Hill_Billy_Penn.com... Kane just needs to blame the leak on a computer....she needs a good PR firm or a rising star Crack Journalist to leak stuff for her.
PA goevernence ... LOL
PA goevernence ... LOL
Seems like the easiest way to counter Kane's claim that
- Thread starter demlion
- Start date
BillyPenn.com is Anna Orso's latest gig. Seems like the Patriot-News gig did not last long.
I guess she needed a bigger pool of athletes to stalk.
No doubt a true journalist. LOL.
She has some nose bling now, as well. How she believes this would cause anybody to take her seriously is a head-scratcher.
I think it is safe to predict that this is not going to end well.
I work for the federal government and it's common to see employees get escorted out of here for having porn on their computers or for surfing porn. Not sure why it should be any different at the state level.
Because, in my years of experience in working the all levels of government... as much as we bitch about the federal government...it is more responsible at the top...than at each lower level.... until you get to the local level and it oozes lack of institutional integrity and control.....
well you bring up an interesting point, so let me add something as an IT professional
generally speaking, porn is pretty easy to filter and flag from outside sources at your firewall. pretty much any decent government agency or corporation can invest a small amount of money for generic firewall software that can flag and block porn from even getting on to the server. you can also easily block access from your server to porn sites.
so one has to wonder how all this porn was floating around the state servers so easily. even if someone like Fina brought it in on a CD, downloaded it to his PC, and sent it as an attachment, there should have been internal monitoring that was capable of flagging this material. I'm sure the IT guys and gals working for the state of PA have some splainin to do
and without question, if anyone at the company I work for even received or sent ONE pornographic video or image, or had one stored on their company PC or laptop . . . unless they had a REALLY good explanation, they will be walking out the door under escort.
More specifically, the Commonwealth's judicial system OIT team ought to have some explaining to do.
There is a different OIT team for every Department. Moreover, the Judicial and Legislative branches operate under a totally different set of rules than do the Departments within the Executive Branch, where most of what people consider to be state employees work.
The Judicial and Legislative branches tend to play by a set of rules that are more loosey goosey.
There's never been any confusion on Kane's end. She's opposed media requests to release the names/emails consistently, save the 8 she outed last year a month after the protective order was issued.
The order was strictly for the protection of witnesses that took part in the investigation into the leak. Namely former and current members of Kane's staff.
This has been mentioned in several articles about yesterday's press conference.
Right. The order is intended to protect Frank Fina, who apparently was one of the primary distributors of the smut.
No it wasn't and the judge that issued it said as much. This was pointed out yesterday before the judge said a word.
She's been fighting the media requests for the release of names/emails on her own. If she simply wanted to release all the names/emails why would she fight the requests?
Doesn't matter now, we're going to find out exactly what she has. My bet is on her not have much on Fina.
It may be as simple as politics. She is a D and was a rising star of the party who was rumored to be contemplating a run for Governor or US Senate. That makes her a threat. Remember, even 12-18 months ago her popularity was through the roof. If she has information that could ruin the careers of some prominent R's, then even more reason to try and bring her down. But remember that in the end she is in legal trouble because of her own actions. If every negative and horrible motive ascribed to her "enemies" are true, that still does not negate or excuse her actions IF she in fact committed the crimes she is accused of.
In a vacuum, yes, except this "crime" is committed all the time in this state. Not saying it is right, but it is otherwise a useful tool that nobody is shy about using, if in fact she did it.
There are actually firewalls in place for most state employees. There have been a few times when I've attempted to open links which I thought were legitimate. I received a warning the contents may contain material which violates workplace rules. I had to click to proceed and essentially admit I wanted to see what the link contained. I never took the chance and always declined. But I was just the average employee. I'm certain there are people at the top of the chain of command who don't have firewalls and can look at anything they want. The rules are different for them. Just ask the 9/11 BoT.
Similar threads
