For those that do not understand the subtext, the reason Napolitano does not use email is that there is no persistent, written record with her name on it that can be used as evidence against her. This is a common strategy/policy used by many people, particularly among the political class. It is an excellent way to inject ambiguity into any potential culpability.
It is a common practice for people that wish to minimize evidence trails should things come to that. Don't conflate "don't use" with "ignorant of". It is a voluntary choice.
That's only a reason to avoid government email- personal email remains personal (which is why Sarah Palin allegedly conducted so much 'state' business via personal email).
It concerns me that the one in charge of protecting so much is so isolated from what they are protecting. I often worry that the proposals to protect the Internet do more harm than good, and I wish those in charge had more vested interests.
I believe by "personal remains personal", grandparent meant that the legal requirements for official email do not apply to an official's "personal" email - even when that personal email is used solely to circumvent the legal requirements.
In a public capacity, certainly. The DHS should work with other branches of government to ensure that the conversations of all public employees are recorded and sent to the public at large for review.
By having her conversations recorded and played back in Wal-Marts average citizens could report any suspicious activity she makes to a Wal-Mart manager. What if a Wal-Mart customer recognized someone she was meeting with as a terrorist in disguise. Or that someone had brought more than 2 oz of water to a meeting and that it might be a bomb.
These are important measures that she should be taking to ensure her freedom. Just like the government monitors our conversations at 655 Folsom to protect our freedom, we should monitor theirs to ensure their freedom. Government officials usually enjoy the most amount of freedom in a society, we know that terrorists hate us for our freedom and we know that they've attempted to destroy government buildings during 9/11, therefore the public should be on high alert to help government officials maintain their freedom by monitoring all their communications. It's really the least we can do to protect them from freedom hating terrorists.
Unless she's a terrorist herself, or doesn't love freedom I'm not sure why she would be trying to hide her conversations from us.
Not necessarily every single one, but generally, yes.
I think government officials should have virtually no privacy in their official lives. Unless someone is actually saying nuclear launch codes or passwords out loud, there is no reason for official conversations to be hidden from the public (I'm talking about people making decisions, not the rank-and-file civil servants).
In fact, I think the absurd level of privacy high government officials have today is extremely destructive and dangerous.
It is usually accepted that at the highest level of government conversations should be recorded, yes. If it wasn't for every conversation in the Oval Office being recorded and subsequently subpoenaed Nixon probably wouldn't have had to resign over Watergate.
Why should someone be forced to use one mode of communication when all of her written communication (memos, etc) is already on the record? This sounds silly.
Why does she go on to say that some might call her a "Luddite"? This would imply that she doesn't believe in technology, which could logically be extended to perhaps include "understand" technology.
I don't know if we can necessarily draw that conclusion from the limited information in that statement. It would seem almost as if she shuns technology deliberately.
I'd feel pretty comfortable saying that no cabinet-level official really "understands" technology enough to make decisions on cybersecurity. They rely on subordinates who (hopefully) do.
At the same time (at least in Germany) they want to force citizens to use email (accounts) where they have complete control of the servers / infrastructure it is provided from.
In the US they are e.g. strangling GAO that has at least in the past created some level of accountability for government dealing. Other means of oversight are also step-by-step turned into false fronts.
If you go from email (for which regulations for record keeping exist) to other means of electronic communications (e.g. rt-messaging, encrypted messaging with personal / keys linked to your gov. position) you at best increase the efforts for recovery to a level that it becomes infeasible in most cases or make it impossible when [due to strange coincidence] the crypto-keys have been lost.
Guess it more-and-more becomes clear where this is leading to in the long run - zero accountability and arbitrary state power where you have to prove that something is not right (which you then of course can't).
Of course, some government officials aren't quite so smart and seek to just circumvent any recordkeeping system by using private email accounts hosted by 3rd parties [0].
Perhaps it could also be argued that she doesn't use it because she understands it too well... Come on, you think that new NSA station in Utah is limited to foreign surveillance?!
It is a common practice for people that wish to minimize evidence trails should things come to that. Don't conflate "don't use" with "ignorant of". It is a voluntary choice.