October 24th, 2014 at 9:54 AM ^
The only Exchange server running on campus should be within the health system. Everyone else moved to GMail.
Not true.
Anyone with restricted data is still on Exchange - so health system (HIPAA), certain people in Engineering (ITAR), etc.
October 24th, 2014 at 12:33 PM ^
Why Engineering couldn't commit to keeping sensitive military data out of their email is beyond me. Not to mention the extreme cost inefficiency of staffing and maintaining a separate email service that is relatively sparsely used. If you ask me, that Exchange server should be decommissioned and people required to act sanely (i.e., Don't email state secrets!)
October 24th, 2014 at 1:00 PM ^
ITAR is a LOT more than just military data.
October 24th, 2014 at 8:51 AM ^
and an IT guy of some 45+ years experience ran and was the responsible person for the entire IT and network infrastructure at a midwestern University of comparable size to the University of MIchigan. He held this position for over fifteen years until retiring recenty. Ran the entire sheban and reported to the CFO and regularly was called on to brief the university president on short and long term plans and requirements.
To meet government requirements every email or other digital communication that moves through, is originated by, or terminates at a server or other computer which is the property of a University (lab systems etc) must be preserved in a state that can be reproduced forever. Until five or six years ago (IIRC) the requirement was five years, but it was changed. This applies to internal email and that which goes outside the university system.
For what it's worth the requirement has also been imposed generally on the entire backbone. Ever wonder why we now need huge numbers of terabytes everywhere when only a few years ago gigabytes were considered over kill? It ain't just video processing.
It doesn't matter what Brandon, or anyone else with a mail account at Michigan does with their email, if it existed it can be recovered. You can burn every server building to the ground and there will be a backup in long term storage somewhere. It might take a while to find it but it's there. In case you're curious the recovery system is tested for compliance every so often.
If the respose to the FOI request means they couldn't find it, then it never got sent from a U of M mail server.
October 24th, 2014 at 11:27 AM ^
And what makes you think the state FOIA requires it?
October 24th, 2014 at 9:48 AM ^
... it is possible to request and obtain documents and electronic files (metadata, etc.) through FOIA, so long as you (a) request it specifically, and (b) are willing to pay for it to be compiled and produced in either its native format, or via some other method (in person inspection of the computer, burned to a disc, etc.). If you got into litigation over it, given the recent trends in electronic discovery, assuming you have the right specialists and data miners ready, you'd find it... IF it was ever there.
but that's a lot of money to spend on an "if"
October 23rd, 2014 at 7:02 PM ^
Especially since the email can't be provided by the alleging parties...five fakes out of five
October 23rd, 2014 at 7:24 PM ^
I believe means responsive to the FOIA request, not a response to the email itself
October 23rd, 2014 at 5:55 PM ^
1. The request may have been poorly structured. A requst for e-mail from WD to DB might come up empty.
2. We don't know whether UM is being truthful.
3. There may be a "technical" problem like the IRS had when e-mail couldn't be found.
4. There are others but I'm bored.
October 24th, 2014 at 10:07 AM ^
the easiest way to defeat a FOIA request, from what I understand, is for that request to not be specific enough or for that request to contain any sort of innacuracy.
Basically, from what I understand, you need to really know precisely what you're looking for when submitting a FOIA request, or your request needs to be so straightforward as to leave no room for misinterpretation. "All records with the name John Wick in them," may be broad, but it does not allow for misinterpretation. You may not receive any records with "Wick" in them or "J Wick," but if there's a file on John Wick, you'll get quite a lot back in return (with a lot of black marker).
I am no FOIA expert, but this is my understanding.
October 23rd, 2014 at 5:39 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 23rd, 2014 at 6:03 PM ^
He couldn't produce it because it wasn't his email. It was just a screenshot of someone else's that was circling twitter. I actually saw the screenshot too, before WD posted here.
Ace retweeted it too. Though to be fair, Ace also basically said something like I doubt this is real when he RTed it.
October 23rd, 2014 at 6:35 PM ^
Well, it was his aunt's email, supposedly.
The entire thing originated with WD. He made a post here claiming that Brandon's reply was to an email his aunt had sent Brandon. He couldn't produce her original email to Brandon, either. He is the one who originally posted the pic of Brandon's reply.
October 23rd, 2014 at 6:56 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 23rd, 2014 at 6:09 PM ^
The nature of the evidence doesn't matter, it is the seriousness of the allegation that must be addressed.
October 23rd, 2014 at 6:18 PM ^
Response
EDIT
October 23rd, 2014 at 7:16 PM ^
October 23rd, 2014 at 7:46 PM ^
October 23rd, 2014 at 5:31 PM ^
I call for a community neg bombing of WD.
October 23rd, 2014 at 5:31 PM ^
it never existed, or that it doesn't currently exist? Was it deleted? I hope it wasn't made up by WD.
October 23rd, 2014 at 5:34 PM ^
October 23rd, 2014 at 5:36 PM ^
AFAICT, it does not guarantee that the thing doesn't exist. But it either doesn't exist or they don't have to disclose that it does. It might just not be a "responsive" record, if part of what "responsive" means is that the thing is FOIA-accessible. There are a variety of law enforcement exceptions that allow agencies to deny that a record exists, for example. Maybe his emails aren't FOIA-accessible, and that allows the same move. IANAL and anyway I can't tell what the law requires here.
But I take this as at least some evidence that the email was fabricated. (We could tell how good the evidence is if someone would FOIA some emails they know to exist to see what happens then.)
October 23rd, 2014 at 5:49 PM ^
October 23rd, 2014 at 6:14 PM ^
At best there is only hearsay evidence that there was an email exchange. If it never happened, how is UM to prove the negative? On the other hand, if it did happen shouldn't we be provided real evidence by the accuser, and absent that evidence be skeptical that it ever occured?
October 23rd, 2014 at 8:43 PM ^
I didn't say that I think it's fake in the post you responded to. I said that we now have "at least some evidence" that the email is fake. That's a pretty weak claim. (Compare: The extended Bronco chase was at least some evidence that O.J. was guilty. The glove not fitting was at least some evidence that O.J. was innocent.)
October 23rd, 2014 at 5:58 PM ^
(We could tell how good the evidence is if someone would FOIA some emails they know to exist to see what happens then.)
That's a good idea. I may still have an old reply from DB somewhere in the nether regions of my email... I'll check.
October 23rd, 2014 at 6:33 PM ^
October 23rd, 2014 at 6:52 PM ^
but then people will say that DB only deleted the emails that he regretted sending, aka the in question email
October 23rd, 2014 at 6:54 PM ^
The University certainy considers emails on UM business accounts FOIA-accesible. In this 2011 notice they go through a couple exceptions to what is covered, but I don't think DB's response here merits any of those exceptions. And, if they are like federal agencies, UM could always black out any sensitive portions of the email that might reveal the original sender's identifying information.
October 23rd, 2014 at 7:03 PM ^
To me it appears that if the records matching your description exist, but are not FOIA-covered due to one of the exemptions, they have to respond and cite the relevant exemption.
http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/foia.html
But whatever, it is probably not real anyway.
October 23rd, 2014 at 5:47 PM ^
October 23rd, 2014 at 5:58 PM ^
And I mean that in a good way.
October 23rd, 2014 at 5:33 PM ^
October 23rd, 2014 at 5:38 PM ^
Dear Ms. Sellinger, This is an official Freedom of Information Act request for a complete email chain, including the email described below, which I will call EMAIL ONE, the email sent from the email address to which it was directed as a response, and any other FOIA-accessible email related to it via the common reply or forwarding email functions. I also hereby request any email originating from [email protected] containing the phrase "have a happy life" and any email originating from [email protected] containing the phrase "without you". I believe EMAIL ONE originated from [email protected]. I believe the content of EMAIL ONE to be, at least in part, the following: I suggest you find a new team to support. > We will be fine without you. > Have a happy life... Please confirm receipt of this FOIA request at your earliest convenience. Thank for your prompt attention, Professor [Jon06] (AB '06, MA [xx], Ph.D [xx])
October 23rd, 2014 at 5:42 PM ^
October 23rd, 2014 at 7:05 PM ^
I'm really surprised that you didn't get a bunch of email chains that happened to have the phrase "without you" somewhere in them. It's not like it's an uncommon turn of phrase. Something like:
"Dear absurdly generous donor,
We are throwing a big party for absurdly generous people, and we would hate to have this party without you. Please RSVP and send an absurdly large check.
XOXO
-Dave"
October 24th, 2014 at 10:19 AM ^
very fishy that they are saying he has sent ZERO emails with the phrase "without you."
October 24th, 2014 at 10:36 AM ^
I thought that too, initially, so I did a search on my outbox for the phrase and at one point there was a 4 1/2-year stretch, many thousands of messages, where I never used it once.
October 24th, 2014 at 10:29 AM ^
is that when it comes to the broadest part of your request ("any email originating from [email protected] containing the phrase "have a happy life" and any email originating from [email protected] containing the phrase "without you".")
there are games that could be played with the email not techinically "originating" from that specific email.
The initial part of your request covered all possible forms of email response pretty well, but as to this latter part, which really isolated these phrases, an email sent from a different account that, through some form of funneling, spits out the dabran address in the header, would not seem to be covered.
I am no expert on this stuff and am not that techincally savvy, but I would like to see the opinion of an e-records expert on this, with the request that they examine for any wiggle room that would allow for thwarting your request.
October 24th, 2014 at 1:43 PM ^
The emails in question could've gone through the publicly accessible email instead of DB's uniqname, which is what I used. Brian's FOIA is more general and should come back faster than a resubmitted request from me would.
October 24th, 2014 at 1:52 PM ^
I wasn't sure if I had a good point!
But that was my recollection regarding how email works in certain situations.
October 24th, 2014 at 11:30 AM ^
sent right after the NW game last year, with the words "have a happy life" in it. That would seem to be responsive to your request. But until the FOIA request was received, nothing stop Michigan from purging emails. Many organizations about policies that purge emails on a regular basis.
October 24th, 2014 at 1:39 PM ^
Please forward that email (with all headers) to the gmail address starting with mgobisb (so, mgobisb [at] youknowwhatgoesherehintit'sgmail [dot] youknowwhatgoesheretoohintit'scom), and ask him to forward it to me. If what you say is true, I will appeal the response to the President.
October 23rd, 2014 at 5:33 PM ^
This isn't surprising. Though it did take quite a while to figure out.
October 23rd, 2014 at 5:33 PM ^
Does the individual who fed us this bullshit patty get the banhammer, or nah?
October 23rd, 2014 at 8:16 PM ^
October 23rd, 2014 at 10:43 PM ^
October 24th, 2014 at 8:47 AM ^
he was being himself
October 23rd, 2014 at 8:28 PM ^
/s
October 23rd, 2014 at 9:04 PM ^
Brian made it very clear that it did not matter how much you post on here or how legendary you are, that will not protect you from the banhammer.
After all this isn't the American Justice system we are talking about here.