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

Australian welfare recipient’s data released to counter public criticism

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–67 of 67 posts

Re: Australian welfare recipient’s data released to counter public criticism

#61

Post by mercer »

yosamino wrote: post #57
yummyfajitas wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a clever debate tactic - declaring that comments which disagree with you are uncivil, by the mere virtue of disagreeing with you.

I think you're going about this a bit too simple and too confrontational. Your original comment started out with a generalizing remark which I felt to be uncivil and I called out out on it. I didn't actually completely disagree with the rest of your comment. Do you understand this ? You raised a perfectly valid point. My only disagreement with you is that you decided it is good etiquette to insult a whole group of pe…

For what it's worth, I usually upvote yummyfajitas' comments and I find him/her a very valuable part of HN, but in this particular case I downvoted because I think they erred on the side of insulting in their comment. Judging by the gray, others might've felt the same way. In my opinion it distracts from the actual points that were made.

That said, it is a decent possible that no insult was intended, so I'd suggest we just move on and discuss the content rather than the tone.

Re: Australian welfare recipient’s data released to counter public criticism

#62

Post by briane80 »

patrick-dd wrote: post #45
briane80 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if you read the article they did not attack the client. Compare that with the inflamatory language used in her article such as "Centelink terrorised me", "Terrorised by Centrelink, I began to behave as the bureaucracy saw me: angry, emotional, confused, dependent and idiotic" Secondly the only additional information released seems to be the actual date of when she seperated from her ex and failed to lodge the ch…

> Also have a look at her other articles in her blog. Poems about "blowjobs" and "Pussy" mixed in with the usual radical feminist nonsense. I thinkwe know exactly where she's coming from. No mate, can you please be explicit? It almost reads like you're saying it's OK for someone to have their financial records released by a Government welfare agency if they publish the word 'blowjob' on a blog.

Where did they release her financial records? Have you read the original article?

Re: Australian welfare recipient’s data released to counter public criticism

#63

Post by briane80 »

yosamino wrote: post #47
briane80 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if you read the article they did not attack the client. Compare that with the inflamatory language used in her article such as "Centelink terrorised me", "Terrorised by Centrelink, I began to behave as the bureaucracy saw me: angry, emotional, confused, dependent and idiotic" Secondly the only additional information released seems to be the actual date of when she seperated from her ex and failed to lodge the ch…

Original claim: > Ms Fox complained that her problem arose from the fact that she was chased by Centrelink for a debt actually owed by her former de facto partner. Centrelink rebuttal: > The agency says Ms Fox's debt [...] arose after she received more FTB than she was entitled to because she under-estimated her family income for that year. Counter-rebuttal: > As I outlined in my article, when your ex does not lodge…

Where did they personally attack her? Please provide some quotes from the original article and not the hyperbole in hers.

"scenarios that is not covered by standard procedures" Actually I know people who work in benefits and this is very common. It is entriely up to the claimant to notify the office in change of circumstances and anything else can be considered fraud. Also if you are claiming family benefit then they have every right to ask about your personal circumstances in terms of relationships and if you are living with someone as this determines the amount you can get.

Edit - In her original article she actually admits to ignoring letters from the office. This is a huge mistake.

Re: Australian welfare recipient’s data released to counter public criticism

#64

Post by vacri »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #16

In the event that this release was illegal, I really do feel for the people at the agency. Someone made public false allegations about them and they are legally forbidden from proving that person wrong. It's a tough position to be in. I don't have a good solution to this, but I do think that there should be a legal way to prove a person is lying if they directly make accusations about you. After all, they are the one…

Centrelink has all sorts of horrible things said about it, and recently in particular they've been doing some pretty unethical things around debt collection. But the thing is that they're a government department full of civil servants. It's their role to implement policy, not to defend government actions - that's for politicians to do. It's not a tough position at all; the correct response is "We don't comment on private matters", and you hear large entities say it every day.

Imagine if the IRS released Trump's tax returns. Trump has been lying about them being held up by the IRS (all those years? seriously? can't release some old ones?), but the IRS refuse to be 'fair about it' because it's a matter of privacy. Even though they're being maligned and it's clearly in the public interest. This Centrelink issue is the exact same thing, except for the clear public interest.

Besides, Centrelink doesn't need a reputation, since they're not selling anything. People go there out of need, not desire.

Re: Australian welfare recipient’s data released to counter public criticism

#65

Post by yosamino »

briane80 wrote: post #63
yosamino wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Original claim: > Ms Fox complained that her problem arose from the fact that she was chased by Centrelink for a debt actually owed by her former de facto partner. Centrelink rebuttal: > The agency says Ms Fox's debt [...] arose after she received more FTB than she was entitled to because she under-estimated her family income for that year. Counter-rebuttal: > As I outlined in my article, when your ex does not lodge…

Where did they personally attack her? Please provide some quotes from the original article and not the hyperbole in hers. "scenarios that is not covered by standard procedures" Actually I know people who work in benefits and this is very common. It is entriely up to the claimant to notify the office in change of circumstances and anything else can be considered fraud. Also if you are claiming family benefit then they…

> Where did they personally attack her? Please provide some quotes from the original article

You chose to ignore my questions, but continue to question me. Have you considered a career in politics ?

I am not going to play the definition game of what constitutes an "attack" with you, but I will state for you again the gist of this issue:

Centrelink released personal information that relates to her financial situation and relationship with Centrelink to the press.

> It is entriely up to the claimant to notify the office in change of circumstances

So she did, for whatever reason, not do that, was unaware that Centrelink wanted money from her, which they only wanted because her ex-husband didn't file taxes. So she tried to correct this tell them, that no she did not owe them any money, rather they should as her ex-husband file their taxes.

That seemed to have been a difficult process, which is common in large bureaucracies, but extremely frustrating, and as is custom when confronted with problems caused by the government, she too took to the free press to vent this frustration. One could say that that's one of the most important functions of a free press.

But instead of calling her up and saying

> So and so, you made this and that mistake, but also we get it, big organization can be annoying to deal with.

they chose to "correct the record" publicly by calling her a liar.

You might think that's a reasonable course of action.

I, on the other hand, think that if criticizing your government leads to them releasing personal data about you to the public, to let you know who's in charge, something isn't right.

I would think criticizing your government without fear of retribution is one of the fundamental features of a democracy.

Precisely because she didn't attack any person specifically, but the organization as a whole.

So, now I attempted to answer your question, and I ask that you return the favor:

What did you mean by the claim that The Guardian et al think they stand to gain in funds from this article?

And also: Why do you think her personal politics, or as you put it "I thinkwe know exactly where she's coming from" matters in this case ?

Re: Australian welfare recipient’s data released to counter public criticism

#66

Post by dang »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #54
yosamino wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I merely observed that tone policing is not actually an assertion that anything I said was false. Thinking that what someone said was false, is not a necessary condition for replying to comments on a message board. I don't know how you ended up thinking that. > Can you tell me what's "uncivil" about my comment? Yes, it's uncivil to imply that someone who receives government assistance is basically a child and needs…

That's a clever debate tactic - declaring that comments which disagree with you are uncivil, by the mere virtue of disagreeing with you.

FWIW I think yosamino's objection there plainly shows why your comment was wrong and indeed uncivil, and not just a matter of 'tone'. In fact I was going to post much the same thing until I saw that he or she already had. I'm a little surprised that you can't concede a point and instead responded with so weak a distraction.

Re: Australian welfare recipient’s data released to counter public criticism

#67

Post by prawn »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #33
prawn wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there something wrong with the agency making a public statement refuting the allegations, citing the information they have (but without specifics for privacy reasons)? Surely that helps them without their having handed over information?

"She's wrong but we can't release any evidence proving it" doesn't seem very effective.

I'd say they have writers capable of doing a little better than that.

Virtually every PR statement omits detail and evidence that would back up their statements.

Post reply on HN