There's something odd about these releases of more Instant Message contents sent by Mark Foley.
ABC News now has obtained 52 separate instant message exchanges, which former pages say were sent by Foley, using the screen name Maf54, to two different boys under the age of 18.
This message was dated April 2003, at approximately 7 p.m., according to the message time stamp.
This release doesn't really tell us any more about Foley; at this point we know what a creepy guy he is. More evidence at trial perhaps.
But who keeps transcripts of IM exchanges? Who stores those transcripts for three years after the exchanges? Yet ABC News has received such years-old transcripts from multiple sources? We don't use IM software, is that sort of archiving typical? Seems very strange to log the conversations, then store the files for years. We're not accusing anyone of anything here, just wondering; it seems strange.
UPDATE: Jonah Goldberg is asking the same question.
UPDATE2: Hugh Hewitt has posted some discussion of the same question here.
The white house, and congress have extensive archival procedures. Partly for situations like this, but also because, ostensibly, the info belongs to us - the people.
People could issue FOIA requests for data on that was on hard drives, etc. and (subject to redaction) would be able to get the info.
Comment by Joe — October 3, 2006 @ 2:47 pm October 3, 2006
Most IM programs have logging turned on by default. It is an often-used feature of IM software and is quite useful when trying to remember the last conversation you had with a person. I personally have never turned my logging off and have conversations that go back many years.
Comment by Vulpes — October 3, 2006 @ 2:54 pm October 3, 2006
"The white house, and congress have extensive archival procedures."
That doesn't seem relevant here since Foley was apparently using a personal account and the transcripts seem to have come to ABC from the kids' end of things.
"Most IM programs have logging turned on by default."
Interesting. Probably a lot of folks looking at how to turn it off after this mess.
Comment by The Editors — October 3, 2006 @ 3:23 pm October 3, 2006
I don't know. Maybe you guys get dirty messages from
Congressmen all the time but for those of us that don't it
does not seem strange at all to save them. If I had a leading
Congressman sending me sick messages I would not be to happy
with that and would save those messages as evidence, but
keep insinuating a plot by the pages if you think it makes
your side look better.
Comment by Paul — October 3, 2006 @ 5:04 pm October 3, 2006
We didn't insinuate anything.
Comment by The Editors — October 3, 2006 @ 6:38 pm October 3, 2006
Then what is the point of publicly wondering why anyone would
keep these messages? The reason the messages were saved is
clear as a bell and your attempt to portray this as strange
behavior has obvious implications.
Comment by Paul — October 3, 2006 @ 7:13 pm October 3, 2006
Merely asking questions does not constitute an attempt to portray anything. Your tinfoil hat is on way too tight Paul.
Comment by The Editors — October 3, 2006 @ 7:32 pm October 3, 2006
I did not say portray, but asking a question can suggest or
insinuate something, especially if asked in a way like
"Don't you think it strange that......."
Merely asking a question does not constitute an attempt to
portray anything? Who told you guys that? Remember the Rove
Polls asking voters about McCain's black baby. Of course
it was not designed to suggest anything.
So let me ask you a question, and I certainly don't want
to portray anything, but is it not strange that you guy's
write as if you were on the take from the RNC?
You may now respond with "tinfail hat" as that seems to be
all ya got.
Comment by Paul — October 4, 2006 @ 6:19 am October 4, 2006
Its not so much that these IM's were saved somewhere, the big question is why release them now....5 weeks before major mid term elections...seems like this is well planned
Comment by keith — October 4, 2006 @ 6:36 am October 4, 2006
Paul, #6: "The reason the messages were saved is
clear as a bell and your attempt to portray..."
Paul, #8: "I did not say portray..."
Comment by The Editors — October 4, 2006 @ 7:37 am October 4, 2006
Well my own IM programs automatically have archives. Some of my messages going back to 1999 (When I got this computer) are still in the archives on this computer. Of the 4 major instant messenger clients, AIM is the only one I know of that doesn't store messages, and I really don't know there, I may not have the latest version, the latest version may well keep archives.
At my place of employment, IM systems are archived by default. Typically, so is email.
But this is all beyond the point. I don't think we need to get to a point where we are putting underage victims on trial for storing messages they got from a congressman. Those messages were very creepy. If a congresman sent me messages telling me that they think my butt probably looks really sexy when I masturbate, even if I didn't have archiving on, I'd turn it on immediately. Besides, there are now almost 12 interns involved right now and the number is growing. Are you suggesting that there is some grand conspiracy to entrap Bob Foley?
You are in error. The fact that these messages have been stored for more than 3 years, is not strange at all.
Comment by David — October 5, 2006 @ 11:19 am October 5, 2006
David,
"Are you suggesting that there is some grand conspiracy to entrap Bob Foley?"
No such thing was suggested. When we said, "we're not accusing anyone of anything here, just wondering" that might have given you a clue.
You haven't provided any evidence that it's typical for people to retain archives of IM transcripts for 3 years.
Comment by The Editors — October 5, 2006 @ 2:10 pm October 5, 2006
"You haven't provided any evidence that it's typical for people to retain archives of IM transcripts for 3 years. "
Now you are just spouting words. What exactly will it take to convince you that it's typical? You want me to go into mmy archives and show you IMs from three years ago? You want aome proof, download yahoo messenger, and read the help on how the message archive works. I could go into detail about how the different IM systems work, I could talk you through downloading them and seeing how they work for themselves, and show you how these programs typically archive messages unless the user explicitly tells them not to, but I won't. Because I'm not accusing anyone of anything here, but just wondering why you are maintaining such a high burden of proof for the notion that it's typical for people to maintain archives of IM transcripts for 3 years without even knowing they are doing it. For someone who 'isn't accusing anyone, just wondering', you are maintaining a remarkable refusal to be demystified. Bob Foley is that you behind the computer?
Comment by David — October 6, 2006 @ 8:18 am October 6, 2006
"You want me to go into my archives and show you IMs from three years ago?"
That would be anecdotal evidence of what you do, it would not provide any information at all about what is typical of others.
"You want some proof, download yahoo messenger..."
How the software works (no one is disputing that IM software can log messages), and whether an individual keeps the generated logs for three years, are two different questions. When we upgrade hardware, reformat the hard drive, upgrade the OS, etc, we do not keep all the 3 year old junk. It takes some effort to do that.
We were asking questions out of curiousity, not being users of IM software. Some people are paranoid, angry, and/or slow learners and having trouble getting that.
Incidentally, who is "Bob Foley"?
Comment by The Editors — October 6, 2006 @ 11:01 am October 6, 2006
Well that is my point. For someone who is "just curious" you seem to be requiring an extremely high version of proof. We're satisfying curiousity here, not trying a murderer right? You don't use IM software. I do. I am assuring you that having IM archives from 3 years ago is quite typical. Unless your curiousity is more than just curiousity, then that should be enough. After all, it's a minor point right? When you require such a high burden of proof, you begin to sound like the defense lawyer who will do anything to keep his client out of the chair. You don't sound like a curious person, you sound more like someone who deperately wants to believe the behavious is atypical. Hardware upgrades? really? Perhaps you are fortunate enough to be able to afford a new hard drive every 3 years. Not everyone is. Sounds like you are scrambling for whatever reason you can to argue that it isn't typical.
And do you realize how moot this is? There have been dozens upon dozens of pages on capitol hill. If the things I'm hearing are correct, congressman Foley sent IMs to several of them; any attractive male page was fair game. That 3 or 4 of them may still have them archived is actually not very suprising. I just got done watching Fox interview a page who says he received explicit IMs but doesn't happen to have archived them. Hmmm, so some people still have thier archives, and some don't. Sounds about typical to me doesn't it? What about you?
But like I said moot. I could say many things I haven't said to demonstrate to you that having archives of IMs 3 or more years older is typical. But the issue just isn't that serious for me. I'm far more interested in exploring why you cling so desperately to the idea that it is atypical, than I am in proving to you that it is typical. As you have demonstrated, curiousity can go in some interesting directions.
BTW, As far as people getting angry, peodophiles and the subject of peodophilia will do that to people, it's one of those subjects that inflames the passions.
Comment by David — October 8, 2006 @ 9:50 pm October 8, 2006
David,
That's funny. Excuse us if we don't consider your assurances about anything to be definitive.
This is actually a good point.
Then why do you keep going on and on about it?
Whether people get angry about pedophilia is a moot point, since none has been alleged in the Foley matter and that wasn't the subject of the post anyway. When the Foley IMs came to light, we noted that we believe all the Democrats' outrage is phony. Nothing has occurred to change that assessment. The party of Gerry Studds, and Ted Kennedy, and Bill Clinton, and Mel Reynolds, and Barney Frank is outraged by a few creepy IMs? Ludicrous.
Comment by The Editors — October 9, 2006 @ 7:50 am October 9, 2006
For all you know I'm a republican. That is the current source of most of the condemnation. For all I know you could be a democrat. Ok maybe not. Why do I keep going on and on about it? 'Cause I'm wondering why you are so married to the notion that a few pages having IMs from 3 or 4 years ago is atypical. I'm speculating anout your motives, and about your political orientation too. I don't really think you are a republican 'cause I doubt a real republican would try to argue that Mark Foley doesn't deserve condemnation because other people did it as well. Perhaps you are just a Bush republican. Perhaps you are a member of the support Mark Foley PAC. Perhaps you are his long lost brother Bob. Who else would call the sort of things coming out "a few creepy IMs". I'm sorry but my moral bar is set at a level where I consider having cybersex with a teen page before going out on the house floor to vote to be tantamount to peodophilia. He took advantage of a young person so he could get himself off. The fact that he did it from behind a computer and internet connection doesn't change the morality of it. But calling it "a few creepy IMs" is a nice way to spin it.
Comment by David — October 9, 2006 @ 12:45 pm October 9, 2006
We haven't seen any Republican try to argue that Mark Foley doesn't deserve condemnation. We have not ever argued on this site that Mark Foley doesn't deserve condemnation. Whether your posting of this obvious falsehood is a result of being grossly dishonest or an inability to read basic English, only you can know. How pathetic.
Comment by The Editors — October 9, 2006 @ 1:17 pm October 9, 2006