Quote:
Originally Posted by curves2000
Let's forget the politics aside and let's run under the assumption the actual background story but add in context from the corporate world during that time. It's not an accurate direct comparison but let's use yourself as a basic example.
You are effectively a #2 or 3 in a top tier organization with global influence in power. Corporate security, IT and various federal government agencies have all bent over backwards to allow the CEO a minimized version of a newer like technology. Strict warnings have been given to other top executives that an accommodations have been given in a single circumstance to the CEO.
You define corporate security, IT and federal agencies who regulate your company and establish communications out of company and corporate rules and guidelines with virtually no electronic trace. You have gone through great lengths in order to cover your electronic tracks from all eyes.
The CEO and other's find out that your using a device or a tool that no other senior executive, including the CEO is allowed to have to the same degree, and you don't see anything wrong with this?
You are able to bypass everybody, including your boss, federal laws and strict warnings from security regarding the use of said device and your going to tell us you had 35k emails about Flames line changes and 5th round prospects?
If Obama who was given special consideration for the use of a Blackberry with such limited use it was almost like a toy, why would Clinton be able to have full access to her's without the protection, security, electronic record keeping and more of a White House issued device?
It's ok think that this was just political in a lot of peoples mind but the simple fact remains, US security agencies and the US Secret Service, which is the only agency that has the ability to override the US President when it comes to security, were bypassed for a single person benefit.
Frankly I really don't care about the emails and more but logically there would be a few things in there that perhaps didn't smell right ethics and legality wise. The same logic would apply if you bypassed every single rule and law regarding the same thing with your employer at the highest level. I don't think discussion regarding Flames and Panthers NHL talk would be the appropriate answer as to what you were doing business wise.
|
The length of your post suggests otherwise. It was a non-issue back then. It was investigated. They concluded it was a non-issue. It's totally irrelevant to anything.
But just suppose it was concerning ethically or legally. What, then, would you do if you discovered that an ex-president illegally removed hundreds of classified documents on his way out of the White House, and then stored them in his bathroom at his private residence, without any security whatsoever? Is that concerning behavior...you know, ethically or legally?