Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Some Rants

In article <2264197.UPJNVn817g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
 Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Politicians just don't get IT
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | The president replied that he does use "the Google" (his words) on
> | occasion to "pull up maps" -- "I forgot the name of the program, but
> | you get the satellite ..." -- for viewing his ranch.
> | 
> | This exchange has prompted chuckles among techies and non- across the
> | Internets -- another famous reference by Bush from 2004. (More
> | troubling to me in that CNBC interview is Bush's admission that he
> | will not use e-mail: "I don-t e-mail, because of the different
> | record requests that can happen to a president.")
> `----
> http://weblog.infoworld.com/techwatch/archives/008606.html

Why is not using email troubling?

In the United States, various government officials and agencies are 
subject to record keeping laws that require that certain documents be 
preserved for a certain time.  It can be a major pain in the ass if you 
get some document or correspondence via email and it falls under one of 
these record keeping requirements.

Suppose you had an email, and a legal requirement to keep it for 40 
years.  How would you do it?  Save it to CD?  It's questionable whether 
a CD will last 40 years.  Same with tape.  What many have found is that 
the best way to deal with an email that you are required to preserve for 
20 or 30 or 50 years is to *print* it, because the library folks have 
figured out how to preserve paper documents for a long time.

The bottom line is that if you are subject to record keeping laws, it 
often turns out the best way to handle it is have everything on paper, 
stored using a good filing system.

Given that, there is nothing at all troubling with someone not using 
email for official business.

--Tim Smith

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index