Losing My e-Mail

Not New Behavior, But a New Frontier

Although there are many reasons for the ban, for security and federal recordkeeping, Mr. Obama is not an agent of “change” on the BlackBerry front. An e-mail-free President Obama would mirror an early decision of his predecessor, George W. Bush, who wrote to 42 friends and relatives from his pre-Presidential e-mail account: “Since I do not want my private conversations looked at by those out to embarrass, the only course of action is not to correspond in cyberspace. This saddens me. I have enjoyed conversing with each of you” (www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/16/america/black berry.php). Similarly, Bill Clinton had to make the same decision, albeit perhaps while feeling less pain in the pre-BlackBerry era. (Editor's note: For a perspective on this discussion “thread,” see, www.efluxmedia.com/news_Obama_Americas_First_BlackBerry_President_29186.html; http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fasterforward/2008/11/win_the_presidency_lose_your_e.html.)

Of course, the same security concerns that plague everyone who orders online are magnified a bit when the information being transmitted affects national security and world affairs; with Mr. Obama, we're not talking “just” a Social Security or credit-card number. With foreign powers and terrorists alike increasingly turning to cyberwarfare, certainly no one wants to make the world's most appealing target any more vulnerable to foreign innovators ' especially in an era when so much cutting-edge technology and hacking originates overseas. Leading Internet security experts agree with that logic, and employees of a major U.S. telecommunications firm couldn't pass up the challenge of hacking the President (see, www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9121079). In this instance, some Verizon Wireless workers apparently got into some account information for a “flip” cell phone the President-elect once owned. That he now uses a BlackBerry doesn't put such hacking worries to rest.

Making Problems and Trying to Solve Them

But there's a hacking ' make that nagging ' problem here: e-Mail has become so basic to life that any attempt to avoid it can create its own problems, whether in the trenches or in the White House, as the President-elect himself recently lamented in an interview on ABC News. For example, one New Jersey attorney and his associate received a telling automated message from opposing counsel, a New Jersey assistant attorney general, who is no fan of e-mail. “Your e-mail will not be received at this address,” the message states. When the attorney sent a motion by e-mail anyway, the AG complained to the judge about the attorney's “unprofessional behavior.” Although the court agreed that e-mail could not be required, it instead instructed the attorney to submit papers by fax to avoid prejudice to the AG who would not accept e-mail. The AG explained her preference as the result of “various experiences that have counseled against my communicating with any outside counsel by way of e-mail.” Although the opposing attorney could not convince the court to mandate e-mail, even after pointing out that faxes sometimes have problems and create processing costs, his complaint still shows how e-mail has become ubiquitous in today's legal practice and business. “I don't think you can make a unilateral decision not to accept e-mails in this environment, where everybody is talking about saving trees.”

Those who want to take away Mr. Obama's BlackBerry also cite federal archiving law for support. As I briefly mentioned in my June 2007 column, “When the CEO Wants His Hotmail,” the Presidential Records Act, 44 USC 2201 et seq., requires that the President take “all such steps as may be necessary to assure that the activities, deliberations, decisions, and policies that reflect the performance of his constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties are adequately documented and that such records are maintained as Presidential records'.” Section 2203(a). “Presidential records” are defined in Section 2201(2) to include:

[D]ocumentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, his immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President, his immediate staff ' whose function is to advise or assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.

Because Presidential advisers are also subject to this law, at least then-President Obama will be able to commiserate about his BlackBerry withdrawal cravings with a staff that appears to share his addiction. Fortunately, Section 2201(2)(B)(ii)'s exception for “personal records” will save the nation from having to preserve his kids' messages when their shelter dog has an accident in the Lincoln Bedroom (see, www.comicmix.com/news/2008/12/04/mutts-comments-on-obama-dog-adoption; and, for information on how to act Presidential by adopting your own “mutt like Obama,” see, www.people.com/people/article/0,,20239003,00.html?xid=rss-topheadlines, and www.petfinder.com//index.html.)

Risky Business Made Riskier

But this story reminds us in the e-commerce sector of some of the legal and practical compromises lawyers urge on business when e-mail is a primary form of communication. While the Presidential Records Act doesn't affect private executives, the security concerns behind the Obama BlackBerry ban are present ' without the IT support that the White House would get. While one may dismiss security as a concern for the private sector, business espionage has always been present, even if lawyers prefer euphemisms such as “due diligence” or “competitive intelligence” to describe what goes on behind closed doors, or, quite literally, over the airways. The easy availability of underemployed, tech-savvy folks, combined with a lagging economy, makes preying on the overly casual firm, which did not properly set up its back end to preserve security, a tempting way to try to beat rivals to a diminishing market.

In fact, one IT writer, keying words in Computerworld's government section, even highlighted many of the security risks inherent in BlackBerry usage in the penthouse suite in, “Analysis: Obama can't have a BlackBerry, Should your CEO?” (see, www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9123028&intsrc=news_ts_head). As that article reports, the line between government and private-sector security has become quite blurry, according to a congressionally mandated study by the Threats Working Group (see, www.infoworld.com/article/08/12/08/Cyberspace-report- offers-Obama-someo-far-reaching-rec ommendations_1.html). According to that report: “Many of these countries endow [their] national corporations with cyber espionage capabilities so as to steal intellectual property for the sake of economic advantage.” Any CEO who relies on a BlackBerry or other wireless technology for sharing sensitive information should speak with his or her chief technology officer about the risks identified in that report (see, www.csis.org/tech/cyber and www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_pubs/task,view/id,5157) ' and think hard about the balance between the benefits of what technology may be able to offer and the risks that exist.

The study pointed out that security risks aren't limited to the political and military spheres ' the business world is just as much at risk. Consider this:

Although the most sensitive military communications remain safe, economic competitors and potential military opponents have easy access to military technology, intellectual property of leading companies, and government data. These potential opponents have not hesitated to avail themselves of the opportunities presented by poor cybersecurity. ' It is a battle we are losing. ' The immediate risk lies with the economy. Most companies' business plans involve the use of cyberspace to deliver services, manage supply chains, or interact with customers. Equally important, intellectual property is now stored in digital form, easily accessible to rivals. Weak cybersecurity dilutes our investment in innovation, while subsidizing the research and development efforts of foreign competitors. In the new global competition, where economic strength and technological leadership are as important to national power as military force, failing to secure cyberspace puts us at a disadvantage.

As a result, the study recommended that: “The U.S. government should rebuild the public-private partnership on cybersecurity to focus on key infrastructures and coordinated preventive and responsive activities.” (Emphasis added.)

Real Legal Considerations

Stepping back from the “big picture” of security, the reasons for denying e-mail to a President reminds one of the legal risks of uncontrolled BlackBerry use that exist wherever any lawyer can use the recent amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerning electronic evidence sought in legal proceedings. I have often written about how traditional legal rules apply in cyberspace, and that is true here as well ' executives must measure everything they say or write against how it would appear in a courtroom or newspaper article, if discovered in litigation (others suggest the easier to understand, proverbial, “what would your mother think” test).

Yet despite that general rule of caution, the BlackBerry culture has only increased these risks. Consider how the prudence one has when sitting at a desk computer, or talking on the phone, can vanish when tapping away on a tiny keypad, whether the “tapper” is employed by a company, or by the People of the United States:

• We have all heard the common complaint that a person could not respond to a message or document because it could not be read on his or her BlackBerry. When the “something” that could not be read is a legally binding contract, or correspondence making legal demands, one would think it worth the time and effort to print it out, and thoughtfully consider it in a setting and time that allow due care. Yet the BlackBerry culture of instant response and around-the-clock availability has made that step seem as antiquated as sending a telegram or a handwritten letter on paper. Just because you happened to see something first on your BlackBerry doesn't mean you can't wait to get back to your office or home and your desktop to actually think about a matter, rather than just react and respond.
• The haste to reply in BlackBerry time can lead to a less-considered response than would have been delivered after a person had an opportunity to digest the message, and perhaps ' oh, yes! ' discuss it with colleagues. Obama himself expressed his frustration during the campaign at his difficulty in “setting aside time to think,” and even has commiserated about that with other leaders ( see, speaking of things online, www.slate.com/id/2205115; www.slate.com/id/2196907).
• Even when someone takes the time to properly consider a message received through a portable device, the mechanical problems of typing on a tiny keyboard, and reading it for cogency, salience and simple ease of understanding ' and proofreading it ' on a very small screen, can lead to unexpected errors that aren't caught in the haste to reply in BlackBerry time.
• Finally, unlike the “Dark Ages,” when truly confidential discussions were held only in person, in a dark alley, or by phone that had been checked for wiretaps, so that nothing existed to be discovered, electronic communications will live forever (and perhaps in infamy). Many businesspeople and their litigators all now depend on their devices so much ' and the servers where messages are stored (and often forgotten in document-retention policies) ' that it seems impossible to go backward to a time without a BlackBerry, much less e-mail ( see, www.slate.com/id/2205115). But there is a risk ' the traditional deposition response: “I forget,” does not work today ' somewhere (that a motivated opponent will surely find) that the e-mail you wish you hadn't written still exists.

Accessibility? Availability?

Another troubling aspect of the Obama saga for tech executives is the assumption that easy access and availability are inevitable. In an interview with ABC's Barbara Walters after the election, the President-elect worried:

(O)ne of the things that I'm going to have to work through is how to break through the isolation ' the bubble that exists around the President. And I'm in the process of negotiating with the Secret Service, with lawyers, with White House staff ' to figure out how can I get information from outside of the 10 or 12 people who surround my office in the White House. Because, one of the worst things I think that could happen to a President is losing touch with what people are going through day to day.

Yet how many corporate executives feel the need to read e-mail from employees, suppliers or customers, at any level, throughout the day? That information arrives in the inbox of the employees at the level at which they must deal with it, rather than in the penthouse suite. Senior advisers may send messages that must be read, but they read only what their subordinates have determined to be necessary. Long before e-mail and computers, truly important information was (and perhaps today still should be) conveyed only orally, at least initially. That process keeps immediate thoughts out of the electronic record, and unavailable for discovery, and leaves time for sober preparation of the written documents for the future ' and for the plaintiffs. In other words, is the best use of a senior executive's time, whether in business or in government, responding to e-mails as they arrive? Rather, the agenda for a critical decision-maker should not be set by the order in which messages arrive in his or her inbox; instead, according to American Studies Professor Diana Owen of Georgetown University, he or she should delegate reading e-mail to his or her staff. “The nature of the President's job is that others can use e-mail for him.” Even Bill Clinton's staff, in the dawn of the e-mail age, screened his messages, rather than cut him off entirely.

A brief story about testing for elite government positions illustrates this point well. The U.S. Foreign Service qualification test, for those who have passed the standardized testing, requires sorting through a crowded inbox of memos and correspondence with limited time. Inevitably, the most important item is near the bottom. The critical skill being tested is not the particular responses to each item, but the wisdom to separate the proverbial wheat from the chaff,
before doing anything else, and allocate one's time to what is important. The BlackBerry culture changes that priority, for the worse.

Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page noted another planning downside to Obama's infatuation with his BlackBerry, which could be said equally about many tech executives, and especially their attorneys ' and the harm that they can cause to true management. Page warns that excessive reliance on e-mail will isolate Mr. Obama from the people around him, and who can best help him ' just as Obama himself stated his fears:

I think Obama might be better off without his BlackBerry. His wish to stay in touch with voices outside of his “bubble” is admirable. But the irony of the BlackBerry is how much it also isolates us. As a longtime user of cell phones and portable e-mail devices, I suspect handhelds are popular partly because they do such a good job of helping us lose touch with the people around us. We use handhelds to communicate with our social and professional contacts, effectively expanding our echo chamber of people who think pretty much the way we do, while shrinking our interaction with people who don't. If you really don't want to have a conversation, for example, with the guy standing next to you at Dunkin' Donuts, just pull out your BlackBerry, take a glance, and say, “Oh, excuse me, I've got to holler back at this message.” No wonder “crackberry” addiction is reported to be an epidemic. “Reality,” an old hippie-era bumper sticker declares, “is for people who can't handle drugs.” BlackBerrys, I would argue, are great for people who don't want to handle too much reality.

Similarly, another political correspondent reported the conflict that may occur when proposed staffers, who live and die by e-mail, realize the amount of personal information about them that must be disclosed in the ordinary course of vetting a new President and his advisors (do you have a Facebook page? See, www.mlive.com/us-politics/index.ssf/2008/12/facebook_pages_in_na tional_arc.html).

Making a Break, Creating a Problem

For corporate executives, as well as for soon-to-be President Obama and his staff, the e-mail choice can be summarized in the clich': “Can't live with it, can't live without it.” When no solution is possible, perhaps the only alternative for executives is to work with e-mail, but to work with it knowing and keeping in mind its limitations ' and its risks. One e-discovery vendor posted a list of “10 things never to put in e-mail,” a tongue-in-cheek look at common phrases that many may have used in unguarded moments (see, www.deathbye-mail.com/2008/12/10-things-never-to-put-in-e-mail.html). More practically, corporate executives and Mr. Obama alike could benefit from basic training about discretion ' just as their counterparts in the past learned not to send damning telegrams, or not to make a heated phone call. If an immediate reply is needed, it need not be substantive; acknowledge your receipt of the message, and your intention to respond when you have the time to do so appropriately and thoughtfully. Not every question or message demands an immediate answer.

On the other hand, in today's BlackBerry-driven world, perhaps REM had it right all along, whether for our President, or a corporate leader: “But that was just a dream, that was just a dream.”

That's me in the corner,
that's me in the spotlight '
losing my religion,
trying to keep up with you
and I don't know if I can do it;
oh no, I've said too much,
I haven't said enough.
' REM, “Losing My Religion” 1991

In today's BlackBerry-driven, online business world, losing one's e-mail ' and access to other online forms of communication ' has to be worse than REM's fear of losing one's religion.

Yet that is just the fate that may await our next President, who has already publicly confessed (on national television, no less, though you can certainly find the story on the Internet) his steadfast inability to shake his smoking addiction under the stress of a Presidential campaign. (In fact, we give in: if you want to see the story online, see, www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iam-I4x t2lfqKv-xpHVSoxSFJCgAD951CKF80.) As has been widely reported, President-elect Barack Obama may have to give up the e-mail he constantly retrieves from the BlackBerry that was a ubiquitous companion during the 2008 campaign (see, www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/us/politics/16blackberry.html?_r=1 and http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=6329884). One Canadian wag, writing in Toronto's Globe and Mail newspaper, even called it “one of his dearest friends, the lifeline that helped him power his way to the driver's seat of the United States.” But his friend may be banned, or greatly restricted, in the White House.

Not New Behavior, But a New Frontier

Although there are many reasons for the ban, for security and federal recordkeeping, Mr. Obama is not an agent of “change” on the BlackBerry front. An e-mail-free President Obama would mirror an early decision of his predecessor, George W. Bush, who wrote to 42 friends and relatives from his pre-Presidential e-mail account: “Since I do not want my private conversations looked at by those out to embarrass, the only course of action is not to correspond in cyberspace. This saddens me. I have enjoyed conversing with each of you” (www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/16/america/black berry.php). Similarly, Bill Clinton had to make the same decision, albeit perhaps while feeling less pain in the pre-BlackBerry era. (Editor's note: For a perspective on this discussion “thread,” see, www.efluxmedia.com/news_Obama_Americas_First_BlackBerry_President_29186.html; http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fasterforward/2008/11/win_the_presidency_lose_your_e.html.)

Of course, the same security concerns that plague everyone who orders online are magnified a bit when the information being transmitted affects national security and world affairs; with Mr. Obama, we're not talking “just” a Social Security or credit-card number. With foreign powers and terrorists alike increasingly turning to cyberwarfare, certainly no one wants to make the world's most appealing target any more vulnerable to foreign innovators ' especially in an era when so much cutting-edge technology and hacking originates overseas. Leading Internet security experts agree with that logic, and employees of a major U.S. telecommunications firm couldn't pass up the challenge of hacking the President (see, www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9121079). In this instance, some Verizon Wireless workers apparently got into some account information for a “flip” cell phone the President-elect once owned. That he now uses a BlackBerry doesn't put such hacking worries to rest.

Making Problems and Trying to Solve Them

But there's a hacking ' make that nagging ' problem here: e-Mail has become so basic to life that any attempt to avoid it can create its own problems, whether in the trenches or in the White House, as the President-elect himself recently lamented in an interview on ABC News. For example, one New Jersey attorney and his associate received a telling automated message from opposing counsel, a New Jersey assistant attorney general, who is no fan of e-mail. “Your e-mail will not be received at this address,” the message states. When the attorney sent a motion by e-mail anyway, the AG complained to the judge about the attorney's “unprofessional behavior.” Although the court agreed that e-mail could not be required, it instead instructed the attorney to submit papers by fax to avoid prejudice to the AG who would not accept e-mail. The AG explained her preference as the result of “various experiences that have counseled against my communicating with any outside counsel by way of e-mail.” Although the opposing attorney could not convince the court to mandate e-mail, even after pointing out that faxes sometimes have problems and create processing costs, his complaint still shows how e-mail has become ubiquitous in today's legal practice and business. “I don't think you can make a unilateral decision not to accept e-mails in this environment, where everybody is talking about saving trees.”

Those who want to take away Mr. Obama's BlackBerry also cite federal archiving law for support. As I briefly mentioned in my June 2007 column, “When the CEO Wants His Hotmail,” the Presidential Records Act, 44 USC 2201 et seq., requires that the President take “all such steps as may be necessary to assure that the activities, deliberations, decisions, and policies that reflect the performance of his constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties are adequately documented and that such records are maintained as Presidential records'.” Section 2203(a). “Presidential records” are defined in Section 2201(2) to include:

[D]ocumentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, his immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President, his immediate staff ' whose function is to advise or assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.

Because Presidential advisers are also subject to this law, at least then-President Obama will be able to commiserate about his BlackBerry withdrawal cravings with a staff that appears to share his addiction. Fortunately, Section 2201(2)(B)(ii)'s exception for “personal records” will save the nation from having to preserve his kids' messages when their shelter dog has an accident in the Lincoln Bedroom (see, www.comicmix.com/news/2008/12/04/mutts-comments-on-obama-dog-adoption; and, for information on how to act Presidential by adopting your own “mutt like Obama,” see, www.people.com/people/article/0,,20239003,00.html?xid=rss-topheadlines, and www.petfinder.com//index.html.)

Risky Business Made Riskier

But this story reminds us in the e-commerce sector of some of the legal and practical compromises lawyers urge on business when e-mail is a primary form of communication. While the Presidential Records Act doesn't affect private executives, the security concerns behind the Obama BlackBerry ban are present ' without the IT support that the White House would get. While one may dismiss security as a concern for the private sector, business espionage has always been present, even if lawyers prefer euphemisms such as “due diligence” or “competitive intelligence” to describe what goes on behind closed doors, or, quite literally, over the airways. The easy availability of underemployed, tech-savvy folks, combined with a lagging economy, makes preying on the overly casual firm, which did not properly set up its back end to preserve security, a tempting way to try to beat rivals to a diminishing market.

In fact, one IT writer, keying words in Computerworld's government section, even highlighted many of the security risks inherent in BlackBerry usage in the penthouse suite in, “Analysis: Obama can't have a BlackBerry, Should your CEO?” (see, www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9123028&intsrc=news_ts_head). As that article reports, the line between government and private-sector security has become quite blurry, according to a congressionally mandated study by the Threats Working Group (see, www.infoworld.com/article/08/12/08/Cyberspace-report- offers-Obama-someo-far-reaching-rec ommendations_1.html). According to that report: “Many of these countries endow [their] national corporations with cyber espionage capabilities so as to steal intellectual property for the sake of economic advantage.” Any CEO who relies on a BlackBerry or other wireless technology for sharing sensitive information should speak with his or her chief technology officer about the risks identified in that report (see, www.csis.org/tech/cyber and www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_pubs/task,view/id,5157) ' and think hard about the balance between the benefits of what technology may be able to offer and the risks that exist.

The study pointed out that security risks aren't limited to the political and military spheres ' the business world is just as much at risk. Consider this:

Although the most sensitive military communications remain safe, economic competitors and potential military opponents have easy access to military technology, intellectual property of leading companies, and government data. These potential opponents have not hesitated to avail themselves of the opportunities presented by poor cybersecurity. ' It is a battle we are losing. ' The immediate risk lies with the economy. Most companies' business plans involve the use of cyberspace to deliver services, manage supply chains, or interact with customers. Equally important, intellectual property is now stored in digital form, easily accessible to rivals. Weak cybersecurity dilutes our investment in innovation, while subsidizing the research and development efforts of foreign competitors. In the new global competition, where economic strength and technological leadership are as important to national power as military force, failing to secure cyberspace puts us at a disadvantage.

As a result, the study recommended that: “The U.S. government should rebuild the public-private partnership on cybersecurity to focus on key infrastructures and coordinated preventive and responsive activities.” (Emphasis added.)

Real Legal Considerations

Stepping back from the “big picture” of security, the reasons for denying e-mail to a President reminds one of the legal risks of uncontrolled BlackBerry use that exist wherever any lawyer can use the recent amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerning electronic evidence sought in legal proceedings. I have often written about how traditional legal rules apply in cyberspace, and that is true here as well ' executives must measure everything they say or write against how it would appear in a courtroom or newspaper article, if discovered in litigation (others suggest the easier to understand, proverbial, “what would your mother think” test).

Yet despite that general rule of caution, the BlackBerry culture has only increased these risks. Consider how the prudence one has when sitting at a desk computer, or talking on the phone, can vanish when tapping away on a tiny keypad, whether the “tapper” is employed by a company, or by the People of the United States:

• We have all heard the common complaint that a person could not respond to a message or document because it could not be read on his or her BlackBerry. When the “something” that could not be read is a legally binding contract, or correspondence making legal demands, one would think it worth the time and effort to print it out, and thoughtfully consider it in a setting and time that allow due care. Yet the BlackBerry culture of instant response and around-the-clock availability has made that step seem as antiquated as sending a telegram or a handwritten letter on paper. Just because you happened to see something first on your BlackBerry doesn't mean you can't wait to get back to your office or home and your desktop to actually think about a matter, rather than just react and respond.
• The haste to reply in BlackBerry time can lead to a less-considered response than would have been delivered after a person had an opportunity to digest the message, and perhaps ' oh, yes! ' discuss it with colleagues. Obama himself expressed his frustration during the campaign at his difficulty in “setting aside time to think,” and even has commiserated about that with other leaders ( see, speaking of things online, www.slate.com/id/2205115; www.slate.com/id/2196907).
• Even when someone takes the time to properly consider a message received through a portable device, the mechanical problems of typing on a tiny keyboard, and reading it for cogency, salience and simple ease of understanding ' and proofreading it ' on a very small screen, can lead to unexpected errors that aren't caught in the haste to reply in BlackBerry time.
• Finally, unlike the “Dark Ages,” when truly confidential discussions were held only in person, in a dark alley, or by phone that had been checked for wiretaps, so that nothing existed to be discovered, electronic communications will live forever (and perhaps in infamy). Many businesspeople and their litigators all now depend on their devices so much ' and the servers where messages are stored (and often forgotten in document-retention policies) ' that it seems impossible to go backward to a time without a BlackBerry, much less e-mail ( see, www.slate.com/id/2205115). But there is a risk ' the traditional deposition response: “I forget,” does not work today ' somewhere (that a motivated opponent will surely find) that the e-mail you wish you hadn't written still exists.

Accessibility? Availability?

Another troubling aspect of the Obama saga for tech executives is the assumption that easy access and availability are inevitable. In an interview with ABC's Barbara Walters after the election, the President-elect worried:

(O)ne of the things that I'm going to have to work through is how to break through the isolation ' the bubble that exists around the President. And I'm in the process of negotiating with the Secret Service, with lawyers, with White House staff ' to figure out how can I get information from outside of the 10 or 12 people who surround my office in the White House. Because, one of the worst things I think that could happen to a President is losing touch with what people are going through day to day.

Yet how many corporate executives feel the need to read e-mail from employees, suppliers or customers, at any level, throughout the day? That information arrives in the inbox of the employees at the level at which they must deal with it, rather than in the penthouse suite. Senior advisers may send messages that must be read, but they read only what their subordinates have determined to be necessary. Long before e-mail and computers, truly important information was (and perhaps today still should be) conveyed only orally, at least initially. That process keeps immediate thoughts out of the electronic record, and unavailable for discovery, and leaves time for sober preparation of the written documents for the future ' and for the plaintiffs. In other words, is the best use of a senior executive's time, whether in business or in government, responding to e-mails as they arrive? Rather, the agenda for a critical decision-maker should not be set by the order in which messages arrive in his or her inbox; instead, according to American Studies Professor Diana Owen of Georgetown University, he or she should delegate reading e-mail to his or her staff. “The nature of the President's job is that others can use e-mail for him.” Even Bill Clinton's staff, in the dawn of the e-mail age, screened his messages, rather than cut him off entirely.

A brief story about testing for elite government positions illustrates this point well. The U.S. Foreign Service qualification test, for those who have passed the standardized testing, requires sorting through a crowded inbox of memos and correspondence with limited time. Inevitably, the most important item is near the bottom. The critical skill being tested is not the particular responses to each item, but the wisdom to separate the proverbial wheat from the chaff,
before doing anything else, and allocate one's time to what is important. The BlackBerry culture changes that priority, for the worse.

Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page noted another planning downside to Obama's infatuation with his BlackBerry, which could be said equally about many tech executives, and especially their attorneys ' and the harm that they can cause to true management. Page warns that excessive reliance on e-mail will isolate Mr. Obama from the people around him, and who can best help him ' just as Obama himself stated his fears:

I think Obama might be better off without his BlackBerry. His wish to stay in touch with voices outside of his “bubble” is admirable. But the irony of the BlackBerry is how much it also isolates us. As a longtime user of cell phones and portable e-mail devices, I suspect handhelds are popular partly because they do such a good job of helping us lose touch with the people around us. We use handhelds to communicate with our social and professional contacts, effectively expanding our echo chamber of people who think pretty much the way we do, while shrinking our interaction with people who don't. If you really don't want to have a conversation, for example, with the guy standing next to you at Dunkin' Donuts, just pull out your BlackBerry, take a glance, and say, “Oh, excuse me, I've got to holler back at this message.” No wonder “crackberry” addiction is reported to be an epidemic. “Reality,” an old hippie-era bumper sticker declares, “is for people who can't handle drugs.” BlackBerrys, I would argue, are great for people who don't want to handle too much reality.

Similarly, another political correspondent reported the conflict that may occur when proposed staffers, who live and die by e-mail, realize the amount of personal information about them that must be disclosed in the ordinary course of vetting a new President and his advisors (do you have a Facebook page? See, www.mlive.com/us-politics/index.ssf/2008/12/facebook_pages_in_na tional_arc.html).

Making a Break, Creating a Problem

For corporate executives, as well as for soon-to-be President Obama and his staff, the e-mail choice can be summarized in the clich': “Can't live with it, can't live without it.” When no solution is possible, perhaps the only alternative for executives is to work with e-mail, but to work with it knowing and keeping in mind its limitations ' and its risks. One e-discovery vendor posted a list of “10 things never to put in e-mail,” a tongue-in-cheek look at common phrases that many may have used in unguarded moments (see, www.deathbye-mail.com/2008/12/10-things-never-to-put-in-e-mail.html). More practically, corporate executives and Mr. Obama alike could benefit from basic training about discretion ' just as their counterparts in the past learned not to send damning telegrams, or not to make a heated phone call. If an immediate reply is needed, it need not be substantive; acknowledge your receipt of the message, and your intention to respond when you have the time to do so appropriately and thoughtfully. Not every question or message demands an immediate answer.

On the other hand, in today's BlackBerry-driven world, perhaps REM had it right all along, whether for our President, or a corporate leader: “But that was just a dream, that was just a dream.”