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.'"

Comments

White House Plumbers?

[dkleinsc]

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.

Re:White House Plumbers?

[Pojut]

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

Re:White House Plumbers?

[elrous0]

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.

Re:White House Plumbers?

[Ihmhi]

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.

Re:White House Plumbers?

[slick7]

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?

Bad Idea

[Advocatus Diaboli]

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

Re:Bad Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Malcontents?

[wjousts]

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

Re:Malcontents?

[PopeRatzo]

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.

Happiness is mandatory

[Lazareth]

Insufficient happiness will be punished by termination.

Re:Happiness is mandatory

[ckblackm]

The beatings will continue until morale improves!

Unhappiness detectors

[just_another_sean]

Maybe they should borrow some of these from the Japanese!

Will they ask about party affiliation next?

[craftycoder]

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.

Ignore the real problem

[sheepofblue]

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.

Re:Ignore the real problem

[space_jake]

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.

Re:Ignore the real problem

[dkleinsc]

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?

Ob AI Koan

[rlp]

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."

Hahaha! Cue the witch hunt in 5, 4, 3, 2 ....

[erroneus]

"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.

Re:Doesn't Figure

[Attila Dimedici]

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.

Trustworthy?

[Errol backfiring]

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

unhappiness != untrustworthy

[confused one]

[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]

Re:unhappiness != untrustworthy

[ultranova]

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.

odd...

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

petition...Government for...redress of grievances

[karlandtanya]

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.

Disgruntled != Unhappy

[timeOday]

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.

Re:Disgruntled != Unhappy

[AlecC]

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.

Re:Doesn't Figure

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

waste of resources and used to persecute

[space_hippy]

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.

Too bad, so sad

[lolococo]

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.

Re:Too bad, so sad

[Locke2005]

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.

Re:Thought Police

[Dunbal]

I guess it must suck to have a junior position.

Re:Thought Police

[GameboyRMH]

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

Re:Doesn't Figure

[ultranova]

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.

Re:Happy Workers!

[PopeRatzo]

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

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

Re:Hahaha! Cue the witch hunt in 5, 4, 3, 2 ....

[Magada]

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?

Re:Simple solution

[Opportunist]

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.

Sometime

[geekoid]

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.

Re:Happy Workers!

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:Doesn't Figure

[Attila Dimedici]

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.

Re:Doesn't Figure

[Attila Dimedici]

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.

Trustiness

[dzerkel]

enough said.

Re:Doesn't Figure

[Jeff DeMaagd]

[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.

Re:That's not what this is

[Hatta]

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.

Barred Entry

[Cruciform]

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.

Re:Doesn't Figure

[Hatta]

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.

Re:It only takes one

[BobMcD]

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.

Happiness is Mandatory. Trust the Computer.

[Tackhead]

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!

Re:petition...Government for...redress of grievanc

[karlandtanya]

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.