5 ms·
I like how submissions are anonymous. Back in USSR an anonymous tip was a good way of getting rid of your annoying neighbours or rivals. Another convenient thi
by dagenleg 9y ago
I like how submissions are anonymous. Back in USSR an anonymous tip was a good way of getting rid of your annoying neighbours or rivals.
Another convenient thing was that with an anonymous complaint the burden of proof lay solely on the accused, who had to protest his innocence without even being able to face the accuser. But we are half-way there anyway, aren't we?
- icc97 9y agoAs has been mentioned elsewhere - names aren't mentioned in the list. Also even with anonymity although such a system maybe open for abuse, so that people can implicate innocent people, the potential to allow actual victims to speak up who wouldn't otherwise seems worth the risk
- dagenleg 9y agoThis reminds me of the whole metadata collection scandal/argument, because this is what is being shared - metadata. Just because you don't name a person directly, does not yet imply anonymity. Another observation - the article states that people aren't "usually" named. I don't see anything preventing the peoples names appearing later on, as this thing develops.
- icc97 9y agoAs far as I can tell, it's run for employees by employees. If it ever starts doing more harm than good, it will just stop. People have to want to submit and want to read it. So I don't see this as management sponsored spying, just employees wanting more transparency. To highlight what actually goes on. I believe the point with the 'usually' was that the only one who had been named was Eric Schmidt from a open meeting.
- jellicle 9y agoYeah, the anonymous accused get sent straight to the gulag.