Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

sightlessscribbles.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 510 posts

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

#471

Post by TeMPOraL »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #257
catapart wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the author didn't make anything harder for anyone because the "fax" wasn't ever even printed, much less caused a backup or even a slowdown at all. the giveaway was having the karen call back to request the person stop. the initial phone call undoubtedly happened, but the fax was consumed by the same systems used in medical offices all around the country, which means that it arrived as a pdf in some repository and it…

>the author didn't make anything harder for anyone because the "fax" wasn't ever even printed, much less caused a backup or even a slowdown at all. You underestimate government inefficiency. You are correct, but I can also see a system that naively prints whatever is verified as a valid entry automatically.

Mentioned it in another comment, but I used to intern at a large physics facility in the UK some 15 years ago, and we had one of such old fax machines on a desk next to mine.

I only ever saw it print some automobile-related ads, about one-two per day, so I'm pretty sure if someone did the thing described in the story to our number, it would absolutely keep printing until the upstream aborted. I also know the whole floor section would be disturbed, and we wouldn't know what to do other than to unplug the machine and file a ticket with IT.

Now, fortunately, that fax machine was not a part of anyone's daily work there. In the situation/story described in the article, however, the fax machine is a critical dependency and disabling it like this pretty much shuts down part of the office. It really only ruins the day of individual employees, and possibly ruins the lives of fellow disabled. To the extent the government will care, they will chase the author/protagonist for misdemeanor, as they should.

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

#472

Post by kelnos »

ryandrake wrote: post #215
orzig wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's tricky, because _sometimes_ they do. And the system doesn't give you guidance on whether you're talking to someone who (officially or not) can change the process. So, based mostly on our personality, we all push a different amount before giving up. Relatable example: I needed to schedule a Pediatric appointment, her assigned Dr was on vacation, and the first receptionist stonewalled on switching Drs within the p…

Another similar example: Since it's tax time, I had to call a us gov office with a question. The first rep claimed "their system was down" and couldn't help me. I hung up and called back. The second rep was just nasty and stonewalled me by inundating me with security questions and refusing to "verify" my identity, so I eventually hung up and called back a third time. The third rep answered my question within a few mi…

Isn't it just DHS that's shut down? Presumably the people you were talking to are at the IRS, and they're still getting paid.

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

#473

Post by [deleted] »

raincole wrote: post #137
recursivedoubts wrote: post #33

Karen woke up this morning in her run down, rented flat. She briefly looks at the collections letter that showed up yesterday due to an unaffordable repair she had to pay for on her credit card. Another letter from her ex-partner's lawyer. As she rushes out the door (she spilled coffee on her one nice sweater, her favorite) her mom flashes through her mind... "What about mum?". She arrives at the office. It is an opp…

> She was talking to a blind man living below the poverty line. She assumed that "fax it" was an impossible hurdle. She assumed I would have to find a ride to a library, pay twenty cents a page, and struggle with a physical machine I couldn't read. She was counting on the friction of the physical world to make me give up. Does this author live in a country where the government staff has incentive to reject the dole?…

[deleted]

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

#475

Post by TeMPOraL »

p_l wrote: post #298
TeMPOraL wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More likely they'd just cancel the benefits.

The process described is literally an attempt at canceling benefits in "frog boiling" method. If Tories went straight to canceling benefits, they would end up in trouble, by making worst possible process they could put it in terms of "verifying eligibility and that benefit funds are not scammed out". Similar approaches are utilized in other areas of british government, unfortunately.

We seem to have the same in Poland, given that I occasionally hear about people being upset they have to re-prove to ZUS or NFZ they have a missing limb or other such (still) permanent disability.

> Similar approaches are utilized in other areas of british government, unfortunately.

Look, I'm as cynical as they get, but where you see an attempt at "boiling the frog", and the author sees a personal insult, I see a simple security/anti-fraud measure. They're doing it for the same reason your bank logs you out after some 20+ minutes even if you're active, why most sites have you reauthenticate withing days to months, why your certificates expire after a year, or why you may rotate your access/API keys frequently. This prevents an erroneous (or fraudlent) state from living forever.

I'm usually the security hater around these parts, never thought I'd have to defend these ideas. But the truth is: you don't have a process like this in place, you'll eventually discover double-digit percent of the money is going towards people with fake disabilities, registered once 40 years ago in bumfuck nowhere, and never verified since.

FWIW, I do agree such process can be weaponized against people in general or some groups specifically, and I'm also not saying the process described in TFA is perfect. I am saying that the process was not a problem in this story. This is a story with a protagonist that's an asshole who abuses technology to hurt innocent people.

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

#476

Post by TeMPOraL »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #260
TeMPOraL wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More likely they'd just cancel the benefits.

That politician would cancel their re-election. Assuming it gets that far. Even this federal administration can't handle the pushback of straining benefits. A local government stands zero chance with such a maneuver.

If everyone does that, per the commenter's question, then there will be no re-election, as at that point the country is on the brink of civil war.

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

#477

Post by cucumber3732842 »

mattkrause wrote: post #229
rogerrogerr wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cogs receiving abuse (which in this case is a scary word for "feedback from the public who is paying you and is unhappy with your process") _do_ cause the system to change. It's really not that much different from writing angry letters to Congressmen: One letter "doesn't do anything", but a surprisingly small number of letters does. And the one Congressmen "can't do anything", but usually a small number of Congressme…

In fact, writing to your Congressional rep is probably the way to solve this. They usually offer "casework" services where a staffer will facilitate their constituent's interactions with federal agencies. This would probably help get the OP's specific issue solved AND make the legislators aware of the problem more generally. My impression is that agencies are often pretty responsive to these things: nobody wants to b…

>They usually offer "casework" services where a staffer will facilitate their constituent's interactions with federal agencies. This would probably help get the OP's specific issue solved

That's almost worse because what it creates is a system that abuses everyone by default and only when someone cries to their politician does it shape up.

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

#478

Post by defrost »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #475
p_l wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The process described is literally an attempt at canceling benefits in "frog boiling" method. If Tories went straight to canceling benefits, they would end up in trouble, by making worst possible process they could put it in terms of "verifying eligibility and that benefit funds are not scammed out". Similar approaches are utilized in other areas of british government, unfortunately.

We seem to have the same in Poland, given that I occasionally hear about people being upset they have to re-prove to ZUS or NFZ they have a missing limb or other such (still) permanent disability. > Similar approaches are utilized in other areas of british government, unfortunately. Look, I'm as cynical as they get, but where you see an attempt at "boiling the frog", and the author sees a personal insult, I see a sim…

There's a middle ground between once, 40 years ago, never again, and once every year.

There's a show The Last Leg that talks about the UK procedures along with many other disability issues and hurdles.

Missing limbs don't grow back, Cerebral Palsy is incurable, and so on ... yet year in year out people are facing disruptions and re-checks for the 15th or 16th time now they're 28 .. and on it goes.

How much waste and needless aggro comes about from annual checks, how hard is it to follow through once every five years or even ten on conditions that have been confirmed three or four times already.

> you'll eventually discover double-digit percent of the money is going towards people with fake disabilities,

Yeah ... along with double digit election fraud and other fervid fantasies.

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

#479

Post by catapart »

canucker2016 wrote: post #436
catapart wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the author didn't make anything harder for anyone because the "fax" wasn't ever even printed, much less caused a backup or even a slowdown at all. the giveaway was having the karen call back to request the person stop. the initial phone call undoubtedly happened, but the fax was consumed by the same systems used in medical offices all around the country, which means that it arrived as a pdf in some repository and it…

The feature is called "unified inbox" - faxes appear as a PDF attachment in an email inbox somewhere. If the government department had a unified inbox for emails/faxes accessible by workers, then there wouldn't have been any "pain" in the form of consumables by the fax machine. That was my worry. Luckily for the author, the article says the fax number was handled by an old-school, real-life fax machine: It was Karen.…

> Luckily for the author, the article says[...]

>the giveaway was having the karen call back to request the person stop.[emphasis added]

if you believe that a government employee called this person back - especially in a full panic, right next to the alleged machine - I've got a bridge to sell you. I mean, yikes.

"Sir, please." - yeah; total defeat. this low-level government employee was in such a desperate place that they had to call the only person who could fix it and helplessly beg him to stop. the machine was simultaneously out of toner, but still trying to chug on with the print, making mechanical noises of helplessness? tl;dr - everybody clapped.

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

#480

Post by crazygringo »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #462
newer_vienna wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what I said. To feel an emotion is morally neutral, while to use your emotions to cause harm is wrong.

And where's the reaction of Karen using her apathy to harm someone who just wants to get their benefits and not go homeless? Apathy is an emotjon as well.

"Karen" is following procedure. She didn't create it. She's not choosing to harm anyone. The "no email" policy is not hers personally. She's entirely innocent here.
Post reply on HN