HJC Screws Up, Gives DOJ Whistleblower Email Addresses to Dick Cheney

[kpete]

A while back the HJC set up a web tipline for tipster with information on politicization and wrongdoing at the Bush DOJ. Today the committee sent an email to all the tipsters alerting them to extremely tight safeguards in place to keep their identities and stories confidential. Unfortunately they put the 150+ email address in the "to:" field in the email, not "bcc:". So everyone's email got sent to anyone else. And probably because of pranksters one of the addresses those emails got sent to was none other than the vice president's office.

...........................


This summer the House Judiciary Committee launched an effort to collect tips from would-be whistleblowers in the Justice Department. The U.S. attorney firings scandal had shown that much was amiss in the Department, and with the danger of retaliation very real, the committee had set up a form on the committee's website for people to blow the whistle privately about abuses there. Although the panel said it would not accept anonymous tips, it assured those who came forward that their identity would be held in the "strictest confidence."

But in an email sent out today, the committee inadvertently sent the email addresses of all the would-be whistleblowers to everyone who had written in to the tipline. The committee email was sent to tipsters who had used the website form, including presumably whistleblowers themselves, and all of the recipients of the email were accidentally included in the "to:" field -- instead of concealing those addresses with a so-called blind carbon copy or "bcc:".

Only the email addresses were exposed; none of the names or other identifying information of the whistleblowers was revealed. The blunder, however, was noticed by a number of people who had used the website form and received today's email. One disgruntled recipient replied to the entire list of whistleblowers angrily complaining about the snafu; two others forwarded the committee email to TPMmuckraker with similar complaints.

Compounding the mistake, the committee later sent out a second email attempting to recall the original email; it, too, included all recipients in the "to:" field, according to a recipient of the emails.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004576.php

COPY OF E-MAILs Here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/26/22518/945

[opihimoimoi]

1. The Pubs have cronies/sleeper cells in there too?? WTF?

[zeemike]

2. And the only ones fired for it will be the whistle blowers n/t

[TahitiNut]

3. It's INFURIATING that folks are so clueless about "CC:" vs. "BCC:" after all this time.

Even at the highest levels, it seems, the technical illiteracy is profound ... prideful, even. I've fought this "little war" for years, trying to inform people who take self-indulgent joy at pumping out those email 'nuggets' to a contact list to "use the f*cking 'BCC' dammit!" All it takes is one of those people to cluelessly plug those addresses into some website that harvests such addresses for spam-houses and the inundation of spam and phish increases.

:rant:

[Deja Q]

5. Infuriating but true

Even some at my workplace still can't get those little novelties used correctly, do a "reply to all" to messages whose recipient was "everybody" (the epic tales put soap operas to shame...)

[flashl]

6. Strangely, individuals that I sent mail BCC

complain and they are "suspicious" of ME because of the "Undisclosed recipient" "TO" designation.

[TahitiNut]

7. Well, they need edukamashun.

:shrug: Doing the "right thing" in the face of ignorance has almost NEVER been appreciated.

[Inuca]

4. Very bad and very weird n/t

[Tatiana]

8. This is so stupid, I almost wonder if it was done intentionally by a plant.

I can't believe these idiots would make such a horrendous and DANGEROUS mistake!

[tbyg52]

17. I can believe it

It is very stupid and shouldn't have happened, but it is a very easy (physically) mistake to make. And once you've made it, you can't undo it.

Now the *second* email, with the same mistake, does make me very suspicious. Either there's a plant, or these people are to stupid to walk and breathe at the same time.

[ljm2002]

9. I would really like to know...

...if this was a mistake -- in which case, I feel for the idiot who did it -- or if it was intentional. After all, there are Republicans on the committee too.

In any case, I really, really feel for the potential whistleblowers -- just imagine knowing that your identity is now known to VP Cheney, horrors!

This is really one of the most depressing stories to come out recently. So much for oversight, this will single handedly discourage hordes of possible whistle blowers -- if the gov't blows people's cover while trying to assure them that their information is safe, then they really are incapable of providing protection, period.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

10. a "mistake"? This defies rational belief

Number 1 - the whole idea of "whistle blowing" is inherently filled with the concept of privacy, confidentiality, anonymity, etc. as well as caveats against revealing whistle blowers to those they are exposing - there are laws on the books concerning this.

Number 2 - sending out a mass email under ANY circumstances is stupid beyond compare. Don't you think anyone with the intellect of a 13 year old would have realized the need for individual emails just to avoid a situation such as this?

The cc to Cheney's public email? I have read in the thread on Daily Kos where some have posited that someone used that as a joke or false email for their whistleblowing - but this address was in a SEPARATE cc apart from the other addresses, not part of the mass address to the actual whistleblowers.

To me the message in the email itself is somewhat ominous. If someone wanted to withdraw their testimony or evidence, don't you think they would contact the HJC on their own and do so? The email seems to be saying - THINK! Do you REALLY want to go through with this? If it had been sent correctly with a bcc, the whistle blower might think they were the only one who got the message.

I feel terrible for the DOJ employees who were trying to do the right thing and got outed by the HJC. The person who sent the email should be fired - they have no place in such an inportant surrounding safeguarding the public trust. I wonder who actually sent the email and who they worked for.

I wonder exactly how many whistleblowers there were? At this point, possibly they can feel some comfort in numbers. They should also talk with attornies and the ACLU about protection from retaliation. On the bright side (although not to them)the whistleblowers really have nothing else to lose by just coming forward and testifying openly now.


Personally, I also have no confidence in John Conyers anymore either. His investigations take too long, the Congresspeople on the Committee always seem shockingly uninformed, they allow for bizarre, off-topic meanderings from anyone who wants to derail an investigation, and they seem to have no appreciable results. Contrast the Congressional hearings with the Senate hearings where you have guys like Sheldon Whitehouse and Chuck Schumer just quietly and effectly eviscerating the prevaricators. And yet, nothing has really happened as a result of their DOJ hearings either. (Ok, maybe Gonzales resigning)

Maybe they can use this issue with the AG nominee - "What specifically will you do to protect these people who heroically came forward?" Also, think of the chilling effect on other potential whistleblowers in other departments everywhere.

Every single time I think I have hit the absolute ultimate nadir of disgust and disbelief, some new development comes forth pressing me to new depths of despair and hopelessness.

[OzarkDem]

11. Are legislative staffers really that dumb?

Whoever did it should be fired.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

12. A benign "error" - that potentially disrupted the lives and careers

of the poor DOJ saps that thought that the HJC would function with marginal competence.

Also, trying to blame it on technology as opposed to human shortcomings is just pathetic.

[williesgirl]

13. That was no mistake, they've got "plants" everywhere. rec'd

[nashville_brook]

14. "inadvertantly" -- ? maybe -- but that makes it worse afaic.

this is the kind of "error" made in a third rate marketing department -- not, one would hope, the House Judiciary Committee.

it would seem our government is being run by interns.

[philly_bob]

15. I believe it was inadvertant staffer mistake.

Some drug company made the same mistake a while ago on an antidepressant mailing list.

[bobthedrummer]

16. In one word-"moles". eom

[Gold Metal Flake]

18. The whistleblowers should now be encouraged to come forward.

They can either remain in place and be targeted for personal destruction by the brownshirts, or come forward as a group and have some chance of fighting against the personal destruction attacks by the brownshirts.

The backlash is inevitable. They should group to best combat it.