4 ms·

It is probably a question of money. The testimony of the leaker is full of references to the Americans supposedly doing things better and more professionally.

It is probably a question of money. The testimony of the leaker is full of references to the Americans supposedly doing things better and more professionally. If true, that is surely a funding issue.

lithos 10y ago
An American officer isn't really allowed to blow off concerns (at least from a nuke) like they did in that rant. They actually can't if they want to keep their job. This rant pretty much falls into what every sailor that hates their job dreams about doing. Though they normally end up sadding out before it gets to this point (using real or fake psychological issues to disqualify themselves).
- gech 10y ago
  Ad hominem
  - lithos 10y ago
    I put a good amount of thought to think of a direct comparison to the IT world. As it stands right now "everyone knows" that IT companies are skirting and breaking the law(s) when it comes to data collection and retention. It's just that it's such a huge and intentionally opaque subject that it's impossible to make good laws or even enforce them. Now let's say you have an almost senior person at one of the big 3 (or whatever number it's at now) that decides they're going give to high ranking elected officials every bit of data the company has them, their spouse, and their children (say Germany since their laws are pretty strict and have cultural history behind their laws) who that data has been sold to, how it's used, and similar. Then further more gives hints that there is knowledge inside that the company knew it was/might have breaking/broke x laws. The first thoughts are going to be fanboy/hate, there are better ways to do this, why are they even keeping that job, and similar. Also seeing how IT people react to sexual harassment claims I expect attacks that are just attacks. Rather than answering what can be of the question, and attempting* to satisfy some curiosity (which I attempted to do). *rather horribly now that you've pointed it out. And sadly falling into other bad practices to explain what I see in the link for this post .
acqq 10y ago
I have another conclusion. Here, for example: "they would deviate from set procedures because the procedures can be “long and winding.” He said “sometimes you just know that you can adjust a valve slightly and that would solve the problem. Following the procedures might take you down a long and winding path.” You might think that's no big deal, just an engineer using his engineering skills; if he was caught doing this kind of action on an American submarine it would cost him his job and possibly his freedom. If you work on the Strategic Weapon System you must follow the procedures, mistakes can be catastrophic." What I read is just that he doesn't understand the issues. The engineers make something and make the consoles sounding "alarm" for many various reasons. They also make the documents of the "standard procedures" to follow. Now some alarms are in use observed to happen too often. That's a clear problem in how the thing was designed. The cleanest response would be to redesign the devices, or at least the documents of the standard procedures to include the "shortcut checks." But in his specific case it's just the people on duty that passed their knowledge from one to another. Maybe they even tried to initiate change in the documents or even asked for the redesign and failed. So they are not wrong for doing what they are doing, it's just that the system doesn't care enough for the feedback from "the trenches." Which happens everywhere. In that light, all non-engineers or people not being "in the trenches" with the technical equipment really have too idealized understanding that the things "just work." No they don't, everything fails all the time. Which is why we really should press the politicians to reduce the number of nuclear weapons. Sooner or later there will be some very nasty failure, an unintended accident, and it's a big difference if that failure doesn't destroy the whole civilization at once.
- cloakandswagger 10y ago
  That's what I gathered from this. Now, I wouldn't put it past the UK to have some over-the-top rules and regulations (I work regularly with one of their largest agencies and it is a nightmare of a bureaucracy), but these seem like the complaints of a relatively low-ranking, non-technical person.
  - acqq 10y ago
    Still, there are very interesting details in his text, one just needs enough patience to read through. Pity that he, wanted to "leak" fast, hasn't had somebody more capable of presenting his info. There are nice examples of how brittle the systems he worked on were, and the broader public surely does need a "disillusionment" about them. He personally seems to have expected everything to function like in the movies, and it can be clearly seen how he is always surprised it isn't so, up to the point that they could have all died in the submarine just because of the fire that started due to the toilet paper!

It is probably a question of money. The testimony of the leaker is full of references to the Americans supposedly doing things better and more professionally. If true, that is surely a funding issue.

lithos 10y ago

An American officer isn't really allowed to blow off concerns (at least from a nuke) like they did in that rant. They actually can't if they want to keep their job. This rant pretty much falls into what every sailor that hates their job dreams about doing. Though they normally end up sadding out before it gets to this point (using real or fake psychological issues to disqualify themselves).

gech 10y ago
Ad hominem
- lithos 10y ago
  I put a good amount of thought to think of a direct comparison to the IT world. As it stands right now "everyone knows" that IT companies are skirting and breaking the law(s) when it comes to data collection and retention. It's just that it's such a huge and intentionally opaque subject that it's impossible to make good laws or even enforce them. Now let's say you have an almost senior person at one of the big 3 (or whatever number it's at now) that decides they're going give to high ranking elected officials every bit of data the company has them, their spouse, and their children (say Germany since their laws are pretty strict and have cultural history behind their laws) who that data has been sold to, how it's used, and similar. Then further more gives hints that there is knowledge inside that the company knew it was/might have breaking/broke x laws. The first thoughts are going to be fanboy/hate, there are better ways to do this, why are they even keeping that job, and similar. Also seeing how IT people react to sexual harassment claims I expect attacks that are just attacks. Rather than answering what can be of the question, and attempting* to satisfy some curiosity (which I attempted to do). *rather horribly now that you've pointed it out. And sadly falling into other bad practices to explain what I see in the link for this post .

acqq 10y ago

I have another conclusion. Here, for example: "they would deviate from set procedures because the procedures can be “long and winding.” He said “sometimes you just know that you can adjust a valve slightly and that would solve the problem. Following the procedures might take you down a long and winding path.” You might think that's no big deal, just an engineer using his engineering skills; if he was caught doing this kind of action on an American submarine it would cost him his job and possibly his freedom. If you work on the Strategic Weapon System you must follow the procedures, mistakes can be catastrophic." What I read is just that he doesn't understand the issues. The engineers make something and make the consoles sounding "alarm" for many various reasons. They also make the documents of the "standard procedures" to follow. Now some alarms are in use observed to happen too often. That's a clear problem in how the thing was designed. The cleanest response would be to redesign the devices, or at least the documents of the standard procedures to include the "shortcut checks." But in his specific case it's just the people on duty that passed their knowledge from one to another. Maybe they even tried to initiate change in the documents or even asked for the redesign and failed. So they are not wrong for doing what they are doing, it's just that the system doesn't care enough for the feedback from "the trenches." Which happens everywhere. In that light, all non-engineers or people not being "in the trenches" with the technical equipment really have too idealized understanding that the things "just work." No they don't, everything fails all the time. Which is why we really should press the politicians to reduce the number of nuclear weapons. Sooner or later there will be some very nasty failure, an unintended accident, and it's a big difference if that failure doesn't destroy the whole civilization at once.

cloakandswagger 10y ago
That's what I gathered from this. Now, I wouldn't put it past the UK to have some over-the-top rules and regulations (I work regularly with one of their largest agencies and it is a nightmare of a bureaucracy), but these seem like the complaints of a relatively low-ranking, non-technical person.
- acqq 10y ago
  Still, there are very interesting details in his text, one just needs enough patience to read through. Pity that he, wanted to "leak" fast, hasn't had somebody more capable of presenting his info. There are nice examples of how brittle the systems he worked on were, and the broader public surely does need a "disillusionment" about them. He personally seems to have expected everything to function like in the movies, and it can be clearly seen how he is always surprised it isn't so, up to the point that they could have all died in the submarine just because of the fire that started due to the toilet paper!