Six questions from outside IT experts:
Ordering the destruction of a hard drive and documenting that process would be handled by trained, certified IT asset managers, according to IAITAM. But the group’s records show that at least three IRS IT asset managers were shuffled out of their positions around the time of the May 2013 inspector general’s report that detailed the agency’s targeting practices.
IAITAM said investigators need to “determine if these in-house IT asset managers were removed from the picture as the IRS email investigation heated up.
I predict that they’ll continue to stonewall.
[Update a while later]
Now IRS Reports EVEN MORE Computer Crashes, Doesn’t Know If Emails Still Exist
IRS Deputy Associate Chief Counsel Thomas Kane said in transcribed congressional testimony that more IRS officials experienced computer crashes, bringing the total number of crash victims to “less than 20,” and also said that the agency does not know if the lost emails are still backed up somewhere.
The new round of computer crash victims includes David Fish, who routinely corresponded with Lois Lerner, as well as Lerner subordinate Andy Megosh, Lerner’s technical adviser Justin Lowe, and Cincinnati-based agent Kimberly Kitchens.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/21/now-irs-reports-even-more-computer-crashes-doesnt-know-if-emails-still-exist/
1.) What happened to the IRS’s IT asset managers who appear to have disappeared at a key juncture?
The article says they were “shuffled out of their positions” in 2013. The “key juncture” in terms of IT asset management was in June, 2011, when Lerner reported the hard disc crash.
2.) Where is the documentation to prove that the IRS wiped or destroyed Lois Lerner’s hard drive?
So far, we only have the word of IRS officials. IAITAM said its standards call for clear proof and records of destruction when drives are wiped or eliminated.
The IRS has already admitted to keeping a lot of email on personal computers that aren’t backed up, and therefore are always a crash away from data loss. I’m guessing that doesn’t meet IAITAM standards either.
I predict that they’ll continue to stonewall.
Who are the “they” in this sentence? The IT asset managers are the ones with the answers to these questions. What motive would they have to stonewall?
What puzzles me is that you refuse to look through that telescope, Cesare Cremonini.
Il signore is looking through something that isn’t a telescope, and whatever it is, appears to be peering through the wrong end . . .
“The “key juncture” in terms of IT asset management was in June, 2011, when Lerner reported the hard disc crash.”
But the key juncture for when IT would become an issue was 2013 when, after being held secret by the administration for half a year, the IRS IG report was finally released to the public.
Why would these people be removed from their positions just as the IRS scandal broke, after all nothing happened that needed to be hid right?
What would be the point of removing them? It’s not like they were executed — they are still around, and available to testify about how they handled Lerner’s computer crash.
“What would be the point of removing them?”
Do I really need to answer that?
“It’s not like they were executed ”
Oooh be careful. Last time you said something like that about not throwing people in jail and we learned that Lerner was trying to throw people in jail based on political affiliation. Don’t jinx yourself lol.
“they are … available to testify”
Sure they are. Lets see how long it takes the IRS to allow them to testify. Maybe it will be like the EPA guy who left the country.
The article says they were “shuffled out of their positions” in 2013. The “key juncture” in terms of IT asset management was in June, 2011, when Lerner reported the hard disc crash.
Where’s the documentation for that claim, Jim? The “IT asset management” problem could have happened in 2011 or it could have happened in 2013. Currently, we only have say so that things happened the way they are claimed to have happened.
The IRS has already admitted to keeping a lot of email on personal computers that aren’t backed up, and therefore are always a crash away from data loss. I’m guessing that doesn’t meet IAITAM standards either.
After having worked in accounting for a few years, I have come to realize that some degree of auditability is necessary in order to have accountability. Your flippant “oh, well they didn’t do that either” remark ignores that this sort of thing is a big contributor to crime in the US. When people realize “hey, they aren’t actually watching me do this”, they often will try (and often succeed) at various crimes like theft, fraud, etc.
So even in the absence of the crimes that were committed, we still have exposed an environment conducive to certain forms of misconduct and crime such as persecuting groups for having particular names.
Further, you ignore that these lapses in oversight correspond to criminal activities that just happen to favor the incumbent president.
Jim doesn’t care. Because, you know, it’s about his incumbent president. That he wants to keep his incumbent president as long as possible.
“So even in the absence of the crimes that were committed, we still have exposed an environment conducive to certain forms of misconduct and crime such as persecuting groups for having particular names.”
Oh, they will agree to change the environment. Remember one of the first lines of defense from this administration on a number of issues has been that whatever was caused by a systemic problem or a lack of regulations. Democrats have been saying we need to fix the 501c3 system rather than hold people accountable for their misdeeds. That even though the IRS and Obama administration at large ignored existing rules, more rules will fix the problem. It just so happens that the new rules proposed by the Obama administration also target Democrat’s political opponents and do nothing to hold bad actors with powerful government positions accountable.
Where’s the documentation for that claim, Jim?
The emails between Lerner and the forensic IT people that the IRS released last month.
Your flippant
I’m not trying to be flippant, I just think the fact that IRS kept email and documents on computers that weren’t backed up is a much bigger problem than a possible failure to rigorously document the destruction of failed hard drives.
The IAITAM response reminds me a bit of ISO 9000 certification managers talking about how important it is to be ISO 9000 certified. Not that there isn’t any merit in their position, just that it’s also self-serving. And I’m a little surprised to see this criticism coming from the right. The usual complaint about the federal government is that it’s too bureaucratic and inefficient, focused on process and procedures (aka red tape) rather than actual results. And here you have rightist critics approvingly citing the IAITAM on how the IRS should be even more focused on process and procedures.
we still have exposed an environment conducive to certain forms of misconduct and crime
Not only that, it’s counter-productive to give IRS employees computers in order to facilitate their work, and then fail to back them up, ensuring data loss.
these lapses in oversight correspond to criminal activities that just happen to favor the incumbent president
There is no indication that these failures — failures to allocate enough server storage for email, backup individual systems, purchase computer systems that don’t crash at such a high rate, etc. — originated with this administration. From everything we know, it’s been this way for many years. That isn’t an excuse, or a reason to not fix the problems, but it does argue against roping these issues into the scandal allegations.
“I just think the fact that IRS kept email and documents on computers that weren’t backed up is a much bigger problem than a possible failure to rigorously document the destruction of failed hard drives.”
And you think both of those are bigger problems than an administration using the IRS to persecute non-Democrats.
An injunction should be slapped onto the IRS to prevent any more destruction of any media, records communications etc…… The following should not be allowed to happen:
IRS seeks help destroying another 3,200 hard drives
Days after IRS officials said in a sworn statement that former top agency employee Lois G. Lerner’s computer memory had been wiped clean, the agency put out word to contractors Monday that it needs help to destroy at least another 3,200 hard drives.
The agency estimates the need to destroy at least 65,464 magnetic tapes, 3,225 hard drives, 5,856 floppy disks and 708 reels, according to procurement records.
About 500,000 pieces of electronic data — including cassette tapes, reels, CDs, hard drives and USB media — have been collected since 2008, according to the IRS solicitation.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/21/irs-seeks-help-destroying-another-3200-computer-ha/#ixzz38CRcH3oK
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
“have been collected since 2008, according to the IRS solicitation.”
But the ones from 2009-2012 are already gone lol.
Jim writes:
” I just think the fact that IRS kept email and documents on computers that weren’t backed up is a much bigger problem than a possible failure to rigorously document the destruction of failed hard drives.”
Is that right? Well suppose they were lying about the rationale behind destruction of the failed hard drives:
IRS experts: Lois Lerner hard drive was just ‘scratched’ — not damaged beyond recovery
”
Top IRS officials told congressional investigators that Lois Lerner’s hard drive — the one containing emails that could shed light on the IRS targeting scandal — was irreparably damaged before it was destroyed completely in 2011. But now, investigators have had a chance to talk to the technical experts inside the IRS who actually examined Lerner’s computer, and the experts say the hard drive in question was actually just “scratched,” and that most of the data on it was recoverable.
The IRS computer experts also told the committee that they had recommended seeking outside help in recovering the data from Lerner’s computer — something IRS management declined to do.”
It was technical experts in the IRS who concluded they couldn’t recover data from the drive, so apparently there was a difference of opinion. I’m not surprised that the IRS was reluctant to send a hard drive containing sensitive taxpayer information to an outside data recovery service.
So much for the idea that the IRS won’t let its IT people talk to investigators, or that the IT people are all in on a big conspiracy.
IRS experts: Lois Lerner hard drive was just ‘scratched’ — not damaged beyond recovery
She probably thought kicking it a few times would destroy the data.