Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Bush's Electronic Archives Threaten To Swamp National Archives

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the if-you're-smart-this-can-all-end-well dept.

Data Storage 185

ColdWetDog writes "The New York Times reports that the soon-to-be-disbanded Bush / Cheney White House threatens to overload the National Archives with close to 100 Terabytes of data. This includes the Barney Cam and even 'formats not previously dealt with.' By way of comparison, the Clinton White House dumped less than a single terabyte into the archives. Of course, Mr. Cheney, always the Good Citizen, tried to help out when he 'asserted this month in a court case that he had absolute discretion to decide which of his records are official and which are personal, and thus do not have to be transferred to the archives.' Glad to see that somebody over there is trying to clean up the cruft for posterity."

cancel ×

185 comments

100TB (1)

edman007 (1097925) | more than 5 years ago | (#26247793)

100TB? eh, i can do that in a week

Re:100TB (5, Funny)

Firehed (942385) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248101)

I hear you can't look at porn on the White House computers. NOW does it sound impressive?

Re:100TB (1, Troll)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248133)

It's not very impressive that the centre of Freedom In The World censors the Internet. The word I'd use is "ironic".

Re:100TB (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26248251)

It's not very impressive that the centre of Freedom In The World censors the Internet

Wait, what? George Bush is Australian?

Right, because White House personnel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26248277)

should be surfing the Net for porn.

Don't let your dogma run over your karma. The White House is for work, not play. I realize Clinton may have confused you about that.

Formats not dealt with? (5, Funny)

eggman9713 (714915) | more than 5 years ago | (#26247801)

'formats not previously dealt with.' If they can't open on a typical machine, they are probably just corrupt. Wait a second...

Re:Formats not dealt with? (5, Insightful)

Atario (673917) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248081)

When trying to hide something in plain sight, drown 'em in irrelevant crap.

We've been saying this for years (5, Insightful)

an.echte.trilingue (1063180) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248151)

For years I have been listening to people here rant about the potential for records to get lost due to proprietary formats. Nobody listened, and now it is happening:

The contingency plan, quietly approved by the National Archives on Nov. 7, emphasizes the difficulties posed by large numbers of White House records created with proprietary commercial software.

Re:We've been saying this for years (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26248903)

Actually, there are advanced national and international programmes for digital preservation around the world. Quite a few people in those programmes have participated in these discussions.

But the message hasn't entirely got through to all the other government departments, who are still stuck in a paper mentality. Most are willing but don't know quite what to do (and certainly aren't sure how much it will all cost), and a few are actively difficult to work with, for whatever reasons.

Re:Formats not dealt with? (1)

d33b33 (1439725) | more than 5 years ago | (#26249443)

snigger

Re:Formats not dealt with? (2, Insightful)

StormyWeather (543593) | more than 5 years ago | (#26249587)

Oh come on, now the Bush Administration is evil because they are giving too much data to the archives? That's complete garbage.

Sure, Clinton only had 1 TB of data, but for the day that would have easily equaled 100TB now. I mean really, in 2008 I had like 10gb that more than held all of my entire world.

in `2008 the family desktop machine in my living room has 2 TB of storage with all of my family movies, photos, music etc, and that's just one machine in my house. That doesn't count my linux box, my laptops, or my work desktop in my office.

I wonder if the people that hated previous presidents complained that they turned over 100 times the shoe boxes of photos that previous presidents did.

I've thought Bush was a bad administrator since he was my governor, but give me a break this is just silly. Buy some hard drives, and download a codec pack.

Not much of a threat (2, Interesting)

DrMrLordX (559371) | more than 5 years ago | (#26247805)

While the National Archives obviously must catalog and make available all the data in some form or another (honestly I do not know their rules & regs for that sort of thing, and it seems a good bit is missing), the mere act of storing 100 terabytes hardly seems all that daunting. NewEgg has 1TB Samsung Spinpoint harddrives available for $100 with free shipping. You can't tell me the folks over at the National Archives couldn't afford 100 of those plus some additional hardware to oversee the transfer of all applicable data to the drives for storage, at least until a better solution could be found. Hell, have the Bush/Cheney crew do it for them and stick the drives in a closet somewhere until they can sort through all that mess. It doesn't take a $144 million computer system to handle 100 TB of data.

Re:Not much of a threat (5, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26247835)

I think google have a free service where they lend you a Network Attached Storage box. You load it up with whatever then send it back to them. You still have online access to the data and google indexes it for you.

Wouldn't work here (4, Informative)

an.echte.trilingue (1063180) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248071)

Problem is, some of this information is classified, and most of it isn't. Some of it legitimately contains private information that should not be made public yet (things like job applications). It contains personal information that should probably be permanently removed from what the public sees, such as employee social security numbers.

What isn't classified or private needs to be available to the public, what is classified or private needs to be available to people with the proper credentials. Some of it will be automatically declassified in 5 years, some of it in 7 years.

In short, somebody has to look at it before it is added to an index. Probably security will dictate that the classified information is stored on different machines, probably different networks, than the publicly available stuff. You might be able to write an algorithm that automates this process, but Google certainly isn't it.

Re:Wouldn't work here (3, Funny)

John Sokol (109591) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248451)

>somebody has to look at it before it is added to an index.

Sure, they can just outsource it to India...

Re:Wouldn't work here (2, Insightful)

Meest (714734) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248471)

A question that should be asked. Is why was there not a network admin/security offical managing this data durring the administration? Did all of this data just get dumped into a hard drive with no organization?

Sounds like another bad excuse for not planning for the future... This should have been proactivly handled and organized. Now the "Oh Shit" factor is very large and daunting.

Time to hire a security/system admin for the president administration...

Re:Wouldn't work here (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26248815)

If you RTFA (I know, I know) you'd see that the information is principally in email systems and in a records management system storing all the textual material (e.g. documents, but also spreadsheets, pictures, audio, videa and everything else people like to plonk in those systems).

By focussing on volume of data, the article is a bit misleading. It's 100Tb of stuff in several different email and records management systems, with no easy or obvious way to suck all the data out of them and preserve it and the context it was found in.

So some bespoke coding will almost certainly be required to interface with all this (largely unknown) data and data formats, and reconstruct it all in a generic preservation system. You also need to preserve a lot of the contextual metadata you discover. It's a big job.

Re:Wouldn't work here (1)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 5 years ago | (#26249615)

My guess is that what they're talking about is the data being federalized. Sure, this admin did this mail server, this admin did this webserver, etc. etc. Now they are getting *all* of that data, and it's no surprise it's a big unorganized cluster fuck. After all, who would be in charge of that? An IT Czar? Imagine trying to propose that and sell that to the American public and the special interest groups. Civil Libertarians would be concerned about a Big Brother controlling all government data. Conservatives would worry about Yet Another Big Government Bureaucracy.

Re:Wouldn't work here (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 5 years ago | (#26249695)

The problem is that the Executive branch hires the admin who has been managing this data and we happen to be getting to the end of an administration that does everything they can to prevent the office of the president from being held accountable to the good citizens of our nation.

From the very beginning with Executive Order 13233 to the present day with Cheney claiming whatever he wants are personal papers. They just don't think we have any right to know what they are doing.

Re:Not much of a threat (0)

NothingMore (943591) | more than 5 years ago | (#26247865)

You sir, are not familiar with the bureaucracy they call the US government. It wouldn't surprise me if they have to spend $1 Billion to be able to store only 50 Terabytes of the data..

Re:Not much of a threat (3, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26247995)

You'd think the NSA would have it all archived anyway.

More to it than that (4, Informative)

an.echte.trilingue (1063180) | more than 5 years ago | (#26247971)

They have to store it without losing any of it. That means redundant storage distributed geographically. The cost of doing this is pretty significant.

What's more, the interest is not just historical, they should be able to access this information immediately. For example, when the new administration is looking to negotiate a deal with North Korea, they need to know exactly what the old administration was doing and why. They need to know what overtures the US has made and why. Additionally, they need to know what overtures the North has made and what they could mean. It will save the new administration lots of time to read the old administration's analyses instead of having to generate their own. Theoretically, the transition team should be assuring that this kind of institutional knowledge is passed, but in reality something always gets missed.

With this amount of data, you are looking at something a lot more complicated than a mysql database and a web based front-end. To be quite honest, I would be surprised if there is any off-the-shelf software capable of this task.

Re:More to it than that (1)

story645 (1278106) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248025)

For example, when the new administration is looking to negotiate a deal with North Korea, they need to know exactly what the old administration was doing and why. They need to know what overtures the US has made and why.

But shouldn't all that data then (at the least) be archived in whatever database they already use for that stuff (probably kept at some intelligence agency) and/or in the Secretary of State's computer system or whatever databases he or she, and whoever else needs the info, already uses. Also at the archives for posterity, sure, but why keep the working copy there if it adds to the cost unnecessarily?

I doubt there is any pressing need for the Barney cam (and probably some of the other date in the 100TB total) to be protected or accessible at anywhere near the levels of some of the other stuff, and most of the data will mostly be accessed by different people.

Re:More to it than that (1)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248167)

It should be in those databases, but sometimes it's not, simply because someone mentioned something in passing in an unrelated e-mail, a document was saved in the wrong directory, or a file got the wrong name and it wasn't opened to check the contents. A semi-manual review is about the only way to go through these documents to check them.

Re:More to it than that (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248189)

For example, when the new administration is looking to negotiate a deal with North Korea, they need to know exactly what the old administration was doing and why. They need to know what overtures the US has made and why.

But shouldn't all that data then (at the least) be archived in whatever database they already use for that stuff (probably kept at some intelligence agency) and/or in the Secretary of State's computer system or whatever databases he or she, and whoever else needs the info, already uses. Also at the archives for posterity, sure, but why keep the working copy there if it adds to the cost unnecessarily?

I doubt there is any pressing need for the Barney cam (and probably some of the other date in the 100TB total) to be protected or accessible at anywhere near the levels of some of the other stuff, and most of the data will mostly be accessed by different people.

The impression I have of the way Governments operate is that only specific bits of information are preserved in the long run, and these specific bits were defined by legislation and convention hundreds of years ago. I think the secretary of state's computer system will get taken from the building and erased the minute she leaves office.

I don't think there exists specific Secretary Of State groupware, just waiting to bring Hillary up to speed and pass on her next hundred tasks.

Re:More to it than that (3, Funny)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248149)

they need to know exactly what the old administration was doing and why

The 'what' is probably relatively easy to answer. The 'why', I doubt even they know...

Re:More to it than that (1)

mrphoton (1349555) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248535)

Do they have internet in North Korea? I don't think they do.

It's just unreal (5, Interesting)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 5 years ago | (#26247809)

Mr. Cheney, always the Good Citizen, tried to help out when he 'asserted this month in a court case that he had absolute discretion to decide which of his records are official and which are personal, and thus do not have to be transferred to the archives.'

Thereby making what he was doing immune to FOIA requests. Nice.

It's just unreal how unabashedly criminal Cheney is. Nobody ever calls him on it. Anyone in a position to do anything about him (other than Dennis Kucinich anyways) strangely...doesn't.

Of course, he's also the same guy who shot a hunting buddy in the face. And had the victim apologize. [cnn.com]

Far more dangerous than W. Will not be sorry to see him go. Good riddance. Go retire on your inflated Halliburton stock and please leave my country alone.

Re:It's just unreal (4, Interesting)

Chris_Jefferson (581445) | more than 5 years ago | (#26247891)

Remember, this is the republican party. If they get back in any time before he dies off, he will be there in the background, pulling the strings of whatever new puppet president they choose. McCain would probably have stood up to him, but I suspect now the republicans blame him for their loss, it could well be back to the "Bush Box" to find their next candidate. Scary thought.

Re:It's just unreal (5, Insightful)

Zorque (894011) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248041)

Sorry, Right-wingers, that wasn't a troll. Just because this guy said something you don't like doesn't make it any less true, or any less valid of an opinion to express.

Re:It's just unreal (1, Insightful)

Firehed (942385) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248107)

Does Cheney really follow the rules of typical partisan politics? (If so, someone should let him know - he refuses to follow any other rules) He's involved in too many places to go away just because we elected a democrat.

Re:It's just unreal (1)

PeeAitchPee (712652) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248721)

Perhaps, but funny how that only applies to one party here on Slashdot.

Re:It's just unreal (1)

Steneub (1070216) | more than 5 years ago | (#26249279)

And to illustrate the point further, why not just say that the Jews are controlling the media, keeping the black man down, keeping the spics from getting their citizenship?

No, no, Republicans are EVIL I tells ya. Baloney. I guess it's not a troll if you agree.

Mod GP down, -1 troll.

Re:It's just unreal (1)

thomasw_lrd (1203850) | more than 5 years ago | (#26249787)

Well it's easy to blame the republicans when even Slashdot points a spin on the summary. Can't we at least pretend geeks understand what bias is. I feel like I'm reading a regular news site.

Re:It's just unreal (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26248565)

If they get back in any time before he dies off, he will be there in the background, pulling the strings of whatever new puppet president they choose.

And Obama isn't a third Clinton administration? :-)

Re:It's just unreal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26249349)

In light of the comparison between what each President oversaw... (one a time of relative peace and prosperity, good will around the world - the other a total clusterfuck [two struggling wars, failure to act on intelligence to stop 9/11 or find bin Laden, the flooding of a city with almost no response at all, economic ragnarok, the corrosion of civil liberties, and the hate of the world...])

I don't see Obama being a third Clinton (if thats possible) in the same light of Cheney or Bush sticking around holding influence over the Republicans.

Re:It's just unreal (1)

mikael (484) | more than 5 years ago | (#26249223)

If you change that to "if they go back in time before he dies off", you have the plot for a Summer Hollywood blockbuster movie.

Re:It's just unreal (4, Insightful)

schon (31600) | more than 5 years ago | (#26249277)

McCain would probably have stood up to him

Two points:

1. McCain lost any credibility he had when he endorsed US torture of foreigners.

2. If McCain was someone who would stand up to Cheney, he'd never have been chosen for the Republican ticket.

Re:It's just unreal (1)

Chris_Jefferson (581445) | more than 5 years ago | (#26249327)

Probably true. I had real hope for McCain when he was first running, I'd vaguely followed his carrier before and thought he was one of the few people who had some backbone, but then it all fell away, shame really. Of course, the real question is what state Obama will be in after he has been in power for 4 years.

Re:It's just unreal (0)

StormyWeather (543593) | more than 5 years ago | (#26249625)

Umm, McCain was the loudest critic of torture in the Senate. That's one of the reasons a lot of people DIDN'T like him as a candidate for president. He would have let thousands die rather than twist someones arm. Remember he was tortured, that changed his psyche.

McCain's problem was that he was a poor communicator of the ideas he had. For example, his health care reform was the best idea he had, but he didn't come out once and say why it was such a good idea. So unless you really wanted to research it, and understood the economics behind it then you would have just thought he was blowing smoke.

Re:It's just unreal (3, Interesting)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 5 years ago | (#26247913)

If particular records are classified as private, does that mean what's on them can be used in court to convict him of private crimes? (not that anybody would have the guts to try it)

Re:It's just unreal (1)

lanswitch (705539) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248083)

senseless reply to undo accidental modding

Re:It's just unreal (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26248093)

What's unreal is the bias being shown here - slashKos at it's finest! Even if you ignore the obvious slant of the summary (kinda hard to miss - who wrote that, the DNC?), the truly ironic thing is that if this story was titled "Bush Administration Doesn't Archive Everything", the crazed partisan outcry here would be screaming "What are they hiding???!!!???"
 
Sheesh.
 
Nope, I did not vote for Bush or McCain. I just do hate to see 'politics' and 'partisanship' presented as "the news". Not that the NYT doesn't ever do the same. Wise up, sheeple - they are all liars, up there, and addicted to the power of spending *your* money and rights...

I'd rather go hunting with Cheney (2, Insightful)

unassimilatible (225662) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248219)

Than go driving with Ted Kennedy.

And where in the Constitution does it say that the Executive cedes power to Congress by a mere passage of a law (FOIA)? I thought the actual Executive was in charge of that branch.

For all of you constitutional purists, I'd ask where in Article I Congress has the right to limit executive authority, whether it's FOIA, FISA, the War Powers Act, "congressional oversight," etc. I am looking but can't find in the Constitution where Congress can do this without ratifying a new Amendment.

Oh, and we are still waiting for that big Clinton records dump into his library that we've been promised. I guess we'll have to wait until Hillary is elected president in 2016 - wait, re-elected in 2020 - before they dump everything.

Re:I'd rather go hunting with Cheney (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26248507)

Oh, and we are still waiting for that big Clinton records dump into his library that we've been promised. I guess we'll have to wait until Hillary is elected president in 2016 - wait, re-elected in 2020 - before they dump everything.

Funny, the press makes no mention that Clinton has not provided those records. We'll get all of them of course. Nothing to hide there. Why sully a hero of the Fourth Estate with trivialities?

Posted anon to avoid the new left-wing thought police.

It's real enough (0, Flamebait)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248345)

Mr. Cheney, always the Good Citizen, tried to help out when he 'asserted this month in a court case that he had absolute discretion to decide which of his records are official and which are personal, and thus do not have to be transferred to the archives.'

Well, since he was on the PUBLIC payroll at the time, ostensibly doing the PUBLIC'S business, then I guess in turn the PUBLIC should decide how much of that "private" time was paid for by public funds... and hit Cheney for fraud, for every minute he did "private" work on the PUBLIC payroll.

Seriously... this man has acted so criminally toward the citizens of the United States that I would be extremely sad and upset if he does not end up in prison, in solitary confinement, within 2 years.

Gah. Unclosed tag. (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248379)

i /i

Re:It's real enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26249283)

If he has acted so criminally then list some, and not just made up items from the various hate sites you will have to start searching to find them.

Seriously big -- Seriously serious! (1, Interesting)

billsf (34378) | more than 5 years ago | (#26247829)

Perhaps within all that data is a DVDrom or two of real juicy material. More importantly, there may (should) be enough info in there to
convict the former Bush administration's true criminals. Destroying that would be "destroying evidence": Supposed to to a 'serious crime' in the US. If most of it is Windows word/email, that thankfully compresses over 1000:1 to 'human readable' text. Programs such as 'antiword' would be my first line of attack if I was in-charge of this mess. Thankfully I'm not.

BillSF

 

You must be kidding (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26247907)

If someone isn't too bothered about criminal acts when in power, explain to me why they should worry about data deletion being illegal?

Re:You must be kidding (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26248059)

We demand honest criminals!

Disgusting (5, Insightful)

pnumoman (1348217) | more than 5 years ago | (#26247845)

"I'm told researchers like to come and dig through my files, to see if anything interesting turns up," Mr. Cheney said. "I want to wish them luck, but the files are pretty thin. I learned early on that if you don't want your memos to get you in trouble some day, just don't write any."

This really says it all, doesn't it? I mean, wasn't this essentially Nixon's view on things? That if the president (or his puppet master, vice-president Cheney) deems it not for the public's purview, it's none of your damn business? I mean, what part of PUBLIC office does this numbskull not understand? (Excuse me, the mastermind understands, just doesn't care.)

Sickening. What's even worse is that no one's gonna make this administration accountable for anything they've done. In fact, I'm sure no one's gonna really take a hard look at what exactly this administration has done until a looong time later; everyone's too preoccupied with moving on.

Re:Disgusting (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26247905)

Politician is the only well paid position I know that requires neither any kind of credentials that you're able to do your job nor comes with any kind of responsibility if you do a bad job. What's the worst thing that could happen? You don't get reelected? Duh, if you don't manage to line your pockets sensibly in four years you're doing something wrong anyway.

Re:Disgusting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26247933)

1) Get elected
2) Leave office before impeachment
3) Garner retirement and Secret Service protection for the rest of your life
4) Speaking tours!
5) ????
6) Profit!

Re:Disgusting (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248019)

I think 5 is "getting a Nobel prize".

Re:Disgusting (1)

dunkelfalke (91624) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248177)

rather "write books"

Re:Disgusting (2, Informative)

Zippy_wonderslug (990892) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248057)

Secret Service protection is now limited to 10 years after leaving office. Clinton has done pretty well on the speaking circuit, over $30 million in the first 4 years out of office http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2007/clinton-speeches/ [washingtonpost.com] Everyone involved seems to make out pretty well if they so choose.

Re:Disgusting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26248053)

"I'm told researchers like to come and dig through my files, to see if anything interesting turns up," Mr. Cheney said. "I want to wish them luck, but the files are pretty thin. I learned early on that if you don't want your memos to get you in trouble some day, just don't write any."

Translation: "I did it, but you can't prove it."

Re:Disgusting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26248215)

Sickening. What's even worse is that no one's gonna make this administration accountable for anything they've done.

See, that's kind of a point of working in White House. Perfect place for chicken-hawks.

Re:Disgusting (3, Informative)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248907)

Legally there are distinctions between public and private data release, even ( especially ) if you are an elected official.

As along as the legal boundaries are followed, then the politician is completely in the right and your 'feelings' are null and void.

Don't like this idea? Lobby and get the laws changed.

Re:Disgusting (4, Interesting)

dbIII (701233) | more than 5 years ago | (#26249083)

I mean, wasn't this essentially Nixon's view on things? That if the president (or his puppet master, vice-president Cheney) deems it not for the public's purview, it's none of your damn business?

Looking from overseas I find it sadly funny that people who call themselves "Republicans" really want to act like absolute monarchs instead. Hopefully future administrations will act a little bit more like the government George Washington and others wanted instead of like some 18th century German principality.

Re:Disgusting (1)

StormyWeather (543593) | more than 5 years ago | (#26249645)

Actually Nixon's stance was that the president was above wrongdoing as long as he felt whatever he was doing was in the best interest of the nation. That may be the same thing Cheney thinks, but Nixon had no problem writing memo's and documenting everything because he felt that he was above the law.

Data volumes grow exponentially (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26247847)

Data capacities and volumes appear to be following the approximate path of Mooreâ(TM)s law â" doubling every 12â"18 months. If Clinton submitted 1 TB eight years ago, I would expect Bush to submit (very) roughly 1/8 * (2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 32 + 64 + 128 + 256) = 64 TB.

A president ten years before Clinton would probably only have submitted ~1 GB of digital data. This is to be expected.

Stop complaining. Google handles this volume of information every minute.

Re:64 TB (1)

conureman (748753) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248881)

That should be enough for anybody.

100TB.... (1)

Kid Zero (4866) | more than 5 years ago | (#26247859)

Is any of it actually interesting?

Re:100TB.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26247987)

nah, just the 99Tbyte of VP porn ;)

oh and maybe 1Mbyte of iraq truths...

Re:100TB.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26248491)

100 TB should be the limit that governments are allowed to keep. (1/4 MB per citizen)
Currently the NSA is probably tapping into and storing more than 100TB a day.

Does it have videos of their perpetual risk game? (1)

TheSeer2 (949925) | more than 5 years ago | (#26247935)

Risk, it's how they make decisions to attack countries.

Re:Does it have videos of their perpetual risk gam (1)

kennykb (547805) | more than 5 years ago | (#26249021)

Video [google.com] of the Risk game is already up.

dot dot dot (1)

SinShiva (1429617) | more than 5 years ago | (#26247961)

conflict of interest with the RIAA and the MPAA :]

For the uninformed.. (1)

will_die (586523) | more than 5 years ago | (#26247981)

The Cheney is about if records he does as President of the Senate are covered [google.com] by the law. The position of the Vice President is that only work ordered by the President are covered those done as being a leader of the Legislative Branch are not. Also the group bring the suit are tryng to get access purely political conversations which the national archives have already ruled are not to be archived.
If all you haters really want to look at something slimy how about the case was made that the NSA was "not an agency of the government" so keeping communications by the national archives was not required.

Re:For the uninformed.. (3, Funny)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248031)

Because, clearly, he has an archive folder as "president of senate" and "vice president". It is far from insane to suppose he also has a folder labeled "questionable documents" he will put in the archive less likely to go public.

Re:For the uninformed.. (1)

Boronx (228853) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248371)

"Leader of the Legislative Branch"... that has a Limbaugh Horse Hockey smell to it. If the Files of the President of the Senate contain anything more than discussions about tie votes and parliamentary procedure, then we've got some fraud on our hands.

Empty the junk mail folder (1)

g3head (771421) | more than 5 years ago | (#26247989)

Delete the spam and you'll probably save 80TBs, just be careful about deleting things from Nigeria...

Cheated (0, Troll)

sugarmotor (621907) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248009)

The American people are being cheated, once again.

Stephan

I smell a big pile of... (1)

Evil_Ether (1200695) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248067)

Any one else thinking they are trying to hide something of interest in all that pile of ... data?

Re:I smell a big pile of... (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248141)

Who cares? Honestly. At no other point in history has this amount of data storage even been conceivable. Sure, in the past, noteworthy exchanges have been recorded, but not every single utterance, pondering, debate, brainstorm, or written word that somebody "in office" had the misfortune of dealing with. I am not in the US and I am not a US citizen (never have been) but, really, is that email regarding the shopping list all that important? Are those mundane communications tossing ideas back-and-forth all that important? Is the colour of the shoes that Mr XXX wore on 99/99/9999 important? I guess to somebody it might be. In 50 or 100 or 200 years I guess that the waste of money that it is will become more apparent. Delete it all and I daresay the rest of the world will move on as if nothing had happened.

Re:I smell a big pile of... (1)

Evil_Ether (1200695) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248187)

I'm not in support of this and I'm not a US citizen either.

I don't think the world cares about shopping lists but there might be information that the world does care about that could be harder to find because of the extra information

Re:I smell a big pile of... (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248221)

Evil Ether, I was not really directing my comment at you, or evaluating your first comment. The fact that I replied to you with my ideas was only because your comment provided a nice stepping stone. That and the fact that the "steaming pile of... data" prompted me to think of the "steaming pile of shit" that this crap load of data probably amounts to ;-)

Re:I smell a big pile of... (1)

Evil_Ether (1200695) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248635)

Ah sorry I thought you misunderstood me turns out I misunderstood you. Teach me to smoke and post XD

Re:I smell a big pile of... (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 5 years ago | (#26249269)

is that email regarding the shopping list all that important?

That's the sort of thing they got Oliver North on - although the shopping list was for things like a convertable and air conditioning for his house embezzled out of the money from selling guns to Iran. The funny thing is the emails were all deleted individually which would have taken ages - and that attracted enough attention that the backup tapes were taken out of their cycle and stored seperately. Questions by either Poindexter or North about how long the tapes were kept before being reused raised furthur suspicions so apparently those tapes were then moved offsite.

deciphering the code (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26248121)

"he 'asserted this month in a court case that he had absolute discretion to decide which of his records are official and which are personal, and thus do not have to be transferred to the archives."

Rough translation "Official"=Legal Activities, "Personal"=Illegal Activities. It just proves that Congress is beyond useless that they won't even try to stop this blatant disreguard for the law.

Speak and Spell (1)

retech (1228598) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248123)

Who knew a Speak and Spell could amass that much data? Maybe it's the high scores from Minesweeper and Solitaire that did it? Perhaps Bush's tutorials from Mavis Beacon's typing?

I'd really have thought with Bush's user level and Cheney's underhanded nature you'd have been able to archive their entire administration on a few floppies.

Make that 101 TB (2, Funny)

SupremoMan (912191) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248153)

As a last addition, 1 TB of data was added to the archives. It contained all the news footage, replays, and parodies of the shoe-throwing incident.

Wow! So many HDs (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26248229)

100 TB! Wow! That's about 60 hard disks or so! And I don't even want to imagine how much money you'd have to pay for those drives - it'd be a *four digit sum*!

Re:Wow! So many HDs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26248669)

100 TB! Wow! That's about 60 hard disks or so! And I don't even want to imagine how much money you'd have to pay for those drives - it'd be a *four digit sum*!

It would probably cost just over $9000!!!

the next white house team... (5, Interesting)

acedotcom (998378) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248279)

100TB seems like a lot, but can you imagine how much data the Obama administration might leave? Considering that they seem more 'connected' then most other politicians.

there is always talk of obsolete formats here on /. but can you imagine the baggage left by some of these administrations?

Re:the next white house team... (1)

StormyWeather (543593) | more than 5 years ago | (#26249659)

It's not really any administration's fault they use proprietary formats either. I have one of the first DVD video cameras. The format it records into is awful, and it's almost impossible to convert to anything else other than playing the movie off the camera, then recording that stream into another format. It's very aggravating.

Personnal mails? (1)

Kindaian (577374) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248373)

I believed that US had a law forbidding the use of the governmental emails and the like for personnel things and vice-verse (one with a specific law, the other due to the use of governmental resources for personnel use).

But i may be wrong...

Re:Personnal mails? (2, Insightful)

will_die (586523) | more than 5 years ago | (#26249197)

It is policy that dictates usage for personal communications and that varies by branch and office.
What you do have are laws preventing the use of federal systems for purely political uses. This is what was the problem with the mailing system a year or so ago. People were given blackberries and other systems for political and party related messages and because of government requirements not given those same types of tools for government business. People being people and since they had those tools available to them tended to use them for all types of messages.
The other big problem was that law there was no penalty for not recording the email for the national archive but there are penalties for using government systems for political reasons.

These aren't the bytes you're looking for... (1)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248435)

The New York Times reports that the soon-to-be-disbanded Bush / Cheney White House threatens to overload the National Archives with close to 100 Terabytes of data

Does anyone else find it ironic this is the same administration that couldn't keep track of a few years worth of official emails? I seem to remember a lack of storage space being one of the excuses, too.

Fascistic states of America (0, Troll)

louzer (1006689) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248463)

So they want to erase history now.

Alt. headline- Bush solves unemployment problem? (1)

FlacoFuerte (567879) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248537)

Why not just add more archivists? Problem solved.

hide it (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248561)

If you can't delete the records, just hide multiple pieces in soo much garbage data that you would be dead and gone by the time anyone was able to put it all together.

Before this turns into a political flame fest: (3, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248883)

If you think this is bad today, this is only the tip of the ice burg. The national archives better ramp up for a drastic increasing curve of data to store as each new president is elected.

Not that i have the answer, but i can see it happening. Just look at the exponential increases in personal information for the average citizen.

Of course, scrubbed like Nixon's tapes (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 5 years ago | (#26249075)

IOW, these guys have been cleaning anything relevant and creating lots of BS crap to put in there. By the time it is figured out, Cheney will be dead and W will be senile. Hopefully, these traitors are able to at least be caught on tax fraud.

Maybe we can find out how (3, Interesting)

dbIII (701233) | more than 5 years ago | (#26249191)

Maybe we can find out how someone can have the goodwill of nearly every nation on earth (even Libya offered to help!), a tame congress, wartime expediency in letting anything you like get through, signing statements to change anything you don't like, a booming economy, a military grudgingly ready even to abandon the Geneva convention if ordered and access to experts on every subject yet STILL muck it up so badly.

From the article... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26249401)

"some five times the contents of all 20 million catalogued books in the Library of Congress."

Slashdot translation:

approximately 5 LoCs

VHS and DVD are not proprietary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26249485)

The NYT aritcle asserts that the records are in proprietary systems akin to VHS or DVD. Well VHS and DVD are NOT proprietary systems. They are technologies of different eras. The fact that there is a transition from VHS to DVD is called progression of the state of the art. Hard disk drives will be considered quaint in 20 years.

The administration generated more electronic records in the 2000's than the administration in the 1990's. Suprised?

Technology is allowing us to save much more material. Probably too much.

Here's the real question (1)

jayhawk88 (160512) | more than 5 years ago | (#26249505)

Is there an 18 minute gap in the Barney Cam tapes?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...