Slashdot Mirror


Fed Goes Hunting For Malcontents

snydeq writes "The wake of State Department document leaks to WikiLeaks may have the unhappy rousted from government agencies' 'privileged insiders' ranks, thanks to a recent memo from the US OMB asking agencies to spell out their strategies for minimizing insider risk. 'It's likely that federal contractors and government suppliers will also find themselves responding to this list of questions (PDF) and the central issue of preventing the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive and classified materials. In a key section of the memo, the OMB requests information on whether organizations are measuring the "trustworthiness" of their employees and whether they use a psychiatrist or sociologist to measure the unhappiness of an employee as a measure of trustworthiness.'"

193 comments

  1. White House Plumbers? by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's not like this sort of thing hasn't been tried before. I'm sure it will work about as well now as it did then.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:White House Plumbers? by Pojut · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's the US Government's motto: "If it worked the first time, you didn't fuck it up enough."

    2. Re:White House Plumbers? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Shhhh... You're interrupting The X-Factor!

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    3. Re:White House Plumbers? by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, it has been tried several times before. It's part of the reason that the federal workforce as a rule have traditionally been so paranoid, rule/regulation obsessed, focused heavily on protocol, reluctant to change or innovate, etc. When you're walking on eggshells, no one wants to be the one hopping. It makes for a bureaucracy that's hopelessly mired in CYA (Cover Your Ass) politics.

      Once again, in trying to improve government, they'll only make it more ineffective--and make it even less attractive to any real talent. The vets who spend all day covering their asses will just hunker down and hide, and the innovators who are making waves will be driven out.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    4. Re:White House Plumbers? by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Once again, in trying to improve government, they'll only make it more ineffective

      Attempting to make sure their crimes and schemes go unnoticed is NOT an improvement to government.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    5. Re:White House Plumbers? by Ihmhi · · Score: 4, Funny

      The tribal wisdom of the Dakota Indians, passed from one generation to the next, says that when you discover you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount. However, our government entities seem to think other factors must be taken into consideration and other strategies often have to be tried with dead horses, including the following:

      1. Buy a stronger whip.

      2. Change riders.

      3. Threaten the horse with termination.

      4. Appoint a committee to study the horse.

      5. Arrange to visit other sites to see how they ride dead horses.

      6. Lower the standards so that dead horses can be included.

      7. Appoint an intervention team to reanimate the dead horse.

      8. Create a training session to increase the rider’s load share.

      9. Reclassify the dead horse as “living impaired”.

      10. Change the form so that it reads “This horse is not dead.”

      11. Hire outside contractors to ride the dead horse.

      12. Harness several dead horses together for increased speed.

      13. Donate the dead horse to a recognized charity, thereby deducting its full original cost.

      14. Provide additional funding to increase the horse’s performance.

      15. Do a time-management study to see if lighter riders would improve productivity.

      16. Purchase an after-market product to make dead horses run faster.

      17. Declare that a dead horse has lower overhead and therefore performs better.

      18. Form a quality focus group to find profitable uses for dead horses.

      19. Rewrite the expected performance requirements for horses.

      20. Promote the dead horse to a supervisory position.

    6. Re:White House Plumbers? by slick7 · · Score: 2

      Once again, in trying to improve government, they'll only make it more ineffective

      Attempting to make sure their crimes and schemes go unnoticed is NOT an improvement to government.

      Of course it is, the Executive Orders are coming hard and fast. Who says your rights are not being trampled?

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    7. Re:White House Plumbers? by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Who says your rights are not being trampled?

      People in jackboots :'(

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    8. Re:White House Plumbers? by Dabido · · Score: 1

      I hope someone can put that motto in Latin.

      --
      Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
  2. Bad Idea by Advocatus+Diaboli · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Governing systems without implicit trust of the vast majority of its employees are disasters waiting to happen.

    1. Re:Bad Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly that. If you treat me with implicit trust, I have an obligation to be worthy of it. If you don't, I don't owe a damn thing, and you may not get anything more than what you can make me do, which is inevitably a lot less than i would have done on my own.

    2. Re:Bad Idea by Dishevel · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Wish you would have not posted anonymously. Then I would know who not to hire. You must think that the jobs that are given out are your right to have. It is not. No one OWES you anything. No one OWES you respect, or a job, or even a break. Sometimes people get things without working for them. That dose not mean they are owed. In my case I would attempt to hire people driven to do a good job by their own personal pride. Hell. I think personally that if you are doing a job and not taking pride in your work because you don't like your boss or some shit like that then you are worthless.

      A person should be judged by who they are when things are not going well. Judging a person by how they act when all is going their way is stupidity. You are what you are at your worst. Not your best.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    3. Re:Bad Idea by s4ltyd0g · · Score: 1

      I wanted to mod this comment up not down

    4. Re:Bad Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You must think that the jobs that are given out are your right to have.

      You must think that you have a right to have people agree to work for you.

      No one OWES you respect

      No one owes you respect either, and if you don't treat your employees like the human beings that they are, then no-one but the desperate and uncaring will want to work for you.

      In my case I would attempt to hire people driven to do a good job by their own personal pride.

      In my case I would try to hire someone with enough self-interest and intelligence to care about their work conditions.

      I think personally that if you are doing a job and not taking pride in your work because you don't like your boss or some shit like that then you are worthless.

      I think personally that if you take pride in doing work for people who treat you poorly, then you are lacking true pride.

      I also think that if you are an employer and think that you don't have an obligation to your employees, equal to their obligation to you, then you are worthless.

      A person should be judged by who they are when things are not going well.

      A person should also be judged by how they treat others, especially those over whom they have some authority.

      tl;dr version? Fuck you, feudalist.

      P.S. Before you ask: yes, I have been a boss.

    5. Re:Bad Idea by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      You must think that you have a right to have people agree to work for you.

      Nope.

      No one owes you respect either, and if you don't treat your employees like the human beings that they are, then no-one but the desperate and uncaring will want to work for you.

      I never said you should treat your employees like shit. If your boss treats you like shit the correct way to deal with it is to get a different job. Not to see how much you can get paid for doing as little as possible.

      In my case I would try to hire someone with enough self-interest and intelligence to care about their work conditions.

      I treat people under me well and expect much. If they do not like they are free to work for someone else. To do anything else is really to just be a thief.

      I think personally that if you take pride in doing work for people who treat you poorly, then you are lacking true pride.

      Pride in ones work has nothing to do with recognition from others. It is about self.

      I also think that if you are an employer and think that you don't have an obligation to your employees, equal to their obligation to you, then you are worthless.

      Again. Never said to treat employees like shit. Those are your words you are using to attempt to win an argument with. Good try but no.

      A person should also be judged by how they treat others, especially those over whom they have some authority.

      Yes that is how you judge a person in power. People without power should be judged differently of course. What I said though applies equally to the judgment of all people.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  3. Doesn't Figure by Mikkeles · · Score: 0

    So, someone who's just had a death in the family is now untrustworthy because they're unhappy?

    --
    Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    1. Re:Doesn't Figure by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      So, someone who's just had a death in the family is now untrustworthy because they're unhappy?

      Are you stupid or did you just deliberately misread the summary? They are not talking about generic unhappiness, they are talking about being unhappy with your job/management. Someone who expresses unhappiness with government policies is likely to be security risk when it comes to government secrets. Conceptually, this is not a bad idea. Whether it is executed in a manner that is sensible is a completely different question.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    2. Re:Doesn't Figure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They are not talking about generic unhappiness, they are talking about being unhappy with your job/management.

      So, complaining about your boss might get you fired? Now there's a recipe for mismanagement waiting to happen.

      There's a demotivational poster in there somewhere...

    3. Re:Doesn't Figure by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Someone who expresses unhappiness with government policies is likely to be security risk when it comes to government secrets. Conceptually, this is not a bad idea.

      Yes, it is. It means that someone who is unhappy will simply hide his opinions, which of course gives him more reasons to be unhappy: "I'll be fired if I don't toe the party line! I'm being oppressed!" And of course he's quite right, whether his original problem had any basis in reality or not. This means that not only does this not solve the problem, but will actually make it worse, as well as puts a chilling effect on freedom of expression.

      Yet another bright idea from our brave leaders worthy of a Dilbert Award.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    4. Re:Doesn't Figure by pla · · Score: 1

      Someone who expresses unhappiness with government policies is likely to be security risk when it comes to government secrets.

      No, someone dumb enough to express their unhappiness with government policies to their boss the government, most likely does not pose a serious security risk.

      The guys who find our government reprehensible enough to want to do something about, and have the savvy to actually accomplish something on the scale of Manning, will keep their heads down, smile, and give all the "right" answers to any tests of their cheerfulness and loyalty.

    5. Re:Doesn't Figure by Magada · · Score: 1

      Yes, basically. People who are depressed may act out their depression, generally in (self-)destructive ways. Doing something that can get you fired certainly qualifies.

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
    6. Re:Doesn't Figure by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No, he iosn't qute right. they don't put some guy on the floor to remove anyone who questions 'the party line' whatever the hell that is.

      They work to find a solution. Maybe is just an incorrect perception? Maybe there in an actual issue in management that needs addressing. maybe a policy is bad. Maybe the person is really disgruntled?

      I've seen this sort ogf thing in action. Both in the public and private sector. Usually the private sector it turns into a witch hunt, in the public sector people actually get listened to and change is made.

      Yes, Yes, I can list exception to this, I am talk about a large majority of the time.

      Disclaimer: I currently work for a city government. I have also worked private sector.

      I have to say, I have been able to express myself more freely then I ever could in most corporations.
      I have literal told a elected city official precisely why they are wrong about something. They listened, understood and changed policy. Latter they thanked me. Try doing the with most C*O. You're likely to be ignored and released for some dept. 'cut backs' next qtr.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:Doesn't Figure by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      I have worked with people who are the type they are looking for (or at least the type they should be looking for). They are a cancer in the workplace. One place I worked, the entire department this person worked in was depressing to be around. They always viewed every management initiative in the worst possible light. The person quit for another job, within a month the department was much more upbeat and had a positive attitude. If nothing else, getting this person to not poison the waters for everyone else would be a positive thing.
      This should not be aimed at people who have legitimate issues with management which they take through the appropriate channels (which certainly should exist), but at those people who view everything said and done by upper management as bad. Now, whether it will actually be implemented this way is another question. If it is implemented properly than the person who says "I'll be fired if I don't toe the party line! I'm being oppresse!" is exactly the ones who this should be targeting. Of course, if it isn't implemented correctly, they will quickly lose many of their good people.
      I do not have a lot of faith in the government implementing it correctly, but that doesn't mean that the idea is inherently bad.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    8. Re:Doesn't Figure by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      This is not a plan to root out the spies, this is a plan to weed out those who over time come to decide they are going to release secrets in order to get payback for a perceived slight or to force the government to change policies.
      My impression of Manning (which is not based on much, I was not interested enough to read many articles which talked about his motivations) is that he was the sort who expressed general dissatisfaction with the world and then realized he was in a position to get some of his own back.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    9. Re:Doesn't Figure by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2

      [quote]Whether it is executed in a manner that is sensible is a completely different question.[/quote]

      That's the key problem. I really don't have faith that the currently available methods of determining trustworthiness are reliable.

    10. Re:Doesn't Figure by Hatta · · Score: 3, Funny

      This should not be aimed at people who have legitimate issues with management which they take through the appropriate channels (which certainly should exist), but at those people who view everything said and done by upper management as bad.

      What if everything done by upper management IS bad? Then this policy ousts the exact people you need to fix the problem.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    11. Re:Doesn't Figure by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Well obviously, otherwise we would not be having this discussion because the Wikileaks incident would not have occured.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    12. Re:Doesn't Figure by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      If everything done by upper management in government is bad, the only way to fix it is at the next election. BTW, my impression of this policy is not that they are going to oust these people, merely restrict their access to classified data.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    13. Re:Doesn't Figure by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      hey, at least he's not spamming some affiliate link...

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    14. Re:Doesn't Figure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the civilian version of this idea goes "The beatings will continue until morale imrpoves".

    15. Re:Doesn't Figure by HomelessInLaJolla · · Score: 1

      "unhappiness of an employee as a measure of trustworthiness".

      Are the employees unhappy because salaries suck?

      --
      the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
    16. Re:Doesn't Figure by CitizenCain · · Score: 1

      If everything done by upper management in government is bad, the only way to fix it is at the next election.

      And when *is* the next election for senior-level bureaucrats? :p

      Or was that based on the belief that the politicians we elect run the government, rather than the millions of unelected government employees? Something worth thinking about, at least - how much control the people we elect actually have over the government apparatus.

    17. Re:Doesn't Figure by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      If elected officials do not have the ability to control the actions of senior level bureaucrats, this discussion about government policy is pointless. I believe that elected officials still have the ability to control the actions of the bureaucracy, when they choose to exercise it. Elected officials often choose to allow bureaucrats to funtion without control so as to allow them a certain amount of deniability when those bureaucrats carry out the will of said politicians in ways that the voters do not approve of.
      I believe that the Founding Fathers would be horrified at the level of lawmaking that Congress has delegated to unelected bureaucrats. I suspect that the men who composed the Constitution would consider most of our federal regulatory structure to be a violation of the spirit of the Constitution when not an outright violation of what they thought was clearly written.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    18. Re:Doesn't Figure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No what happened is that a person with access read some cables and was shocked at what he or she read and decided that is was the opposite of what he or she swore an oath to protect.

      Such a person has no choice but to release the truth into the world.

      Now you should go read the cables, much of it isn't bad but some of it is, and some of it is extremely bad.

      You have no excuse for continued ignorance and continued ignorance will only make you a worthless bystander in this world, a worthless bystander completely at the mercy of everyone else in every way possible.

  4. Malcontents? by wjousts · · Score: 2

    I hope they are also going to be looking for ne'er do wells?

    1. Re:Malcontents? by Pojut · · Score: 1

      Can't forget about the hooligans...they're the ones causing all the ruckus (presumably, down at the docks.)

    2. Re:Malcontents? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I hope they are also going to be looking for ne'er do wells?

      "Malcontents" and "ne'er do wells"? Jesus Christ, this is America. The line forms over here.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:Malcontents? by longhairedgnome · · Score: 1

      Behind the queue?

      --
      GENERATION O98346: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig and remove a random number from the generation. T
    4. Re:Malcontents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a Witch Hunt. Is that American enough?

    5. Re:Malcontents? by Hydian · · Score: 1

      Can you describe the ruckus?

    6. Re:Malcontents? by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      I hope they are also going to be looking for ne'er do wells?

      And don't forget the foppish dandies. They are especially disturbing to the local constabulary.

    7. Re:Malcontents? by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a Witch Hunt. Is that American enough?

      Sure. You can't get much more American than these guys.

  5. Happiness is mandatory by Lazareth · · Score: 4, Funny

    Insufficient happiness will be punished by termination.

    1. Re:Happiness is mandatory by ckblackm · · Score: 2

      The beatings will continue until morale improves!

    2. Re:Happiness is mandatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a federal government contractor myself I think this is a really ass-backward approach. I work in a group with pretty low morale. Turnover rate is over 200% each year, almost all voluntary, but to imply that we're going to betray the government because we don't like our private company is asinine. In fact, if anything during my darker moods I've thought about reporting (relatively trivial) breaches of protocol on our organization's part to the government just to make things hard on my employer. I've never thought about disclosing classified information. Clearances in this industry are your goddamn meal ticket for chrissake. You might not like your company, but you sure as hell like your clearance. You'd have to be at a point where either you knew something really terrible and were pushed by conscience or you were just so depressed that you wanted to hurt yourself to do something like that.

    3. Re:Happiness is mandatory by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      You'd have to be at a point where either you knew something really terrible and were pushed by conscience or you were just so depressed that you wanted to hurt yourself to do something like that.

      ... or so drunk that you wanted to impress your mates at a party with your top sekrit knowledge...?

    4. Re:Happiness is mandatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You kid, but I was fired for that very reason.

    5. Re:Happiness is mandatory by Lazareth · · Score: 1

      Given horribly conditions require a certain kind of humour to keep on going.

    6. Re:Happiness is mandatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why people with TS clearance are given polygraph tests and have their backgrounds investigated through interviews of their friends and family, to see if somebody is irresponsible enough in their past behavior to do something like that. This precludes most leaks at that level, and if anybody gets that reckless after the fact, they deserve to lose their clearance immediately anyway.

    7. Re:Happiness is mandatory by Dabido · · Score: 1

      Think happy thoughts. Think Happy Thoughts. "It was good that you did that. Putting malcontents in the cornfield is good."

      --
      Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
  6. Unhappiness detectors by just_another_sean · · Score: 2

    Maybe they should borrow some of these from the Japanese!

    --
    Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
  7. Thought Police by hashwolf · · Score: 1

    Soon, if you'd like to keep your job you MUST also like it.

    --
    - "They misunderestimated me."
    1. Re:Thought Police by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

      "Do you like your pay cut? Do you? Do you? Here's a polygraph, never mind its legality. There ARE FOUR LIGHTS."

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    2. Re:Thought Police by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Soon, if you'd like to keep your job you MUST also like it.

      Excuse me, but it's been this way in private industry for quite some time.

      "We're wondering if you're happy in your job here with Megacorp."?

      ""Happy"? You've just asked me to work an additional 2 hours a day for no extra pay and weekends and you've increased my health insurance co-pays, and laid off half of my department and put their work on me, and I'm sitting in a fucking cubicle with fluorescent lights above my head that are strobing at a frequency guaranteed to make give me a psychotic break and I just spent 3 hours in a fucking team-building meeting while I've got a stack of work on my desk and deadlines that will keep me here all day Saturday and half of Sunday and I just read in Business Week that the CEO has been given a bigger stock option plan because of the company's record profits after telling me that due to "cost-cutting" I won't be getting a raise for the sixth year in a row. You want to know if I'm FUCKING HAPPY??? I'll show you fucking happy..." [takes out Glock 9mm with extended magazine as seen on TV]

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:Thought Police by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      I guess it must suck to have a junior position.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:Thought Police by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      For further examples, see: people who say they're unhappy with their jobs on social media sites.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    5. Re:Thought Police by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I guess it must suck to have a junior position.

      Friend, everyone has a "junior position".

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:Thought Police by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome our Thought Police overlords. Yes, I am a happy citizen. Happy, happy citizens. Thinking happy, happy thoughts!

  8. Will they ask about party affiliation next? by craftycoder · · Score: 2

    This is going to end badly for us all. Bureaucrats should be hired and fired based on their ability, not some arbitrary reactionary bloodletting done by party hacks.

    1. Re:Will they ask about party affiliation next? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Bureaucrats should be hired and fired based on their ability

      Are people at your company hired and fired "based on their ability"?

      Are they promoted "based on their ability"?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Will they ask about party affiliation next? by craftycoder · · Score: 1

      Was that a rhetorical question?
      The answer is obviously yes. There is always a little bit of nepotism, the boss's step-son hangs around doing nothing, but otherwise, of course, ability is the most important metric of success or failure at my company.

    3. Re:Will they ask about party affiliation next? by kent_eh · · Score: 1

      He said "should"

      Of course, the way things "should" be done, and the way they "are" done seldom match in most workplaces.
      Especially in larger workplaces, like government and corporations.

      --

      ---
      "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
  9. not in a gov job but they can give you a shit job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not in a gov job but they can give you a shit job.

    From now on you are janitor / maintenance.

  10. Ignore the real problem by sheepofblue · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They are ignoring the real problem. Why did this guy have access to all of that? Why was the data not walled off some? Seems he had the ability to access and download data that was irrelevant for his job and THAT was the issue that made this such a problem.

    1. Re:Ignore the real problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the real problem was doing illegal stuff to begin with.

    2. Re:Ignore the real problem by space_jake · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The thought the real problem was they did some shit they didn't want people to find out about and then buried it. Sounds like the solution to the problem is, don't be a douche.

    3. Re:Ignore the real problem by AlecC · · Score: 1

      It is an overreaction to the report on 9/11, which showed that various different police and intelligence agencies had information which, if correlated, would have given a loud warning that something bad related to flying airplanes was being planned, and thus might have allowed preventive action. In the intelligence arena, you can never tell which bit of intelligence might match up with which other bit, So they reacted by building a huge database with absolutely everything in it. And then - the real mistake - they gradually opened the whole database up to more and more people. But it is very hard to decide, in such a huge and miscellaneous database intended to show up unexpected correlations, who is allowed to access what.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    4. Re:Ignore the real problem by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Stop and think. Please. Do you think this is ALL there doing in the wake of that event? It isn't, this is just one part of it, and it's a smart one.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Ignore the real problem by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Besides, if the government hasn't done anything wrong, it should have nothing to hide? I mean, those rules work for citizens, why wouldn't they work for the government?

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    6. Re:Ignore the real problem by sheepofblue · · Score: 1

      Most of what he released was benign stuff like inter department emails that lowered confidence in us and disrupted the ability for staff to freely communicate. There was also a bunch that revealed information on how we operate endangering our troops. Add in the loss of confidence of anyone that wanted to covertly help us against the extremists in their midst that will now not help cure the problem.

      Had he filtered the data and limited it to illegal activity I might be on his side but that was never his goal.

    7. Re:Ignore the real problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Had he filtered it to illegal activity, we wouldn't have found out so much about how our best buds in Pakistan harbor terrorists, how our puppet government in Afghanistan is corrupt as all hell, and how Iran is doing pretty bad in the region.

      Thanks to them, Pakistan is now putting on at least a token show of dealing with the terrorists in their borders and Iran has pulled back a bit from their brinksmanship.

      Sadly, Obama has yet to have his security forces "accidentally" "neglect" to defend Karsai so he can take a bullet from a "terrorist" and we can start over with a puppet government that won't be Shah v. 2.

    8. Re:Ignore the real problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or better yet, why classify so much insipid information as secret? 'Top Secret', in a democracy, is a contradiction.

    9. Re:Ignore the real problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think your words explains well the problem: secrets in government.
      "Secrecy before democracy, secrecy before human ethics, secrecy before anything that would or that could
      expose to those who pay for it all and who suffer when the secret activity is wrong, misleading, illegal, stupid,
      or secretly transferring American hard earned money or assets to foreign interest or nations. .

      The farm population of humans should not be allowed to know, after all, the hard working, tax paying animals,
      might break out of their corals and that would disrupt the phony global economy that is beneficial only to the
      SENMACE.

      Maybe the question is whose independence did the declaration of independence declare?

  11. Re:not in a gov job but they can give you a shit j by Lazareth · · Score: 1

    Depends on what gov job we're talking about and what we mean by 'termination'.

  12. Ob AI Koan by rlp · · Score: 4, Funny

    A disciple of another sect once came to Drescher as he was eating his morning meal.

    "I would like to give you this personality test" said the outsider, "because I wish you to be happy."

    Drescher took the paper that was offered to him and put it in the toaster, saying "I wish the toaster to be happy, too."

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
  13. Hahaha! Cue the witch hunt in 5, 4, 3, 2 .... by erroneus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Malcontents" are bred and created through bad, illegal, immoral or otherwise questionable behavior of players in government industry. That's why we call them "whistle blowers" when the public needs to know. They aren't "whistle blowers" when you seek to get rid of them though... they are malcontents, party-poopers or even "terrorists!"

    This is and will be a witch hunt, however. Well meaning people who believe in the function and purpose of our government who haven't yet accepted that there is corruption beyond repair, are now to be pursued, persecuted and ejected from public service to better ensure that their dirty games can continue uninterrupted.

  14. Happy Workers! by SoTerrified · · Score: 1

    My hope is that the psychiatrist or sociologist comes in, and measures the employees...

    Boss: "Are they unhappy?"
    Psych: "Yes!"
    Boss: "Why?"
    Psych: "The problem mainly seems to be dissatisfaction with the government"
    Boss: "Ok, let the government know that all we need to do to prevent security breaches and minimize insider risk is to have an open, effective government. Problem solved!"

    1. Re:Happy Workers! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "The problem mainly seems to be dissatisfaction with the government"

      Tell them to stop spending so much time watching Fox News.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Happy Workers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      "The problem mainly seems to be dissatisfaction with the government"

      Tell them to stop spending so much time watching Fox News.

      Oh, there's plenty of legitimate reasons to be dissatisfied with the government. Fox News just happens to provide all the non-legitimate ones.

    3. Re:Happy Workers! by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Tell them to stop spending so much time watching Fox News.

      Three years ago, one could have made the same statement about MSNBC.

    4. Re:Happy Workers! by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Oh, there's plenty of legitimate reasons to be dissatisfied with the government.

      For one thing, they've allowed all our media to become consolidated into the hands of about 5 mega-corporations, e.g. Rupert Murdock's News Corporation.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    5. Re:Happy Workers! by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      Tell them to stop spending so much time watching Fox News.

      Three years ago, one could have made the same statement about MSNBC.

      So, stop watching Fox News *and* MSNBC. In fact, stop watching stupid bullshit altogether and try to find out the actual facts as best you can. Everything else is pointless posturing.

    6. Re:Happy Workers! by 517714 · · Score: 1

      Stop trying to control anything outside of their job. Your mindset is part of the problem.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    7. Re:Happy Workers! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      So, stop watching Fox News *and* MSNBC. In fact, stop watching stupid bullshit altogether and try to find out the actual facts as best you can.

      Now we're getting somewhere.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  15. Trustworthy? by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 2

    I am feeling that "higher" trustworthiness means "lower" integrity. That is an awful foul definition of trust, especially in an "open" government.

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    1. Re:Trustworthy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't mean lower integrity, it means lower loyalty.

      In 2007, Naomi Wolf published a controversial book called "The End of America", where she attempts to make the case that some of the changes we are seeing in our government have started to resemble a shift towards fascism. In Chapter 8, there is a section titled, "Pressure on Civil Servants". In it she explains the following:

      "In a fascist shift, while entertainers are the most visible, civil servants are the most vulnerable to being targeted with job loss: They work directly for the leadership." She continues with an example: "The Bush administration has purged civil servants who do not follow the 'party line,' long before the United States Attorneys scandal. When Washington Post reporter Dana Priest exposed the secret CIA prisons, the Bush White House fired the civil servant who leaked the information. The Justice Department also let it be known that it was opening a criminal investigation into the leak of information to the New York Times about the NSA eavesdropping program."

      Of course, the idea that our government is drifting towards fascism is just the ravings of a lunatic. Because like the title of Sinclair Lewis's book says, It Can't Happen Here.

  16. This is my "I just got a big sack of cash" grin! by shitetaco · · Score: 1

    I'm sure I'd look really happy at my crap-paying government job if a guy named Boris (or Chen or Ahmed) had handed me a big fat sack of cash in return for a few secrets.

  17. unhappiness != untrustworthy by confused+one · · Score: 4, Insightful

    [rant mode on]: Just because I'm unhappy, this does not make me untrustworthy. I trade on my experience, work ethic and reputation. I DO NOT violate trust. Not because I think I'm grossly underpaid. Not because I don't agree with my management. Not when I'm having a bad day. Not ever. This is an unrealistic measure that's likely going to unintentionaly bite good people in the ass.[rant mode off]

    1. Re:unhappiness != untrustworthy by memnock · · Score: 1

      those psych "tests" are pretty easy to game. i wouldn't be much worried about the tests. someone else mentioned the question of whether or not they're going to go down the road of thought police, starting with looking at your party affiliation. that's a little more worrisome to me.

    2. Re:unhappiness != untrustworthy by Magada · · Score: 1

      Ôishi, is that you?

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
    3. Re:unhappiness != untrustworthy by ultranova · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I DO NOT violate trust.

      What will you do if, while working for the government, you come up with evidence of highly illegal activities by your higher-ups? You'll either publish the evidence and violate their trust, or not publish and thus help cover their crimes, thus violating the trust of the public who ultimately pay your paycheck.

      Not violating trust is a fine principle, but it also allows corruption to continue unhindered. It also allows corporations to kill people through neglect like BP did. It allowed the Catholic Church to keep on protecting pdeophile priests for decades and pretend that this was a good thing. Or, to stop beating around the bush, it allowed Nazi death camps to operate despite every participant knowing perfectly well - judging by their own letters - that they were doing a horrible, vile thing.

      Every organization needs people who are ready to betray it. Otherwise there's nothing stopping it from rotting to the very core.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    4. Re:unhappiness != untrustworthy by NoSig · · Score: 1

      Problem is they can insert questions that will make it possible for them to tell if you are trying to game the system. An obvious one of those would be "have you ever lied?" - anyone saying no to that is gaming the test. They can make it less obvious than that and put in more than one question like that. Think about it this way: if you and a team of geniuses were given 5 years to make a test to root out malcontents and detect if someone is trying to game the test, are you quite sure you would utterly fail in that task?

    5. Re:unhappiness != untrustworthy by confused+one · · Score: 1

      The companies president calls me a "pessimist". My manager knows I'm not happy in my current situation. Psych tests aside, this begs the question: If the management knows I'm "unhappy", then does this exclude me from working on government contracts unnecessarily because the government equates "unhappiness" with "untrustworthy"?

    6. Re:unhappiness != untrustworthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I DO NOT violate trust.

      What will you do if, while working for the government, you come up with evidence of highly illegal activities by your higher-ups?

      That's a good question, don't know what I'd do. I hate to be a bad cliche, but I've got kids.

    7. Re:unhappiness != untrustworthy by Avatar8 · · Score: 1
      Exactly right.

      I was thoroughly unhappy, disgusted and by definition disgruntled while supporting the a government agency. Did I bother copying, viewing or distributing the sensitive files I had access to (interim 6C)? Not in the slightest. I have a reputation in the IT industry and if you break that trust relationship once, your career is over.

      They will easily find unhappy and disgruntled employees. Will they find those with the motive, means and chutzpa to carry out such acts? Almost definitely not.

    8. Re:unhappiness != untrustworthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the government does it then it can't be illegal.

    9. Re:unhappiness != untrustworthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a good question, don't know what I'd do. I hate to be a bad cliche, but I've got kids.

      Does Brad Manning have kids?

      No that's the wrong question here is the right one:

      Will Brad Manning ever be able to have kids?

  18. Increase success by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    Tell them what you are searching for and will find a lot of people, specially in places where everyone were happy before knowing that.

  19. odd... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I thought the REAL problem was that the government is violating its own laws/treaties, lying to its citizens, etc...

    I do agree, though, that going on a witch hunt for people who MIGHT not "go along w/the program" is definitely ignoring the real problem...

  20. petition...Government for...redress of grievances by karlandtanya · · Score: 3, Insightful

    OF COURSE the abusers of power in government don't want these people to have a place to speak, or anything substantive to say when they do speak. That's WHY this right is protected!

    Who else but the people who are pissed off against you are going to petition for grievances?

    And they have a right to do it, and they have a right to KNOW you're screwing them over--so that they CAN call you on your BS.

    If you specifically select against malcontents, you're not protecting yourself against security risks. You're abridging a fundamental right.

    Here's the text if you don't feel like looking it up. It's not like anybody got killed so you could have it:
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    --
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
  21. How long until by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The 2 minute hate sessions?

    1. Re:How long until by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It's been renamed for political correctness reasons. It's called the voluntary 2 minute we-love-our-country session now. We'll recite the oath during it. Tests are conducted in schools as we speak.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:How long until by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      You have been found guilty of double-plus ungood crimethink. Please report to the Ministry of Love for reeducation.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    3. Re:How long until by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Tell the ministry of love what I told the minitrue: That they can make oral love to my rear end.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  22. Disgruntled != Unhappy by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The normal word to use in this context is "disgruntled." Disgruntled employees are security risks because they may be out for revenge. No, that wouldn't include somebody unhappy because of a death in the family - unless I guess they were so distraught as to be demonstrably unhinged.

    Obviously the summary (and the story) use the word "unhappy" to make it seem (more?) unreasonable than it is, as usual.

    1. Re:Disgruntled != Unhappy by AlecC · · Score: 2

      As occurred in a company I worked for, where an employee in one of the overseas sales offices responded to being dumped by his girlfriend by going into the office and throwing the computer with the main sales database into the canal. He wasn't. so far as I know, pissed of with the company but with the whole world. But the company suffered.

      Backups? Outlying offices don't have IT staff who think of that. But a data recovery company retrieved the data - expensively.

      Someone with a sense of grievance can take out their anger in strange ways.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
  23. waste of resources and used to persecute by space_hippy · · Score: 2

    More HSPD12 crap. I went though a more invasive background check for a "position of public trust" than friends that got "secret" clearances. And everything I work on is public domain except for some private information from my contractor company.

    If my government(USA) starts treating everyone like criminals they are going to start acting like criminals. Or is that to hard of a concept to understand for congress and the administration.

  24. Too bad, so sad by lolococo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Funny to see how the US government is reacting to the Cablegate events in all the wrong ways. Instead of taking the opportunity to show the American people that it is a democratic government, and demonstrate for a change some measure of honesty and willingness to take a stand for people's freedom and rights, it simply makes it clearer by the minute what its intent is: grab the power, keep the power, perpetuate that situation and screw those who oppose it.

    By these actions, this government, like those of most other countries, is making itself the enemy of the people. This may be a bleak world, but that's the only one we've got.

    1. Re:Too bad, so sad by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      As someone who had a pretty good view of communism (just 10 miles to the next communist country), it seems we're getting there, but at least with more entertaining TV program.

      At least for now, we're working on that too.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Too bad, so sad by I8TheWorm · · Score: 1

      Whew! I'd love some entertaining TV... think we can sell them our reality programs?

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    3. Re:Too bad, so sad by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      > As someone who had a pretty good view of communism (just 10 miles to the next communist country)

      Sarah Palin, is that you?

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    4. Re:Too bad, so sad by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Instead of taking the opportunity to show the American people that it is a democratic government...

      It's not. It's a Republic. There is a difference, that's why we have different words for them.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    5. Re:Too bad, so sad by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

      On the very small scale (e.g. around 30 people) communism can work. It doesn't scale well because the only mechanism encourage people to act in the best interests of the whole is societal pressure, which becomes less effective with larger numbers as people become more anonymous. To an extent, most music festivals are communist -- from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs. But these are very transient institutions; it's easy to be altruistic for a few days out of a year when united with a bunch of other people by common interests.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    6. Re:Too bad, so sad by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      As someone who had a pretty good view of communism (just 10 miles to the next communist country), it seems we're getting there, but at least with more entertaining TV program.

      You mean, you didn't enjoy dancing the Lipsi?

    7. Re:Too bad, so sad by Avatar8 · · Score: 1
      My thoughts exactly.
      Instead of showing some semblance of integrity and honor by admitting mistakes, unveiling all the secrecy and working on open, honest, namely "transparent" operations, negotiations, discussions, etc., they continue the process-heavy, morale dropping business of legislative power exercises.

      I mean just read the memo. If you want people to understand, get away from the lengthy business-speak. This isn't even legalese, it's just excessive verbiage meant to constrain and confuse instead of being a clear and concise message. This lack of communication skill is the basic problem our politicians suffer. They're so used to double-talking and spinning they don't know how to speak plainly and openly.

    8. Re:Too bad, so sad by gknoy · · Score: 1

      Republics are still forms of democracy.

    9. Re:Too bad, so sad by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      What did I do to deserve being insulted that way?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:Too bad, so sad by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      WTF is the Lipsi? The only thing Wikipedia has under this title is a Greek island.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:Too bad, so sad by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      WTF is the Lipsi? The only thing Wikipedia has under this title is a Greek island.

      Sorry, it's not on the English Wikipedia, though it is on the German Wikipedia. Actually, the only English link I can find relating to it is here. It was a dance (named after Leipzig) produced by the DDR government that was devoid of all the evil, decadent Capitalist influences, like rock-and-roll.

    12. Re:Too bad, so sad by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      So the GDR created a dance to counter the "bad influence" of Rock'n Roll?

      Damn, bet some people wish they had that great idea!

      But then it ain't really a new phenomenon that the "old" don't really understand that music of the "young".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  25. Simple solution by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    Put out a memo requiring everybody to smile all day in the office, on pain of being fired.

    Morale will skyrocket.

    1. Re:Simple solution by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      And Friday will be funny hat day.

      I somehow don't feel like playing Paranoia anymore. It feels too much like home more and more.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Simple solution by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Didn't you get the memo? Next Friday... is Hawaiian shirt day. So, you know, if you want to, go ahead and wear a Hawaiian shirt and jeans.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    3. Re:Simple solution by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Oh effing great, so now we got a dress code on Friday?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  26. Why not just stop doing illegal and immoral things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm sure the employees would be much happier, and less likely to leak - wait - what would be there to leak if they stopped doing those first 2 things?

  27. looking at this the wrong way by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

    This isn't an attempt to get rid of people before they leak stuff like Bradley Manning, this is simply an attempt to reduce the bureaucracy! I mean think about it, have you ever seen a happy bureaucrat? No, they're all miserable and depressed. This is actually just a way to reduce manpower and costs without Congress having to lose face by making huge budget costs! People always complain the government is too big and bloated, and wastes too much money, but when the government does something about it, they still complain!

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  28. They should just give all the employees Soma by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 1

    After all, a gramme is better than a damn.

    --
    I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
  29. Re:The feds could stop this with a very simple law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    5) Your spouse and children, by law, cannot receive any government services except public education for at least five years.

    Wonderful! Just like North Korea!

    Feh, I was getting sick of justice and due process anyway. I'd much rather live in a sanitized society like North Korea.

  30. Re:not in a gov job but they can give you a shit j by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    When they really want you to quit, they'll make you a Windows sysadmin.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  31. Now who's dumb enough to answer this truthfully? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Essentially the question they're asking is "is contracting you a security risk?" Now what company head in his sane mind would answer yes?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  32. Predictable effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The effects of Wikileaks were always predictable: loss of freedom.

    A small, targeted leak of a horrifying act might change public policy (eg: CoIntelPro revelations). But anyone who thinks that such a massive leaks will benefit us doesn't live in the real world. The evidence is plain to see: the Wikileaks event has changed absolutely nothing, except more controls being implemented.

    In the future, I expect most documents to have invisible watermarks, such that leakers will be quickly identified.

    If Assange had a more realistic and strategic view of things, he might have had a much more positive effect. As it is, his actions only hurt us.

    1. Re:Predictable effect by AlecC · · Score: 1

      With respect to the current set of leaks, allegedly via Bradley Manning, I entirely agree. Even if one had an appropriate court and perfect witnesses, who would be prosecuted for the things revealed? Diplomats lie. Other diplomats know that. The Manning leaks are merely gossip, on an international rather than local scale.

      This differs sharply from the earlier leaks of helicopters allegedly shooting down civilians. That could, in a perfect world, lead to trials for war crimes. In an imperfect world, they can at least be tried by public opinion.

      The Manning leaks have severely damaged Wikileaks in my view. What they /were/ doing was revealing information in the public interest. What they /are/ doing is revealing information that the public is interested in, which is not at all the same thing. And Assange has become a publicity whore.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
  33. That's not what this is by geekoid · · Score: 1

    It's simply finding out who is not happy. Thegovernment trusts a large majority of ti's employees, and a vast majority of the employees trust there employeer.

    And group of people goes through this, whether sits a corporation or a government agency. Something happens, the organization responds, things get better, then something happens.

    It's jsut part of have a lot of humans working together.

    Usually, the government does it far more reasonably and productive then corporation.

    Naturally the government is actually many branches, many agency and many people. So there will be exceptions.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:That's not what this is by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And what are they going to do when they find unhappy employees? Are they going to find out why they are unhappy and see what they are going to do to help? Or are they going to fire them? If it's the latter, then we've got unhappy employees with an incentive to lie to keep their jobs. Now you *can't* trust your employees anymore.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:That's not what this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fired out of a canon?

    3. Re:That's not what this is by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      It's simply finding out who is not happy. Thegovernment trusts a large majority of ti's employees, and a vast majority of the employees trust there employeer.

      And group of people goes through this, whether sits a corporation or a government agency. Something happens, the organization responds, things get better, then something happens.

      I've worked within various Government organizations, all the while tending to be the resident malcontent most likely to tilt the nearest windmill. I also do good work. My inclination to tilt windmills tends to lead to improvements to my employer's environment that would not have been made following the status quo.

      I'm not entirely comfortable with this direction. Bureaucracies do sometimes learn from events, however, sometimes they learn the wrong lesson. My concern here is that you'll have bureaucrats incapable of dealing with the subtleties of trust using this directive to mount witch hunts against people who shake their comfortable status quo. That endangers the jobs of people who would otherwise be perfectly functional and trustworthy employees which hurts the organization.

      Of course - we know this is the kind of chaos that Assange wants. I envision a turtle-necked Julian leaning back in a mesh chair, basked in the dark glow of several screens in an otherwise dark room late at night. His fingers steepled. "Exxxxcellent."

      The irony of the situation is that if this does bring about anything, it is likely the ousting of more people most likely to be future whistleblowers.

    4. Re:That's not what this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's exactly the point. The government is a bankrupt business which has as so far been unable to lay off dead weight employees. By going through this "national security" dog and pony show, they have an entirely arbitrary metric by which they can fire people they don't like and be immune to lawsuits for "national security" reasons.

      Every had an employer force you and all of your coworkers to "re-apply" for your jobs?

      Same thing. Just a deceptive means of firing people working the loopholes in fair labor practice legislation.

    5. Re:That's not what this is by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 1

      Fired out of a canon?

      Into the sun.

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
  34. Re:Hahaha! Cue the witch hunt in 5, 4, 3, 2 .... by Magada · · Score: 2

    Hopefully, yes. Then they will have even more reason to be malcontent, but no more illusions about fixing the system from within. It's a win-win, see?

    --
    Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
  35. Re:petition...Government for...redress of grievanc by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

    What happens when those petitions go unheeded?

    What happens when the opposed policy is praised by other governments and people in high regard?

    What happens when an already-disgruntled government employee with access to confidential documents sees one too many things go against them?

    There's no infringement on free speech here. Any government employee can express any opinion they like about the government. That's never been in question. Instead, government employees who might be a security risk get moved away from confidential information, just like any sane person would move a pyromaniac away from flammable items. It's not an infringement of a perceived right to "say or do anything, anywhere, anytime, with no consequences". It's common sense.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  36. It only takes one by mangu · · Score: 1

    Governing systems without implicit trust of the vast majority of its employees are disasters waiting to happen.

    The question is how vast? If they have the trust of (all - 1) of their employees leaks will happen.

    1. Re:It only takes one by BobMcD · · Score: 2

      So design the system to operate with as few secrets as humanly possible, and brace for the rest.

      People are untrustworthy by their very nature.

  37. Re:The feds could stop this with a very simple law by AlecC · · Score: 1

    #5: So fire service will refuse to protect their house, police will refuse to defend them, they cannot get driving license, they cannot access the courts, children/parents cannot access life-critical Medicare/Medicaid. Sounds pretty Stalinist to me.

    --
    Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
  38. Thought Police by OwMyBrain · · Score: 0

    Hurray the Thought Police are being deployed! Now we can all rest happily!

    I hope you like the Status Quo, because it seems that anyone unhappy with it will now be ousted from governmental positions where they could have had a chance to make things better.

  39. Sometime by geekoid · · Score: 2, Informative

    an article will come up in /,. abuot something I know fairly well. This is one of those times.

    It's a stark reminder that you're mostly a bunch of ignoramuses that spout off about crap you know nothing about.

    What the majority of posters think this is, it's effectiveness, and out come would be laughable if those ideas didn't spread ignorance about the US government; which despite it's flaws is one of the best governments in the world.

    It treats the peple it works for well, it works to protect the rights of it's people, and has almost no corruption.

    Its not perfect, and of course there are exception, but look at the whole and it's pretty good. We can do better, and we will.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Sometime by PPH · · Score: 1

      But this government goes through bouts of corruption and incompetence. Under other circumstances, complaints and suggestions are handled within the system or by legislation. But we just came off almost a decade of an administration (and even longer, Congress) that basically took the attitude of "We're going to run this country for the benefit of our cronies. The rest of you can go fuck yourselves. You're just cannon fodder for our schemes." The system was broken and the people who sought to do fix it had no other option than to take their issues to the public.

      Its not the first time that this has happened. Remember the Pentagon papers. That was just as big a deal in its time. But the crisis blew over and now, many people who would have thought otherwise at the time can understand Ellsberg's motivation for going public and the subsequent good that came of turning this issue over to the public.

      Want to keep another disgruntled employee from going public with grievances? Make sure that internal mechanisms for reporting and fixing problems actually works.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Sometime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      has almost no corruption

      Almost? I would agree there is little corruption compared to some other countries but I wouldn't try to make it smell like roses. The US government scores like a pinball machine on the definition of corruption:

      CORRUPTION -noun
      1. moral perversion
      2. lack of integrity
      3. dishonest
      4. bribery (lobbyists)
      5. alteration, as of language or a text (i.e. The Constitution, Censorship and Freedom of speech issues)

    3. Re:Sometime by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      It treats the peple it works for well, it works to protect the rights of it's people, and has almost no corruption.

      What fucking world are you living in? I'll agree it's not perfect, and we could do better. But protects the rights of it's people? I don't think the government, in general, has done that for a couple decades now (perhaps with the exception of a few courts scattered about the country).

      It's a stark reminder that you're mostly a bunch of ignoramuses that spout off about crap you know nothing about.

      And how the hell do you get modded up for spouting off such self-serving, smug, flambait bullshit as this? You didn't even remark about what you know, "fairly well," to justify such an assertion.

      Here, I've got a comment as equally useful and verifiable as your own. "Sometimes I have a flash of enlightenment and shoot lightning out my hands. This just happened to me five minutes ago. It's a stark reminder that I am God and all other slashdot users should bow before my undeniable power."

    4. Re:Sometime by ultramk · · Score: 1

      I think the problem is when people who are smart and informed in their specific field of knowledge try to apply that experience and logic to other disciplines. Instead of realizing that they don't really understand the area, they transfer their feelings of competence and intelligence where they really don't belong.

      The human ego is an interesting thing. For some reason, geek culture is rife with this kind of thing. It's hard for some people to admit that being smart about one thing doesn't equal being smart about everything.

      --
      You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
    5. Re:Sometime by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Sad but true. As corrupt as the US government is, it is actually one of the least corrupt governments in the world.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    6. Re:Sometime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... the US government; which despite it's flaws is one of the best governments in the world.

      By what metric? The level of obfuscation? Apathy generation? Neo-aristocratic "elitism"? Subverting its own professed ideals?

      It treats the peple it works for well, it works to protect the rights of it's people, and has almost no corruption.

      Extremely invasive and possibly health-damaging screenings in airports and elsewhere. Confiscation of legal personal property from citizens and visitors at borders, using it for industrial and political espionage. Poor governmental services like health-care, a minimum level of survivable income, and a minimum level of care for the elderly. Poor standard of general education. Highest per capita prison population in the world. Institutionalized corruption (known as Congress). Triggering world wide financial crises and instability. A financially insolvent government that has gotten stern public warnings from its creditors about the rampant devaluation of US currency.

      There's so much more, particularly as concerns human rights issues. Recently you've managed to make China look good by multiple cases of US government use of kidnapping and torture both directed at US citizens and innocent foreigners,

      ...look at the whole and it's pretty good.

      And sometimes drugs is bad for you. Or maybe crack would be a good improvement for you, kind of looks that way :3

      Enjoy your Snow Crash.

    7. Re:Sometime by 517714 · · Score: 1

      We have always been at war with Eastasia. This Kool-Aid tastes funny!

      I assume you intended you post as the setup for a punchline since you can't be serious with that drivel, "We can do better, and we will." What we here is an attempt to further disengage our government from control by the populous and you seem to think we should blithely go on our merry way ignoring the the progressive erosion of personal liberties,and the increasing concentration of power in government and corporate entities. We can only "do better" if a lot of people stand up and show that we are not satisfied with the current state of affairs or the current course of our government.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    8. Re:Sometime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >It treats the peple it works for well, it works to protect the rights of it's people, and has almost no corruption.

      lol.

      >We can do better, and we will.

      rofl.

      Your're obviously a nice product of the educational system of the USA (Gatto). You're obviously not a student of political science (Mencken, Nock, FG Bailey, Higgs...).

      From Joseph Stiglitz, not exactly a tea partier, on his adventures in DC:

      "I had expected lower standards of evidence for assertions than would be accepted in a professional article, but I had not expected that evidence offered would be, in so many instances, so irrelevant, and that so many vacuous sentences, sentences whose meaning and import simply baffled me, would be uttered. . . . Empirical evidence--at least beyond an anecdote or two--and theoretical analysis should have been able to shed light on the merit of alternative policies. While that is where the conversation should have begun, it almost never got that far. What occurred was often worse than Gresham’s Law: it was not only that bad arguments seemed to drive out good, but good economists, responding to implicit incentives, adopted bad arguments to win their battles."

      Your government is a total joke with the primary objective of fleecing people. Goethe, 'None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.' Very nice... not to pick on the Obama administration in particular because this isn't new, but topical now... you believe the gov works to protect rights and has almost no corruption when gov. health care directly benefits buddies of it's proponents and Bernanke is making his buddies rich at your expense. I say again for the deaf, that's not a dig on Obama in particular, this has been the theme in the USA since the 18th C.

      A sweet deal for the people you admire.

    9. Re:Sometime by milkasing · · Score: 1

      It treats the peple (sic) it works for well, it works to protect the rights of it's people, and has almost no corruption.

      I guess you have not been paying attention to what has been going on.
      The US is no longer in the best 20 countries as far as corruption is concerned

      As for protecting the rights of its people, a cursory look even in the YRO in slashdot itself, shows that the US is no paragon of virtue today, and that it is heading in the wrong direction.

      It's a stark reminder that you're mostly a bunch of ignoramuses ...

      Oh, the irony.....

    10. Re:Sometime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must not live in Illinois.
      Illinois government, the best government money can buy.
      We auction off senate seats.
      Pressure newspapers to fire editors who are critical.
      We have 3 ex Governors making license plates.
      Cook county Treasurer Maria Pappas has a personal maid (Teresa Kawa) and a chauffeur ( Emanuel Hatzisavas) on the payroll as "Administrative Analyst” and “Project Leader” respectively costing the Tax Payers $57,347 and $94,078 per year.
      http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/01/12/is-treasurer-maria-pappas-wasting-your-tax-dollars/

  40. Demotivation by khasim · · Score: 1

    http://www.despair.com/demotivation.html

    I recommend we start a fund to send those plaques to any department even thinking about implementing this.

  41. Trustiness by dzerkel · · Score: 2

    enough said.

    --
    "What's the point of going abroad, if you're just another tourist..."
  42. Barred Entry by Cruciform · · Score: 2

    I expect that once Twitter hands over user data to the US regarding followers of WikiLeaks that a lot of us will be barred entry from the country. I don't especially care, but it could inconvenience many.

    Oddly there are people who would say "You're paranoid, that wouldn't happen." despite years of people being unable to board airplanes because of a vague list.

    1. Re:Barred Entry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I expect that once Twitter hands over user data to the US regarding followers of WikiLeaks that a lot of us will be barred entry from the country. I don't especially care, but it could inconvenience many.

      Yeah, you only leave your parents' basement to drive across the border to buy undies once a year anyway... you can always turn them inside out.

    2. Re:Barred Entry by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      What will be even more interesting is those of us already living in the country will probably be barred from leaving. That no-fly list sure does a lot more than protect us from terrorists doesn't it?

  43. Ah, Yes, malcontents... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Those annoying people that won't shut up about the sociopathic executive that runs a routinely over-budget, under-performing department where funds and assets magically disappear, women are sexually harrased; employees are bullied into working 60+ hour, 40 hour work weeks; no one has the authority to actually make decisions about how to do their own job, and where security breaches are frequent, internal, political, petty, and passed off onto scapegoats. Yep, those malcontents are the problem.

    I'm sorry; that hit a bit of a sore spot.

    1. Re:Ah, Yes, malcontents... by PPH · · Score: 1

      That did it, Mr AC. We'll be watching you.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Ah, Yes, malcontents... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it did here too, although I thought we were known as "Disaffected Individuals".

  44. Re:not in a gov job but they can give you a shit j by BobMcD · · Score: 1

    ...insensitive clod...

  45. Happiness is Mandatory. Trust the Computer. by Tackhead · · Score: 2

    And what are they going to do when they find unhappy employees?

    Happiness is mandatory. Trust the Computer!

    Your mission, PET-R-GUN, involves a bit of defective work. You and your team of troubleshooters are to locate all of the unhappy employees working in Federal Complex!

    Are they going to find out why they are unhappy and see what they are going to do to help? Or are they going to fire them?

    Unhappy employees are to be fired On. which basis they're to be fried is up to you.

    Note: Any typographical errors in mission briefings are doubtless the result of commie pinko mutant traitors, and certainly not the fault of speech-to-text processing software running on the Computer.

    Do you see any typographical errors or potential ambiguities in your mission briefing, PET-R-GUN? (No? Good! You're doing better than your last clone!)

    Now carry out your mission, Citizen! Trust the Computer! The Computer is your Friend!

    1. Re:Happiness is Mandatory. Trust the Computer. by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the memories. I loved Paranoia.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  46. I can think of a better solution. by Steauengeglase · · Score: 1

    While not handing out security clearances to every Tom, Dick and Harry is a good start, you also have to ask what makes a malcontent in the first place.

    In the end malcontents either crave attention or you bred them. If you want to breed the perfect malcontent just apply the Bobby Kotic method:

    I think we definitely have been able to instill the culture, the skepticism and pessimism and fear that you should have in an economy like we are in today. And so, while generally people talk about the recession, we are pretty good at keeping people focused on the deep depression.

  47. Re:petition...Government for...redress of grievanc by karlandtanya · · Score: 3, Informative

    You miss the point (which is actually the focus of the headline).

    The violation of rights is demonstrated in the criteria used to exclude people.

    Selecting against pyromaniacs when granting access to the gasoline is a false analogy.

    A better analogy would be an employer (government or private) preventing anybody from distributing any sort of non-work-related literature while at work. That's permitted.
    But the emloyer could NOT specifically prevent people from distributing political literature that was pro-union.

    Note again that the violation is not in the prohibition, but in the criteria for selecting what's prohibited.

    By selecting against malcontents, you are specifically excluding those who would seek to exercise the right to petition for redress.

    The right to petition does not stop at "If the carefully selected lies we choose to present to you piss you off, you can say something. Because we have already prepared glib answers to shut you down, and, really--if we cared what you say about those issues, we wouldn't have let you know in the first place."

    The right to petition also includes "You get to see what we're doing and judge for yourself whether you have a grievance."

    A completely separate argument "it's an issue of national security" is code for "we've told a different lie to everyone involved. We would be quite embarrassed if you people got together to compare notes." God help us if you actually found out what we do here--you'd be pretty angry about it.

    --
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
  48. Re:The feds could stop this with a very simple law by NoSig · · Score: 1

    You don't understand what motivates whistle-blowers. They are not spies paid by a foreign government - they are not paid at all. They are the people protecting your country from the likes of you. Hence you want them executed, though perhaps there is hope that the American populace will see who the true threat is. The scary part is that your ilk probably don't even understand that you are destroying that which you are seeking to defend.

  49. pan et cirences by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    Would anything useful be accomplished by those people even without bread and circuses such as the aforementioned TV program?
    I have a feeling many people would be sheep anyway, so you might as well let the sheep enjoy themselves.
    Those who are not sheep could have the capacity to better handle the experience/impact of the bread and circuses.
    P.S. Rihanna doing What's My Name on the Season 7 final did not bother me. At all. :P

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  50. Let the Witch Hunt begin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So our government is starting another Witch hunt.

    They will be black listing the innocent for baseless and unfounded reasons.

    So how do you determine unhappiness lever and how does this relate to a persons ethical and trust worthiness?
    What Sudo-Science are they dreaming up to do this with? What fundamental religious criteria are they going to include? Everyone knows that only the right kind of good Christians who believe in the right kind christian in the right way are the only people that can be trusted.

    The TSA use of Genotology's invasive and humiliating genital exams to determine your terrorist quotient and threat level.

    They could bring back Phrenology and start looking at the bumps on peoples heads to determine who the good people are.

    There is always palm reading. Revive Mistress Cleo's psychic network to implant a national psychic palm reading program to find the people who will do something "bad" in the future.

    PS.
    Insert the obligatory Minority Report reference here.

  51. Most Insightful Comment So Far by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    The answer of course is to use this as an excuse to fire anyone you don't like. Dig enough into anyone's past and you will find some reason to fire them that will sound good to the federales. Then you hand over a list and say "we identified all of these security risks and eliminated them, we are shiny and clean!"

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  52. Unhappy as a noun by KhabaLox · · Score: 1

    Was I the only one who had to read the summary's first sentence about four or five times to get that 'unhappy' was being used as a noun and not an adjective? I think the problem was the hyperlink. Had it started with 'rousted' I think I would have been able to parse the sentence much easier.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas un sig.
  53. In North Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are happy because the dear leader says so.

  54. $42,000,000 bonus for CEO mr. grabby-ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    oh, you work for HP?

  55. Who shall watch the watchers? by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    ... measuring the "trustworthiness" of their employees and whether they use a psychiatrist or sociologist to measure the unhappiness of an employee as a measure of trustworthiness

    Who will measure the unhappiness of the psychiatrists and sociologists?

    --
    -kgj
  56. Re:This is my "I just got a big sack of cash" grin by PPH · · Score: 1

    And therein lies a big problem. The people who should be discontent* but are not are the ones you want to suspect. Somethings up. They may not be receiving large sacks of cash, but there are other ways to game corrupt or inefficient systems. Every organization needs a certain level of dissatisfaction with the status quo to drive improvements. If its not there, either the corporate (bureaucracy) culture has failed to encourage it, or people are looking out for themselves.

    *Those that are smart enough to see the problems and ethical enough to believe that they should be fixed. The morons who sit around with grins on their faces need not apply.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  57. /Malcontent Central. by tunapez · · Score: 1

    Haha, I expected to see a sea of white and hear crickets chirping in this story's comment section...

    ducking...running...desperately trying to delete post............

    --
    Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...
  58. missing the point by bugi · · Score: 1

    Oh goody here comes the loyalty tests.

    The act of whistleblowing, which is what wikileaks facilitates, is one of the highest forms of patriotism in a democracy: keeping the government answerable to the people requires that the people know what government is up to, *especially* when it's up to no good.

  59. Great. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Now, let also find those that are spying on America. The fact is that there are more malcontents who should NOT be granted security clearances. That is an absolute fact.
    And we are LOADED with spies. I would guess that most are Chinese.

    HOWEVER, what is desperately needed is an overhaul of the system. For example, it is still considered an issue if you are gay. Yet, the majority of ppl that are gay and working for the gov. are happy ppl and do not care one bit if they are gay. These ppl are NOT security risk, and should not be treated as such.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  60. I don't see a down side by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    If you've got employees that are both disgruntled and too stupid to give the answers the interviewers expect to make them appear happy with their jobs, then they should be fired -- they're not worth paying goo money to.

    When I applied for work with the Air Force, I had to answer the question, "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party or any other organization with the stated intent of the overthrow of the lawful government of the United State?" which made me wonder, who in their right mind would answer "yes"???

    In light of the leaks, an information security review is appropriate. But it is mostly security theater, and serves no useful purpose except to remind people what they should have been doing all along. Since following security procedures is generally at cross purposes with getting real work done, you do need to constantly remind people to follow the non-productive procedures. Case in point: when I worked for the Air Force as a civilian contractor whose security clearance was not yet completed, I was not supposed enter the radome without an escort. What was the first thing my coworkers did? They gave me the combination to the radome door so I could do my job without bothering them.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  61. Unhappy != Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only Liberals, Communists, and Muslims = Treason. It's simple. The Don't ask Don't tell poster boy sold this Country out because he hates this Country. Don't let people into the armed forces, or this Country for that matter, that despise it.

    Liberals
    Communists
    Muslims

    That's the trinity of stupid that collapses nations.

  62. Re:The feds could stop this with a very simple law by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

    The 19th Century called. They want their Know-Nothing Party talking points back.

  63. Re:Hahaha! Cue the witch hunt in 5, 4, 3, 2 .... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

    "Malcontents" are bred and created through bad, illegal, immoral or otherwise questionable behavior of players in government industry.

    Actually, I'd disagree. There doesn't actually have to be anything illegal or immoral happening, simply things that conflict with an employee's world view. Hiring gays? That will get some subset of our populace really pissed off. Not hiring gays? That will also get some subset of our populace really pissed off. Quite likely in most government departments you will have employees pissed off on both ends of the spectrum about perceived behaviors of their bosses. That's just one example.

    That's why we call them "whistle blowers" when the public needs to know.

    True, and we have some pretty decent whistleblower protection laws on the books already.

    This is and will be a witch hunt, however. Well meaning people who believe in the function and purpose of our government who haven't yet accepted that there is corruption beyond repair, are now to be pursued, persecuted and ejected from public service to better ensure that their dirty games can continue uninterrupted.

    I doubt it will be anything of the sort. Rather, there will probably be some of the usual psych profiles and some touchy-feely meetings where people are encouraged to express themselves but won't because most of us are trained from a young age that it is better to lie to those in authority and hide from them our real selves. Maybe this will do some good and get some people with real problems help and maybe it will weed a few dangerous lunatics out of the ranks of bureaucrats. Mostly, however, I suspect it will be a huge waste of time and money.

  64. unbelievable by PingXao · · Score: 1

    When you have a budgetary office asking other government deptartments if they have psychologists evaluating their employees so as to prevent the leakage of government "secrets"..... you know what? you have too many goddamn secrets.

  65. Re:petition...Government for...redress of grievanc by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

    The right to petition is just that: The right to petition. Please point out where in the Constitution every government employee is given the right to publicly release confidential information.

    The union analogy is false, because there is no indication that having a union-loving employee will cause any harm. In contrast, allowing disgruntled government employees access to classified material weakens the trust in that classification. Part of the point of diplomatic cables is that nations can communicate without worrying about other nations knowing what was said. Without trust that those communications are secret, communication stops, and diplomacy breaks down.

    Of course there are different stories told to everyone, but it's not because the government is intending to lie to the people. The intent is to plan actions before revealing them to other nations. That's why traditionally these materials have been fairly easy for anyone with proper clearance to access. Now it's obvious that can't be the case anymore.

    There is definite harm in having security risks accessing secure material. That's why I used the pyromaniac analogy. There is definite harm in giving a pyromaniac unfettered access to flammable materials.

    The idea that everyone should have access to everything is naive. Perhaps we should allow 6-year-olds to drive a car and vote? Anything less is discrimination!

    Maybe I'm overreacting. Maybe it's just the government that can't have secrets. In that case, let's release the complete personal and social history of everyone who enters public office. Why stop there? Let's release all the personal details of every government employee! Everyone should have a right to know how many speeding tickets their mailman has received!

    Perhaps that's too personal. Instead, let's just openly publish every detail on how to produce a working nuclear missile!

    Where does it stop? Secrecy is a vital part of running a nation, like it or not. Sure, some things are kept secret wrongfully, and there is legal precedent for the limited leaking of classified information for the public good. Widespread releases are not intended for the public good. They're intended to embarrass the United States government, and disrupt normal actions. They're the actions of a disgruntled employee, not a defender of democracy.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  66. Re: Julian Assange as Osama Bin Laden by ormondotvos · · Score: 1

    In "Conspiracy as Government" Julian Assange says his intent is to slow down and confuse the conspirators, so their grip on the population is lessened. Sounds like he's triggered an absolute firestorm of stupidly repetitive documents flying around, confusing the Department of Homeland Security. Being retired, I read the whole thing, which can be summed up as "Be more careful with data, DAMMIT!!" Mission Accomplished, Julian! Hope you survive!

  67. Happy in a miserable job? by Slur · · Score: 1

    What worries me more is the ones who are happy when they probably ought not to be. They're the ones who will happily stamp the execution forms all week long, then go home to their backyard barbecues on the weekends while the bodies are piled up in mass graves. I'm just sayin'... they should encourage more internal communication and get those malcontents to speak up. Or do the thing where you randomly promote people - which works according to studies. Anything to keep the diversity going. Organizations need to appreciate that a person may be malcontent because (A) they perceive a clear problem and (B) they are powerless to do anything about it or to even speak up. Organizations that oppress their members or demand abstract loyalties are doomed to turn into little Milgram experiments.

    --
    -- thinkyhead software and media
  68. Paranoia will destroy ya.... by metaforest · · Score: 1

    To all the Paranoia references.... Remember that the FBI took Steve Jackson Games out for being too subversive... there is no other credible justification... Steve Jackson Games pissed off the powers that be for being a little too effective in publishing games that painted the authorities in a bad light.

    Here we are again. With too many secrets in the bag.... and now, as many times before the government has so thoroughly defied the will of the people that it must systematically violate their rights for a time until scapegoats are in place to take the heat....

    Wash rinse repeat.

  69. Re:petition...Government for...redress of grievanc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it seems your straw man is unconvincing.

  70. Obligatory IT Crowd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone still experiencing stress at the end of the day...

    WILL BE FIRED!!!!!