Any investigator is going to be on a headhunt.
The smart move is to stfu, call your union representative, and don’t talk to the police until your lawyer makes the appropriate arrangements.
The smart move is to stfu, call your union representative, and don’t talk to the police until your lawyer makes the appropriate arrangements.
Edit: And STFU is smart advice in any situation where there is even a remote chance you will be charged with something. You can always make a careful statement later on advice of counsel. Nothing is lost by remaining quiet at first.
See
http://www.civilbeat.org/2018/01/hawaii-distributed-phony-im...
http://www.civilbeat.org/2018/01/hawaii-distributed-phony-im...
It's a common enough UI issue to be immediately clear to a professional how it happened though.
The level of incompetence is astounding!
> “We asked (Hawaii Emergency Management Agency) for a screenshot and that’s what they gave us,” Ige [Hawaii Governor] spokeswoman Jodi Leong told Civil Beat on Tuesday. “At no time did anybody tell me it wasn’t a screenshot.”
So the governor asked for a screenshot and they sent him a "mockup" instead of the actual interface?
I can only assume the actual interface was somehow even worse than the fake.
However, I'd still stand with Peter here [1] and think they just could not get the "screenshot tool" installed to the machine.
Amazing.
There are many things say. That's probably why they want to talk to him. Was it a random mistake? Did anything else contribute? Was he on Hacker News writing a comment at the time? Was he tired, sick, under the influence? There were other people including a supervisor, did the supervisor approve, did they double check later? Did they distract him somehow?
They might conclude it was the stupid user interface but they'll still do the legwork of investigating and getting all the details. One thing they definitely don't want to do is answer the question of "Did you try to talk to the individual?" or "Nah, we saw online how everyone was jumping on redesigning the UI and assumed it had to be that so never talked to him".
> You can always make a careful statement later on advice of counsel. Nothing is lost by remaining quiet at first.
That's what he did it seems: released a written statement then STFU. Hopefully he got a lawyer cause it seems he'll need it.
> Nothing is lost by remaining quiet at first.
True. Ideally it is the best strategy. But here it is drawing more attention to the case. It's in the news again. And he is also getting death threats.
sure the UI as shown is bad, but we got a static screenshot so no, it is not blatantly obvious to me how likely an operator error actually is.
Was it there a confirmation dialog afterward? How often was the UI in this form operated? For how long was it deployed? Was that interface something one user would see during normal operations or only accessible after a warning dialog?
> STFU
that's right tho. anything one say will be used against oneself and all that. there will be layers of cover up as with anything involving government officials and private contractors, he need to tutelate himself to even have a shot to reach a fair charge.
Maybe, maybe not. I mean if there is a remote chance you will be charged with “something”, possibly minor, whether or not you cooperate, and a practical certainty that you will lose your public employment and associated benefits if you don't cooperate (and, likely, your employability anywhere related to your chosen field), you probably want to do a more detailed consideration of the likelihood you will be charged, the likely consequences if you are, and the marginal risk of talking.
This guy is a button pusher at some random state government agency. Probably not the extroverted types who handle global media attention and ridicule well, let alone the guilt and shame of scaring the hell out of everyone in your state.
Especially given the phrasing of this:
> “He’s choosing not to have further engagement with other employees at the Emergency Management Agency who have attempted to reach out to him.”
From public accounts, it doesn't sound like he messed up badly, he just made a minor mistake than anyone could make.
But they'll try their hardest to pin this on a scapegoat and he is the obvious choice. I'm not sure I'd cooperate either, particularly as lying to the federal government (any agency) is a crime within itself (18 U.S.C. § 1001) and even omissions or a poor memory can be argued that way (even if they're ultimately found not guilty the public would have lost interest by then).
I'd get a lawyer, say very little, and maybe give a written statement of facts to the investigators, nothing more.
That excuse seems to work for our elected officials...
The obvious choice, if there was to be a scapegoat (which I won't prejudge the officials involved to be seeking), until now was whoever designed/build the system in question (particularly it's UI), who had pretty much already been convicted in absentia in the court of public opinion (possibly based on fabrication, as it turns out.)
Now he’s the obvious choice, but that's almost entirely a result of his own actions.
His own actions being following sound legal advice..?
Choosing the wrong menu item should be expected and there should be safeguards to prevent an errant alert. If I click the "Close" instead of "Save" menu item in my editor, it asks me to confirm that I really want to close without saving. A civil warning system should have at least the same safeguards.
The other is how to deal with being arrested, or targeted in an investigation. "Refusing to cooperate" is always the smart move. Because cooperating will always make it worse, notwithstanding claims to the contrary. And it's sad that this person is being criticized for being smart.
IIRC it took them over half an hour to issue a correction.
Imagine if airline employees didn’t cooperate in crash investigations. Or restaurant employees in outbreak investigations.
You shouldn’t be brash and speak without counsel, but stonewalling an official investigation will not end well for the stonewaller.
Also, "cooperating" implies some shared goal. Such as discovering the facts of the matter. But that's very likely not the case here. These investigators arguably need someone to blame, and the likely candidate is pretty clear. The "button pusher" needs to focus attention on underlying problems, and that's a huge burden for a drone. Others with expertise need to do that.