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.'"
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
Governing systems without implicit trust of the vast majority of its employees are disasters waiting to happen.
Insufficient happiness will be punished by termination.
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.
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]
"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.
[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]
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...
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
Obviously the summary (and the story) use the word "unhappy" to make it seem (more?) unreasonable than it is, as usual.
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.
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.
Tell them to stop spending so much time watching Fox News.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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!
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!
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