I have worked with or know senior people who have no need to use email directly. It doesn't surprise me that a senior cabinet level person would have assistants manage their email.
I reported myself, too, just for good measure.
Making a report automatically gets you reported.
Self-reporting in such a situation is viewed as suspicious. At the very least, you will be logged as a brown-noser.
Of course being aware enough to realize this is even more suspicious, and will get a note in your dossier as a potential troublemaker.
You are far too alert and informed. This has been noted.
It's not that it can't do useful things for everyone; it's that you have to balance that against things like time wasted. For the head of a major agency with private secretaries and aids at her call, checking and sending emails might not be the best use of her time.
What, no one? Oh, right, sorry...
EVERYONE SURPRISED, RAISE YOUR HAND
Ahhhh, I see now... Hey, look over there, an early-morning all you can eat buffet restaurant!
Ahem. That taken care of, I move we lower the age of candidacy for all public offices to 18. Do I hear a second?
Just keep in mind these departments and heads are generally chock full of people who do know their arse from a hole in the ground and they generally are the ones who actually meet with as-aware counter parts for the actual details. Mucky-mucks just zero in on the microphone, for a speech or two and then the bar for after the worker bees have been lined up to get the fiddly bits all right.
Their ability to scoop up such a trove of data on our use of the Internet seems really fearsome, but what is their actual ability to make use of the data? They could use their tools plus the US global enforcement powers to nail Internet frauds like the Cryptolocker ransomware, thereby redeeming the bad press they been getting since Snowdon. That they are not doing so tells me that they probably cannot do so.
Publicly they come across as all inept and easily baffled by the vast volumes of data they have. That's the cover I'd assume if I wanted to convince you not to be too worried.
Robin Hood. Dick Turpin. Butch Cassidy. Bonnie and Clyde. Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán.
People who break the law have always been the subject of fascination, and for a certain subset of the fascinated, glorification. We still enjoy caper movies about criminals pulling off complicated heists, movies which gloss over the innocent victims of crime or even depict the criminal as an instrument of poetic justice. For the vast majority of people fascination with criminals is harmless. Living in a civilized society requires restraint that makes fantasies of anarchic behavior attractive. In moderation, some measure of admiration of rule breakers probably helps keep the people who run things in check (e.g. the Edward Snowden case).
The problem is that some people have difficulty separating fantasy from reality, keeping to moderation, or understanding how complex or ambiguous people can be. Julian Assange is neither an angel nor a devil, but a flawed, complicated person who did something that needed doing. George Washington wasn't the childhood paragon of the cherry tree legend, but an ambitious, rash, somewhat dishonest social climber who achieved greatness under the pressure of circumstance.
The guy who had to learn what an ISP was, or the guy who didn't know and didn't ask and made government policy on it anyway?
But if you came from the distant future, like Mr Scott, you might be utterly baffled by what cantankerous garbage we have to put up with, despite our smug feeling our $800 smart phone is the latest and greatest - looks like a glorified paperweight to them.
One of the first Oxymorons I'd ever heard mention of.
Good ol' farcebook is ensuring we have the ability to block just about everything in our browsers because they are so damn insidious.
Of course the US has satellites that can look at that part of the world. And they may well be doing so. It's just China is trying to score a couple of PR points by showing that they can act like a Big Important Country and task their surveillance satellites to suit their interests.
We of course know that they can - spy satellites don't do much good if you can't spy on people. The US is also spending assets in the search. So will everyone else who is involved.
Your left shoe is untied.
If you look at a map you'll see this flight path takes you past some pretty well monitored territory - though obviously there are a few bugth in the thythtem.
Sometimes big airliners can get lost at those.
While that happens once in a while with US flights, I don't think there are very many airports in that lane where an errant 777 could go unnoticed. The route, as described on the BBC is a very heavily traveled air lane and the flight should have been easily tracked, particularly if it had veered off course.
No floating debris is perplexing as that should have been soon spotted had the flight broken up.
Putin, is that you? No Russian citizens on board? No reason to inv^H^H^Hannex^H^H^H^H^Hliberate Malaysia?
Helps to do that for MP4, as well.
Nooooo. Not spy, just, y'know, observing
Nothing to see here, move along.