7 ms·

The Pentagon’s ‘Encyclopedia of Ethical Failure’

96 points by laktak 10y ago

a_bonobo 10y ago
The link to the doc of the Encyclopedia 404s for me - this link (PDF) works: http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/defense_ethics/dod_oge/eef_complete.pdf http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/defense_ethics/dod_oge/eef_complete...
- jtrip 10y ago
  Thanks for this link.
- eternalban 10y ago
  Inspector General of AirForce - Report of Investigation (S8011P): https://cryptome.org/2013/12/nuke-commander-nukes-self.pdf https://cryptome.org/2013/12/nuke-commander-nukes-self.pdf
webmaven 10y ago
Just remember that these are cautionary tales, not a tutorial!
- pjmorris 10y ago
  That's funny, and appropriate. I recall Michael Lewis saying that he'd written 'Liar's Poker' as a cautionary tale, but that people were excited by the life described, and took it as an operating manual.
tombone12 10y ago
“They had properly listed the restaurant stop in their mission plan. Since the stop was properly listed, the soldiers had not violated any regulations, but they still received verbal counseling because their actions created an appearance of impropriety.” I wonder if they where very loud in the restaurant? That they got clearance to stop the blackhawk is clearly the "violation" here, as long as they weren't to smug about it afterwards.
- pjc50 10y ago
  Depending on how near they landed the Blackhawk it would probably be louder than the patrons. Mind you, I've seen someone land a small helicopter at a pub before.
DanBC 10y ago
I like the plain description of the action and violation. Another US Government agency (FBI, maybe) has a similar document and the way it's written is unbearably smug. I think that got posted to HN sometime, but I have no idea when or what it's called.
navs 10y ago
I don't work in the public sector but I'm curious, how does one protect their browsing habits on a work computer? I see there are a lot of cases of personal computer usage. While browsing 'sexually explicit' material at work is just plain stupid, I know I'm guilty of logging into my personal e-mail or browsing Hacker News' latest.
- pjc50 10y ago
  Firstly, check your policy. Then check whether it's actually enforced. Ask around. See if other people are routinely personally browsing. If the admins are serious about it, they're monitoring you at the firewall. Or snooping your screen. Just don't mess with this. Comply with the policy or browse on your phone instead. If there's no real enforcement, then the policy is a figleaf. If someone is abusing it and someone complains, it will be used against them. If you're handling actual personal confidential or classified material on your computer, be very careful. If it gets compromised and traced back to an infection on your PC then the policy may be used against you there too. Try not to do personal business on your work email, even in Europe this is not legally protected: http://www.eversheds.com/global/en/what/publications/shownews.page?News=en/ireland/personal-emails-at-work-have-employers-more-access http://www.eversheds.com/global/en/what/publications/shownew... BYOD tends to erase the "work/personal" distinction, so watch out for other policies that try to enforce it. It may not be worth BYOD.
  - wil421 10y ago
    My company's policy is you are allowed light personal browsing. I'm not sure what light is but I've never heard of anyone getting in trouble. They may only look at it if they need a reason to fire you.
  - webmaven 10y ago
    A few tips: Figure out whether you can clear your browser's cache and history, also find or figure out IT's strategy for desktop backups. Also find or figure out what sort of network monitoring is in place, and where. If you're a developer, consider places you can shoehorn a plausibly deniable proxy or VPN so monitoring at the network egress for example doesn't trace directly back to your desktop IP address.
OliverJones 10y ago
Here's a government agency that calls things by their names: mostly. How about this one? "the brother-in-law was treating the inspector to an evening with a lady of dubious morals." I doubt the lady in question had dubious morals. She surely knew exactly what she was doing and exactly why. Why not call her a "sex worker?" The dubious morals? the two men involved.
- Cthulhu_ 10y ago
  Dubious morals is a more prozaic title than sex worker. Horizontal service provider would be another one.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    There's no evidence the service provided was horizontal.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
tajen 10y ago
I was hoping for the chapter "He spied on his girlfriend using work means" or "He misread the constitution to the point that he issued a blanket warrant on all phone calls in the USA", but it seems like this guy hasn't been caught. Yet.
peterkelly 10y ago
How about carelessly bombing hundreds of innocent civilians with drones in countries you're not officially at war with, concocting dodgy evidence about WMDs to present to the UN security council, and basically destroying an entire country, while at the same time creating the power vacuum and conditions on the ground that allowed ISIS to gain power? I thought some of that might at least warrant a mention.
- jbob2000 10y ago
  That's just Pax Americana - create instability, be the only stable nation, profit!
- LanceH 10y ago
  What did that have to do with the military?
  - peterkelly 10y ago
    Um.... they were the ones who did all that stuff (except for the lying to the UN bit). "Just following orders" isn't a great excuse.
- angry_octet 10y ago
  - Aren't we officially at war enough with AQ? Were the civillians who got killed unaware their Army and the US had declared war on their local militants? - I doubt any of the deaths caused by drone strikes were careless. I'm sure great care was taken. Unwise and foolish and desperate yes. - As others have mentioned, WMDs was all GWB, Rumsfeld and Rice. Post invasion deconstruction, I'd give to Bremmer.
failrate 10y ago
My favorite section from the essay was that it highlights the problem with a lot of modern news reporting: we typically don't see a resolution. An incident happens, we froth over it for a while, and then we move on to the next. Maybe I feel so stressed out all the time because of all of these open loops.
rl3 10y ago
>There’s the Navy official who faked his own death to end an affair. He was an attack submarine captain. The sheer lack of thought put into his plan alone warranted the dismissal, nevermind the actual ethics part of it.
jack9 10y ago
> Since the stop was properly listed, the soldiers had not violated any regulations, but they still received verbal counseling because their actions created an appearance of impropriety But huge donations to a senator's campaign is not? I hate this kind of top-down hypocrisy.

96 points by laktak 10y ago

The link to the doc of the Encyclopedia 404s for me - this link (PDF) works: http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/defense_ethics/dod_oge/eef_complete.pdf http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/defense_ethics/dod_oge/eef_complete...

jtrip 10y ago
Thanks for this link.
eternalban 10y ago
Inspector General of AirForce - Report of Investigation (S8011P): https://cryptome.org/2013/12/nuke-commander-nukes-self.pdf https://cryptome.org/2013/12/nuke-commander-nukes-self.pdf

webmaven 10y ago

Just remember that these are cautionary tales, not a tutorial!

pjmorris 10y ago
That's funny, and appropriate. I recall Michael Lewis saying that he'd written 'Liar's Poker' as a cautionary tale, but that people were excited by the life described, and took it as an operating manual.

tombone12 10y ago

“They had properly listed the restaurant stop in their mission plan. Since the stop was properly listed, the soldiers had not violated any regulations, but they still received verbal counseling because their actions created an appearance of impropriety.” I wonder if they where very loud in the restaurant? That they got clearance to stop the blackhawk is clearly the "violation" here, as long as they weren't to smug about it afterwards.

pjc50 10y ago
Depending on how near they landed the Blackhawk it would probably be louder than the patrons. Mind you, I've seen someone land a small helicopter at a pub before.

DanBC 10y ago

I like the plain description of the action and violation. Another US Government agency (FBI, maybe) has a similar document and the way it's written is unbearably smug. I think that got posted to HN sometime, but I have no idea when or what it's called.

navs 10y ago

I don't work in the public sector but I'm curious, how does one protect their browsing habits on a work computer? I see there are a lot of cases of personal computer usage. While browsing 'sexually explicit' material at work is just plain stupid, I know I'm guilty of logging into my personal e-mail or browsing Hacker News' latest.

pjc50 10y ago
Firstly, check your policy. Then check whether it's actually enforced. Ask around. See if other people are routinely personally browsing. If the admins are serious about it, they're monitoring you at the firewall. Or snooping your screen. Just don't mess with this. Comply with the policy or browse on your phone instead. If there's no real enforcement, then the policy is a figleaf. If someone is abusing it and someone complains, it will be used against them. If you're handling actual personal confidential or classified material on your computer, be very careful. If it gets compromised and traced back to an infection on your PC then the policy may be used against you there too. Try not to do personal business on your work email, even in Europe this is not legally protected: http://www.eversheds.com/global/en/what/publications/shownews.page?News=en/ireland/personal-emails-at-work-have-employers-more-access http://www.eversheds.com/global/en/what/publications/shownew... BYOD tends to erase the "work/personal" distinction, so watch out for other policies that try to enforce it. It may not be worth BYOD.
- wil421 10y ago
  My company's policy is you are allowed light personal browsing. I'm not sure what light is but I've never heard of anyone getting in trouble. They may only look at it if they need a reason to fire you.
- webmaven 10y ago
  A few tips: Figure out whether you can clear your browser's cache and history, also find or figure out IT's strategy for desktop backups. Also find or figure out what sort of network monitoring is in place, and where. If you're a developer, consider places you can shoehorn a plausibly deniable proxy or VPN so monitoring at the network egress for example doesn't trace directly back to your desktop IP address.

OliverJones 10y ago

Here's a government agency that calls things by their names: mostly. How about this one? "the brother-in-law was treating the inspector to an evening with a lady of dubious morals." I doubt the lady in question had dubious morals. She surely knew exactly what she was doing and exactly why. Why not call her a "sex worker?" The dubious morals? the two men involved.

Cthulhu_ 10y ago
Dubious morals is a more prozaic title than sex worker. Horizontal service provider would be another one.
- DanBC 10y ago
  There's no evidence the service provided was horizontal.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

tajen 10y ago

I was hoping for the chapter "He spied on his girlfriend using work means" or "He misread the constitution to the point that he issued a blanket warrant on all phone calls in the USA", but it seems like this guy hasn't been caught. Yet.

peterkelly 10y ago

How about carelessly bombing hundreds of innocent civilians with drones in countries you're not officially at war with, concocting dodgy evidence about WMDs to present to the UN security council, and basically destroying an entire country, while at the same time creating the power vacuum and conditions on the ground that allowed ISIS to gain power? I thought some of that might at least warrant a mention.

jbob2000 10y ago
That's just Pax Americana - create instability, be the only stable nation, profit!
LanceH 10y ago
What did that have to do with the military?
- peterkelly 10y ago
  Um.... they were the ones who did all that stuff (except for the lying to the UN bit). "Just following orders" isn't a great excuse.
angry_octet 10y ago
- Aren't we officially at war enough with AQ? Were the civillians who got killed unaware their Army and the US had declared war on their local militants? - I doubt any of the deaths caused by drone strikes were careless. I'm sure great care was taken. Unwise and foolish and desperate yes. - As others have mentioned, WMDs was all GWB, Rumsfeld and Rice. Post invasion deconstruction, I'd give to Bremmer.

failrate 10y ago

My favorite section from the essay was that it highlights the problem with a lot of modern news reporting: we typically don't see a resolution. An incident happens, we froth over it for a while, and then we move on to the next. Maybe I feel so stressed out all the time because of all of these open loops.

rl3 10y ago

>There’s the Navy official who faked his own death to end an affair. He was an attack submarine captain. The sheer lack of thought put into his plan alone warranted the dismissal, nevermind the actual ethics part of it.

jack9 10y ago

> Since the stop was properly listed, the soldiers had not violated any regulations, but they still received verbal counseling because their actions created an appearance of impropriety But huge donations to a senator's campaign is not? I hate this kind of top-down hypocrisy.