« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
The Story Behind The Whistleblower Email Screw-Up
Friday night, we reported that the House Judiciary Committee had mistakenly sent the email addresses of would-be whistleblowers to everyone who had written in to the committee's Justice Department politicization tip line. A committee spokesperson responded to that story with a statement apologizing for the "technological error."
In a statement released this afternoon (which can be read in full below) a committee spokesperson clarified that the error was, in fact, human. For those of you interested in the nitty gritty, the "nonpartisan, clerical employee" of the committee who was tasked with sending the email out to the list screwed up by assuming that checking "private" in Microsoft Outlook's Distribution List function meant that recipient names would be hidden. Alas, not so.
The full statement is below.
The tip line was created to be a confidential method for Justice Department employees to provide the Judiciary Committee with information that might aid the Committee in its ongoing investigation of alleged politicization at the Justice Department. Because of the confidentiality agreement, the Committee will not discuss any emails sent on this tip line. An erroneous communication was sent that may have compromised the anonymity of recipients of the email. An earlier statement labeled this a "technological error." To be clear, this was a user error in operating the email program.The Committee apologizes for the concern this error may have caused, and is making every effort to protect the confidentiality of those who chose to provide information on the tip line. Any whistleblowers who sent in tips to this website are entitled to full legal protection. We are determined to ensure that they receive that protection and are taking steps to further that objective.
The following is a detailed chronology of this tip line and of the error that occurred:
1. In the course of several investigations this year, the House Judiciary Committee received information that there were individuals who wanted to share information about wrongdoing at the Department of Justice but were reluctant to do so over the phone. It was determined that it would be desirable for them to have a means of electronically communicating with the Committee.
2. On or about June 20, the tip line web page was launched. Within a day or two thereafter, the Committee Minority raised concerns with the House Parliamentarian that the terms of the web page might violate the Rules of the House. Specifically, the Minority asserted that, because the web page solicited the tips, the tips were Committee records and the Minority was, then, entitled to equitable access to these records and, therefore, access to the tips could not be restricted to Majority staff and Majority Members. The Parliamentarian agreed with the Minority’s interpretation of the Rules.
3. Majority and Minority staff engaged in discussions to determine what restrictions could be placed on access to the tips, consistent with House rules, which would help secure the confidentiality of the information. It was agreed that during those discussions neither the Majority or Minority would have access to the tips.
4. The Majority and Minority recently reached an agreement as to the conditions for access to the tips. Specifically, it was agreed that the tips would be held in "Executive Session," with access limited to Committee members and specifically designated staff, and that any broader release of the tips could only occur upon a vote of the full Committee. The Committee voted to approve a resolution that reflected the agreement on October 24.
5. Because the conditions for access to the tips had been changed from what had been indicated on the web page, the resolution further specified that a Committee staff member would advise everyone who had submitted information via the tip line of the changed conditions for access and giving them three business days to withdraw any information submitted. During these three business days, the Resolution specified, it would continue to be the case that no Committee staff or Member would review the tips.
6. A nonpartisan, clerical employee of the Committee was tasked with sending the email.
7. To carry out this task, the employee created two distribution lists in Microsoft Outlook called "Right Justice" and "Right Justice2". The employee’s recollection is that a checkbox in the Outlook Distribution List function was checked which was marked "private." The employee mistakenly believed that this would hide the names on the distribution list from the recipients. However, in fact, while it appeared to the employee that the name of the distribution list would be the only text on the "to:" field of the email, all addresses were shown when the email was received. This was an inadvertent clerical error, and contrary to speculation, not the result of "hacking" or any malicious act.
8. As a result of this mistake, all email addresses of all recipients were visible to everyone who received the email. No further information or content of any of the emails was revealed.
9. There were more than 150 emails on the list. Among the emails on the list was apparently the public email address of the Vice President as well as other presumably fictitious email addresses containing profanity. Presumably, these were submitted as pranks to the tip line. The Committee has not accessed the content of the emails purporting to be sent from these addresses and has no way of knowing how or why these emails are included in the list.
10. A substantial number of email addresses also appear to include portions of the proper names of individuals. To comply with the resolution of the Committee and to avoid even further potential exposure from potential whistleblowers, the Committee will not release the list of recipients or any further details about the list.
11. The Committee is familiar with legal protections involving whistleblowers and stands ready to assist any whistleblower who feels that they are in any jeopardy as a result of this mistake or for any other reason. We have not yet been contacted by any such whistleblower in this regard.
Comments (19)
Mrs. K8 wrote on October 29, 2007 6:34 PM:"11. The Committee is familiar with legal protections involving whistleblowers and stands ready to assist any whistleblower who feels that they are in any jeopardy as a result of this mistake or for any other reason. We have not yet been contacted by any such whistleblower in this regard."
Well, isn't that just precious.
Would YOU get in touch again with a committee who had promised to protect you and instead fed you to the wolves? I wouldn't.
So it's no wonder that they "have not yet been contacted by any such whistleblower in this regard."
Sheesh.
judyinnm wrote on October 29, 2007 6:38 PM:How does one get a "non partisan" job, in Washington DC?
Robby the Robot wrote on October 29, 2007 7:08 PM:As a technical writer, I can only say to the human who made this error: RTFM or UTFH, as the case may be.
Saint Augustine wrote on October 29, 2007 7:09 PM:Go to work for an undertaker.
AMYE wrote on October 29, 2007 7:14 PM:What an absolute outrage!!!
Bondo wrote on October 29, 2007 7:43 PM:Another Microsoft SNAFU!
EH wrote on October 29, 2007 7:57 PM:Microsoft, nonpartisan, or whatever, the news here is that the fence of confidentiality is being decided by a clerical employee. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
buck wrote on October 29, 2007 8:30 PM:Can someone explain to me how even just having the names and not the email addresses appear in the To: field is NOT a breach of confidentiality?
"We have not yet been contacted by any such whistleblower in this regard."
As W said, "In Texas we have a saying ... -Fooled won't get fooled again." Who would trust them after this fuck up?
"Public address for Vice Presidents office"?? What makes them think this was a prank?
anonymouse wrote on October 29, 2007 8:33 PM:"Microsoft, nonpartisan, or whatever, the news here is that the fence of confidentiality is being decided by a clerical employee. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link."
Yes... and it is becoming more and more apparent that our federal government has become our weakest link... IMHO
tmhout wrote on October 29, 2007 8:56 PM:"RTFM"
Shanetta Cutlar wrote on October 29, 2007 9:40 PM:i don't blame the cleric, outlook is the king of all non intuitive email programs
tmhout, I don't think a rabbi or a priest is responsible for the mistake. If you were in my section, I would suspend you without pay. I am a section chief, and you must respect me. Your spelling errors will not be tolerated! I am Cornholio.
Hibernian wrote on October 29, 2007 10:31 PM:Shanetta - Susana wants to talk to you. Give her a ring. She's at the beach!
Carolyn wrote on October 29, 2007 11:38 PM:Why did this happen? Another sabotage??? I want the name of the guy/gal who released it. Might tell us a lot. What if we all got behind the whistleblowers, financially and morally, to support them so they could out themselves? I know, I know. How do we do that? We are not very organized against "organized (criminal) government" are we?
rmiller wrote on October 30, 2007 12:08 AM:I am beginning to believe our only salvation is in Moveon.org. In all fairness they are the only (fairly large group)folks speaking in one voice for justice.
Ah, but did the nonpartisian clerk work for Sensenbrenner or Issa?
anon wrote on October 30, 2007 12:21 AM:I just can't understand why they didn't set up the whistleblower system to (within reason) insure that the whistleblower's names were not attached to their letters in any fashion within minutes of receiving the letters. Lots of competitions are handled blind, even lightweight stuff, like creative writing contests in high schools. As soon as the letter arrives you copy it without any identifying marks, you set the type on each print out the same, you assign a number to the letter and then make a master list that connects the number to the name of the sender and you put that master list in a safe. Once the winners are known, you go back to the master list and contact the winners one-by-one. It's not fool proof but it's just basic jr. high school stuff. In this case, a more elaborate variation on that procedure should have insured that it would take a mole or a break-in of some kind for anyone to figure out the identity of the whistleblowers. Argh.
DallasNE wrote on October 30, 2007 8:54 AM:It almost reads like a conscience effort was made to expose the whistleblowers just to chill future whistleblowers.
First it starts out as a technical point of order raised by the Republicans. They then more or less took over the operation and handed it off to a low-level clerical employee with no oversight and no follow-up. Done in this manner the outcome was exactly what should have been expected.
Frankly, it is wrong to scape-goat the low-level clerical employee. That person should not be expected to know the technical aspects of data security. Lastly, I don't think it happened in this manner. Important details are being delibertly omitted to protect the guilty party. Only FEMA is capable of being this screwed up.
Rionn Fears Malechem wrote on October 30, 2007 3:13 PM:Ha! And you thought Microsoft Office User Specialist (now Office Specialist) certification was for chumps!
Darlene Fitzgerald wrote on October 30, 2007 3:42 PM:I find this very disturbing considering we are hoping that the House Judiciary Committee will at least look at cases like ours where the government is actually crossing way over the line, and abusing the criminal justice system to SILENCE WHISTLEBLOWERS! Wrongfully jailed Whistleblowers like John Carman, and others, have no prayer for justice with INJUSTICE like this. Where is the “main stream” media in all of this??? They use to be the ultimate check and balance for our Government. Now, sadly, they are not. Our only hope is for organizations like the Government Accountability Project (GAP), The Project on Government Oversite (POGO), the No Fear Coalition and The Patrick Henry Center - all Whistleblower protection / government watchdog organizations, to become as strong as the government entities that they are watching. Currently the Whistleblower Protection Act (also known as the Akaka Bill, after Senator Akaka) sits idle at the Senate. Further, the No Fear Act two (2), additional much needed Whistleblower legislation, is currently waging it’s war to get passed Congress. This is now more reason than every exactly why this legislation MUST BE PASSED! If this was in place now, there would be no need to hide in the shadows in order to speak truth to power. What we all need to do is to help these brave organizations get these bills passed, and subsequent future legislation to stop this kind of obvious retaliation and attempts to silence the very folks we need to be SUPPORTING! Alone we accomplish nothing. We need to LOCK ARMS with these organizations and speak with one loud clear voice - in the words of Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr., “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
Darlene Fitzgerald
slb wrote on October 30, 2007 7:33 PM:National Security Whistleblower &
Author: "BorderGate, the story the government doesn't want you to read."
www.BorderGate.net
>> As a technical writer, I can only say to the human who made this error: RTFM or UTFH, as the case may be. <<
What manual? There is no manual that comes with Outlook. There is only a "Help" facility, which, like the "Help" in just about every other piece of software published recently is of no help at all. Manuals and help almost always tell you what you could have guessed anyway ("Use the Edit function when you want to edit the entry.") and are completely silent about things that are not obvious.
I tried going into Outlook just now to find out just what that "Private" box on the Distribution list screen did. Searching the "Help" on the term "Private" did not turn up anything that even mentioned it. The only thing that seemed to me might possibly explain what it was for was an online tutorial on organizing contacts that the description said ran 30-40 minutes. That is not very efficient "help."
BTW, at the end of the search list is a link for "Can't find it?". I clicked on that, and Outlook locked up.
Fuck Microsoft.