At 01:30 PM 8/20/00 -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> It isn't the fact that the interns surf the net for porn that I disputed.
> What I find unlikely is that someone would have gone to a reporter
> with a story whose source could easily be traced and would be
>professional suicide.
Giving out traceable info is not that unusual. People have done this for
any one of many reasons, some stupid, others idealistic.
> Would you hire the guy?
Perhaps. The whys of choosing to leak would be important.
An employer would want to sort out the whys to see if this person would
blow the whistle without seeking other ways of resolving the problem. But
does it mean that all employers are so self serving that they want solely
employees who'll keep quiet no matter what. If this were true than every
whistle blower would be blacklisted forever. (Not saying that it is easy.
There can many employers who wont hire a potential whistleblower and some
employers that consider a conscience to be a bad thing.)
> Like all porno filters, it doesn't work.
How true!
Besides technical failures, there are human factors failures. I can see the
difficulty of a WH techie in saying to major person on the WH staff, "No,
you cannot have access to that site." It could perhaps lead to frustration
that makes the person want to get the leak route rather than head-on
challenges. By the way, can you image any of the AK state troopers or US
Secret Service presdidental detail members saying to Bill Clifton something
about the way he is womanizing and using government personnell to support
it? <g> How to get assign to whatever equivalent of Siberia exists in the
jurisdiction. <g>
He went to count trees in SIberia. -Old Russian saying, told to me by an
old Russian
