >
  
  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. >
  
  My previous clinic would drop of invoices on my desk. 
  Bro it's all online. 
  I put it in a drawer and shred them every month. 
  Everything I purchased was documented in email and our online accounts. He never noticed. >
  
  So breaking regulations and policy. >
  
  What regulations and what policy? >
  
  Then again this is all based on a Martin Chardoff report. >
  
  BuT tHeIR EmAiLs!
  Hey Hillary haters.  Where are you at?   Come on now.  Fair and balanced, right? >
  
  Yeah the GOP has never actually cared about OPSEC or data control. >
  
  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. >
  
  Conservatives are selfish and corrupt. It's who they are. >
  
  Remember when people thought computers would eliminate paper use and handling? >
  
  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. >
  
  But her emails!! >
  
  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 >
  
  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 >
  
  Cue Republican outrage in…never. >
  
  All our public officials need to take security more seriously. >
  
  So charge them all >
  
  No discipline, that is concerning >
  
  "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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  Sounds like their personal email accounts should be open to freedom of information requests then. >
  
  This is what happens when you tell people they have to jump through hoops to protect "secret" information that doesn't actually have a reason to be secret.  Nothing about how the Supreme Court writes its publicly released decisions needs to be secret.  If you asked the staff to follow precautions with specific cases where there are state secrets involved or such things, I'm sure they would be more careful.  But if you tell people that everything including the email you send wishing someone a happy birthday is super secret, of course they will be lax about the secrecy protocol. >
  
  I work in a 911 dispatch center for a small town, we handle confidential criminal histories, warrants etc. We keep the burn bags locked up very tight. >
  
  So, lock them up? >
  
  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. >
  
  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... >
  
  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 >
  
  The whole fucking government is just lazy and chooses ease over proper regulations.
  Pathetic. They really are above all the laws and such. We need major change. >
  
  bUt HiLlArY's EmAils!!! >
  
  Can we make them all work at McDonald’s? Clearly they aren’t capable of the responsibility bestowed upon them. >
  
  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. >
  
  Hell... one of their wives is a terrorist sympathizer who wants to overthrow the American government...
  What's a couple of misplaced 'secrets' among traitors, eh? >
  
  I wonder if Clarence has burn bags for his massive porn collection. >
  
  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!!