[snark] you don’t think the bush administraton would lie to us do you ?? [/snark]

(shortlink): http://shrinkify.com/28o

Short answer: Payton says they don’t know. I’m a techie for around 20 yrs. & know my trade well: I say she does know. I made my case in above thread, particularly comment # 151.

You can look there if you like & judge for yourself.

As I tried to highlight in looooong comment above, it’s rather clear to me Payton is running interference rather than clarification, much less expediting data recovery.

A couple observations after reading Payton’s statement:

* HD is most critical piece of hardware in this process (upgrading network pcs), regardless of other hardware (entire pc) replaced, and it is more complex than one would think. Micrsoft(MS) has for some years provided tools &/or “best practices” to assist/execute this process, with varying degrees of success (been big problems/challenges for some time). Among issues involved is migrating necessary data from old machine/disk to new. The fore-mentioned MS tools are intended to facilitate this. W/out going into tech minutae, ideally it goes something like this:
– profile of individual machine(s) or “groups” are created which defines what data needs to be saved & moved to new machine.
– said “profiles” are “executed” over the network, w/data stored on individual machines (disks) moved to some network storage.
– Following MS’ best practices, networked machines OS install can be tailored for specific needs as required, well beyond specificity most home/small office users are acquainted with. This includes permissions (what files can be accessed, edited, deleted)/limitations to network access as needed/logon priveliges both locally & network/ (un)install software/ecryption policies… all kinds of stuff. Again, an SA w/his salt will get as much of this as possible onto an OS install, tailored for targeted groups.
– As Payton says in her “declaration” as a reason to not produce court requested “forensic” copies, downtime and interrupting continuity of work is a prime consideration.” EG., putting together pre-configured OS installs which minimize or eliminate post-OS install customization saves time for system admins, users etc.
– MS (and 3rd party sofware/companies) provide tools to merge saved data from old machines to to new OS install so that each install is as complete as possible… again, having to come back after initial machine setup and add various programs/data can be disruptive and/or time consuming. The individual software apps, when designed for network (rather than stand alone) use, frequently are equipped by respective software’s vendor w/”tools” that cooperate w/MS’ network install schemes so that their
apps (upgraded or not) can be integrated into each OS install. When (for various reasons) this is impossible/impractical, similarly “network-enabled” apps most often are equipped by their vendor w/tools that make installation over network (rather than having to pop an install CD in each individual machine) as seamless as possible. For example, installing XXX app on (xxx) # of machines in directory (xxx) w/in a given IP range is pretty well standardized practice.
– I’ve seen many, many variations on this process over the years… depending on critical down time (eg: cost from lost work) considerations to complexity of various networked p/c setups. In many cases, MS tools are inadequate for a smooth upgrade. In a lot of such situations, there are various ways to get the job done. For example, tools exist for the purpose of pulling hard drives from both old/new machines, taking them to in house location equipped w/hardware which will mount 10/50/100/??? (as needed) HDs and “replicate” installs, including merging of old w/new data. Good sys admin’s would determine # hrs. required to prepare (XXX) # of machines in a given # of off-time (eg: midnight to 4:am for example), then do the work on determined # of machines while users are sleeping. There’s quite a few different combinations of MS’ tools & variations on this process Sys admins
use to get these things done in fashion that minimizes “inconveniences” and maximizes efficiency of transition. I’ll also mention a similar process is required when only software is being upgraded (eg: newer OS or critical updates, new email/spreadsheet/3rd party vendor software, etc.
etc.): eg. installs are pre-configured as much as possible, installed over nework when possible, and when done properly are pre-planned so that incompatibilities between hardware/existing OS, possible updated file formats (Word 7.x >> XML for example) operate smoothly on first go-around. This process may include processing of data files from format (ex: Word version mentioned) to that required by newer software ver. (or new networked policy for given file format).

I say this to bring attention to contradiction in what Payton’s implying in her declaration, eg: amongst most baseline considerations in a migration like this would be moving email from old >> new machine for each account… eg. continuity of ongoing conversations and such would be one of primary considerations for a qualified SA. This means that her explanation
that hardware upgrade would define beginning/ending of continuity of data… particularly email, doesn’t make any sense logistically: that data should be and would expected to be migrated from old to new machines.

If .PST files were deleted from a given machine during a previous upgrade cycle, they would not be expected to be available. Pertinent point: the availability of court requested “forensic” copies is a function of .PST deletions far more than hardware upgrade cycles.

…

From Payton’s “declaration”:

“As stated below in paragraph 8, as part of a refresh, OCIO will make a copy of the current user’s active data on the current computer hard drive to move to the new computer hard drive. This may include the data contained in a profiles folder2. In addition, if a user saved .pst files in their profile, those .pst files should be copied over.”

It’s not clear to me what “copied over” means: eg. “copied over” to new disk/machine, or new (eg: empty) PST file “copied over” old. As mentioned above, I’d fail to understand how/why “old” .PSTs and accompanying mail would not be migrated to new machines. Only scenario I can envision where this would not happen if given workstation had a new user, new job description etc.

Given Payton’s job description, I’m also struck by qualifications in her statement to insulate herself from direct knowledge of “stuff” which she should absolutely not only be intimately familiar with, but also the decision/policy maker. Yet, she describes many such categories of information as passed to her by 3rd party (eg: “so and so tells me that…”). For example,

paragraph 2: “The statements contained herein are based on my personal knowledge and upon information made available to me by members of my staff in the performance of my official duties.”

paragraph 5: “As I understand it, the OCIO does not maintain a detailed historical log or other record tracking the precise user or location history of any given EOP computer workstation.“
(comment: “as I understand it”…///??? Given her job description, this is information she would *have to know* very early on in process she supposedly began in ‘06)

paragraph 7: “The precise duration of the procurement process, as well as costs associated with that process, are not presently knowable(…)“
(comment: rubbish… these costs can be easily ballparked w/in consice hi-low parameters in a short period of time. I’m struck by what seems to me obfuscation maximizing opaqueness of, what by nature, are finite & measurable conditions)

paragraph 8: “I am aware that OCIO is able to copy the active data on a computer hard drive”(…) “the hard drive copy process, which the OCIO is equipped to perform, can be complex and time consuming, depending on the volume of material within each folder on the hard drive and the number of folders to be copied.
(comment: any capable sys admin on any network is capable of this… for the most part, this process has been completely automated for a number of years now. It is routine, can be done in off hours to minimize bandwidth/intrusion, and can be scripted so that a SA need not even “spend the night” watching it. ).

paragraph 9: “An Order that the OCIO must copy potentially relevant active data from the cited time period, would require it to survey each and every workstation that potentially could contain “profile” folders and other active files of users,”(…)
comment: “survey”… not an appropriate term. What does this imply… sending out a “survey team”? Geezus… this can be executed by netork query in real-time w/no intrusion whatsoever. If Payton doesn’t know how, she can download free a bunch of utilities that will do this from international hacker sites).

(…)”or identify and approach each and every user of a subject workstation during the relevant time period.”

(comment: Ridiculous… unless they’ve got machines wired directly to some discreet, separate black ops network, this is simple job for SA.)

(…)”To complete this effort, it might require contacting and using the workstations currently assigned to individual users, which likely would adversely impact the ability of the users to perform their duties.”

(comment: “might require”… there’s no ambiguity, that’s an absurd statement. What does… “contacting” the workstation mean?… or did she mean “user” of workstation? What’s she gon’a do, ask “user” if they’ve got a .PST file? “Hey Karl, could you check for any old .PST files laying around your C drive?” Again, ridiculous… this is routine, network administered task easily executed.)

Paragraph 10. “As I understand it“(…)
(comment: there we go again… vague, opaque, implies “advice” of 3rd party for judgement which is finite and absolutely component part of required knowledge for her job description: eg. there is no natural ambiguity in this call, unless she wants to put it there)

(…)”an Order requiring defendants to make a copy of all active data on workstations containing profiles from the relevant time period would require hundreds of hours of work by OCIO staff and management personnel.“
(comment: rubbish, as I’ve explained before. I’d point out, in her congressional hearing several weeks ago, she made similar statements (eg: restoring disk images, the cost of which she over inflated by factor somewhere in 100/1000s). Absolute rubbish”

Regarding “forensic copy”, I’ve used a product since ‘01: R-STUDIO… costs under $200 for networked version, which would produce required “copies” discreetly, executed from the server (eg: no going from machine to machine), and do so reliably. R-STUDIO (there are other very good similar products) has saved both my/customer’s bacon on several occasions, and works flawlessly.

…

Lastly, I find Payton… both in this statement and previous congressional hearings, to sound far more like political operative than skilled tech person in domain of affairs which she’s supposed to be in charge. Many, many times I’ve site in board/meeting rooms where progress reports by
contracted software vendors were delivered in such a manner. The effective use of tech jargon, gobbledy-gooked into nothingness, can and does get used frequently by vendors in failing projects. Such talk is more or less intended to scramblesthe brains of non-tech versed managers who have no clue about the subject at hand.

I know it when I hear it. And that’s all I’ve heard from this woman.

I would hope, should Payton return to congressional hearings, that questioners would get some good tech folks advising them… reviewing her statements we currently have, focusing in on knowable specifics which she obfuscates, and getting these Reps up-to-speed on tech knowledge
required to bamboozle-proof their understanding. This is a very, very doable task. Doing w/sound tech knowledge what WhiteHouse has done w/sound legal knowledge would go a long way to cracking this nut open.

Yup.
This is linked to the Big Shitpile in several ways: the value of municipal bonds, the security of municipal bonds, and of course the financing of cities stuck with tracts of foreclosed neighborhoods.

Maybe it should be updated to ‘Really, Incredibly, Monstrously Vast BIG Shitpile.’

…the Bush Brigade is always “nope”. The audacity of nope.

As others have noted…perfect bmaz!

The 15-year-old added to it:

The audacity of nope.
The plurality of hope.

Hope the b-day and weekend have been great. You’re doing great with your postings!

Hope the judge reads blogs…Especially, this one…

Agree completely; they continue to spin criminal activity as ‘incompetence’ — and why wouldn’t they? It’s consistently worked to their advantage and allowed them to buy time, and it’s a perfect camofluage for at least two reasons:

** First, it’s good defensive cover for the WH. Whenever anyone calls these acts criminal, the WH can launch into Crybaby Mode, claiming that people are being ‘mean’ or ‘unfair’ or ‘unreasonable’ – after all, “everyone” has screwed up email, so why judge them harshly, despite the fact that their ‘incompetence’ may result in breaches to national security? They’ve set this up perfectly to play out a charade in which they act innocent, ill-used, and unfairly criticized. It’s become highly ritualized.

In that ritual, anyone calling ‘bullshit’ is tainted as ‘unreasonable’ because the WH **may** have made a mistake, and therefore they *must always* are given the ‘benefit of the doubt’. Failing to give them the doubt (despite FISA, torture, Iraq, Katrina, etc, etc) is claimed to be ‘unfair’. They’re always the victim — whether they made a mistake,
– or whether they were accused of making a mistake,
– or whether they intentionally destroyed evidence but want everyone to believe it was only a ‘mistake’.
No matter the scenario, the WH claims to be the victim of ‘unfair’ criticism.

** Second, the WH continues to control the timing of information, PARTLY by exploiting the false idea that the route between one computer and other is too complicated for the pea brains of voters to comprehend.

Who goes on teevee to explain political conflict? The invitees are limited to: media personalities, political consultants, electeds, lobbyists, or attorneys. You never see the (teevee) media bring on a guest who can simply, clearly explain **why** the BushCo claims of ‘incompetence’ over ‘missing’ emails are not technically credible.

The WH recognizes that the MSM has a weak spot when it comes to explaining technical issues. So the WH exploits that weakness by inventing a meme that parallels the ‘oh, it’s all just soooo complicated, nobody can really understand how those emails get from one machine to another, and BTW, who can keep track of them all?’ line of crappola.

And while the MSM fails to do a decent job of exposing the technical issues that would explain the suspicious destruction of hard drives, the WH continues to control the release of information. (Bizarre!!)

If simple incompetence were at the root of what we’re seeing, then Rove, Miers, Bolton, and others would have testified before now. The fact that the WH dawdles on releasing info, while their employees refuse to testify in court, is an entirely different sort of eloquence.

This is not about to happen and it should be obvious by now phred.

I respectfully disagree Pete. Granted Pelosi is showing no signs of impeachment, but the courts may yet step up to the plate. We’ll have to see. In the meantime, it is worth repeating that this is not about incompetence, this is a concerted effort on the part of the administration. If we cannot get that concept through the thick heads of our elected members of Congress then our democracy will be in serious trouble in the long run. So, I’ll keep repeating myself. It may be obvious to some of us. It is clearly not obvious to the people in a position to do something about it.