Live data from Hacker News

The 'paperwork flood': How I drowned a bureaucrat before dinner

sightlessscribbles.com

421–430 of 510 posts

Re: The 'paperwork flood': How I drowned a bureaucrat before dinner

#421

> It is a letter that arrives every few years from the government, asking a question that is medically absurd and philosophically insulting: "Are you still disabled?" It... doesn't sound like an absurd practice at all. There are curable disabilities. And what's curable changes along with the advance of technology. It sounds about right to review the situation every a few years.

[deleted]

Re: The 'paperwork flood': How I drowned a bureaucrat before dinner

#422
post #324
post #18

Sounds like it's not real but... It reads like an indictment of the government employee personally, rather than the rules and constraints that employee is forced to use. Probably fair to comment on the interaction, whether the person was rude, and so on. But blaming them for not accepting email is kind of silly. They are not empowered to do that kind of thing.

I've heard this justification many times, but it's highly questionable. Imagine someone works for an organization, and 'the rules and constraints' require them to murder (without legal consequence) innocent people on a regular basis; is this morally justifiable? What if their 'job description' does not include 'murder', but they do indeed have to murder an innocent person each month because of the 'rules and constrai…

Following your organization's data security practices is not immoral. To me, refusing to accept a PDF is no different than running a cash only store and refusing to accept credit cards as payment.

Re: The 'paperwork flood': How I drowned a bureaucrat before dinner

#423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems like a problem for the telcos to resolve. I.e. don't allow calls from nations that do this.

>>> This is exactly what I do with telemarketer scammers. I have no limit of depravity that I draw from in attempt to offend them. No limits. And exactly for the reasons you describe. Get them to crack and quit the company. >> Have you heard of pig butchering? Sometimes the "scammer" you're talking to is practically a slave that will be beaten if they don't hit their numbers: https://www.wired.com/story/the-red-bull-…

I don't care about pig butchers, if thats what you're asking. Your argument is a variant of "Look what you made them do". It's fallacious.

Re: The 'paperwork flood': How I drowned a bureaucrat before dinner

#424
post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“ It reads like an indictment of the government employee personally” As a government employee: it often is the employee personally. Not always, but surprisingly often. There is a type of mid-level bureaucrat who just can’t be bothered to make anyone else’s life easier, even if they can. It’s just easier not to, and over time that becomes its own form of malice. The tales I could tell you about security officers basic…

But we do NOT want random government employs accepting data in random format by email they just decided that are safe and non-executable. It is not like the admin lady in the office got an extensive training about what can be done with pdf, xls, usb stick, txt and what not. They just have no idea. From this woman point of view, pdf in email is as safe as usb stick in a an envelope.

Agree that this is a very messy situation.

Most health information transferred online between patients and other entities goes through a portal rather than email to ensure PHI isn't transmitted over unencrypted SMTP or simply forwarded on to some insecure mail server. I.e. data loss prevention.

Wherever it goes, there are a various services that can be used to ensure the file is not malicious. Probably API integration with Palo Alto WildFire or ICAP protocol with Opswat would be the best choices. Neither would be affordable for small government offices.

Re: The 'paperwork flood': How I drowned a bureaucrat before dinner

#425

The author really lucked out that the government employee was not actually malicious. I can think of a good few ways she could have made life much more difficult for the author, even if he was likely to ultimately succeed.

Was thinking this too. She could have blocked that number on the (valid) basis that it was intentionally spamming them, and then stopped their benefits.

Re: The 'paperwork flood': How I drowned a bureaucrat before dinner

#426
post #27

Great read. While I admire the spite, I question the wisdom of pissing off a government employee with the power to deny your benefits.

And a government employee, who was only explaining in a polite, matter of fact way, what their department policy and government legislation allowed them to do.

If the story is true (I know it's labelled 'nonfiction' but c'mon) then likely the only reason the fax spamming worked is because the department policy prevented them from blocking numbers outside of very narrow circumstances.

Re: The 'paperwork flood': How I drowned a bureaucrat before dinner

#427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People given a tiny amount of power with no consequences for misusing it, inflicting their power on people for no better reason than that they can. Government is parasitic, with no market feedback, so people that would normally get weeded out for being awful humans, for incompetence, for psychopathy of various flavors - they all end up with a long, well paid career and no consequences. I find the story unlikely, read…

>Government is parasitic, with no market feedback, so people that would normally get weeded out for being awful humans, for incompetence, for psychopathy of various flavors - they all end up with a long, well paid career and no consequences. While I agree that the market feedback is a problem with gov jobs, I've worked corporate and small company jobs with all these negative tropes and the same result, you build a hi…

For sure - culture is a huge component. Government is unique in that incompetence and laziness and all the shitty behaviors that get people canned in the real world don't have an impact on money coming in. In some places, revenue increases steadily, completely decoupled from any sort of functional attachment to value.

So you can be a terrible, worthless, lazy, no-good, do-nothing, awful employee, skating by on the bare minimum level of effort, checking whatever set of boxes you need to avoid getting fired outright, make sure you kiss the appropriate asses and put on a show when you need to, and because there's no direct, immediate, obvious negative consequence to the overall organization, it's not worth the enormous effort it would take to fire you. If managers that care somehow get into leadership positions, people get shuffled off to a corner somewhere, assigned duties where they won't have a negative impact on morale or operations while the real, actual working employees do what they can.

If one of these fake-work employees ends up as a manager, through inertia and organizational default and seniority, the culture is guaranteed to be toxic, and because they're expert box checkers and ass kissers, they know how to put on a good show of "yep, everything's fine right here!" for whoever they need to report to. I've worked for all sorts of awful bosses, but awful government boss under an awful government department under this type of civil-service kabuki was the worst. Nothing destroys the spirit of a good leader faster than an entrenched department full of clever lifers who can't be fired or motivated or penalized because they've got the entire system gamed to their advantage.

You can, and do, get management and employees all throughout government that actually do give a shit and do good work. I'm not saying all the jobs are fake or useless. I do think a majority are fake and useless, and if you had a market dynamic that allowed competition and merit to reinforce strategy and weed out bad actors, you'd get a much leaner, more effective government overall.

Won't matter much longer, though. AI can already do better, faster, more reliable work than nearly all government workers, including the elected ones. I'd rather have Claude, ChatGPT, and Grok based agents as representatives at this point, over whatever this flaming feces clown show is we've had going on for decades. Even with the jailbreaks.

Re: The 'paperwork flood': How I drowned a bureaucrat before dinner

#428

For a second I thought this was one of my friends. He had his eyes removed due to a medical reason (already blind). He recently had to go to a vision doctor and take a vision test. To confirm to his insurance that he was indeed, blind.

I have no eyes and I must take a vision test to prove I'm blind.

I would hope that "any physician taking one look at you in the waiting room" would be a sufficient test.

Re: The 'paperwork flood': How I drowned a bureaucrat before dinner

#429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most faxes today are between two fax over the Internet services and so are completely pointless.

Amazingly enough, this is actually not true. Many smaller doctors' offices still have a physical fax machine. I work on automation for certain processes in healthcare and a very large proportion of the faxes we receive come from physical fax machines. You can see artifacts on the fax itself and sometimes the cover letter will have a scribbled note.

Do they still have POTS lines? Telecom companies are shutting down old SS7 switches so eventually all faxes are ultimately being sent over the Internet and it will be entirely vestigial.

Re: The 'paperwork flood': How I drowned a bureaucrat before dinner

#430

Under HIPAA requirements emailing personal medical info is a massive no-no. Admittedly, this is for the patient's protection, and of course being blind is not much of a secret... but it's completely understandable that email would be strongly discouraged. Nobody wants to get in trouble for breaking the rules. Honestly, being able to accept a fax is great, although I would think any properly outfitted modern office th…

The habitual espousal of protocol in place of humanistic discretion is the problem the author was trying to call out, and that you're actively partaking in.

Fun fact, traditionally, police officers are called upon to use their discretion over blind enforcement. The mechanized enforcement of law, historically, has never done any favors for society.

Post reply on HN