From her context, this tracks with Microsoft's description of user profiles -- a folder corresponding to the user's name located in the Documents and Settings folder. However, there are Outlook profiles and user profiles. When she says that the data contained in profiles were copied over, were these specifically all the files in Documents and Settings or just a subset?

Finally, there's again the issue of .PST files. She states "...if a user saved .PST files in their profile...". At most large IT shops, how .PST files were managed would be a matter of IT policy, not determined by each individual user.

Let's also be clear that .PST files don't need to be stored in a Documents and Settings folder or the user's so-called profile. I, for instance, store all my .PST files on a separate drive so if I need to re-image my boot drive, my email data doesn't stand even the slightest chance of getting lost.

Bottom line: We can't be sure exactly what data was preserved when computers were upgraded.

Where have all the computers gone? Another new security risk is found.
Asset management seems to have been lax at the White House. Given how important security should be within the Executive Office of the President, it's quite curious that there appears to be absolutely no asset or location management of physical computers, as per Payton's statement:

As I understand it, the OCIO does not maintain a detailed historical log or other record tracking the precise user or location history of any given EOP computer workstation.

Bottom line: There's no record of what computer is where.

This, too, presents an extreme security risk. By extension, this would imply that the White House doesn't track location or history of laptops as well as desktop machines.

Remember how freaked everyone was back in 2000 when the FBI discovered nuclear secrets were missing because some hard drives and laptops from Los Alamos National Laboratory had gone missing? Now, imagine how bad it would be if data from White House, Executive Office of the President decides to go for a walk.

But, hey, the White House doesn't track that stuff. Apparently, it's not their problem. Which leads to a new question:

Question: If they don't know where their computers are, how do they know that the ones from 2003-2005 have been destroyed?

The burden issue
As I mentioned above, any time a judge asks an IT team to go through their gear and do some data gathering, it's going to knock them off their game, screw up their schedule, and add more work to their already overburdened workload.

Without a doubt, the White House IT team is overburdened. Every IT team is overburdened. It comes with the job.

Given that the project is, by definition, going to therefore be a pain in the Rose Garden, just how reasonable are the White House's claims of burden? First I'll look at their claims, and then I'll dive in and give you my analysis.