3 ms·

> Auditors and reporters should audit the end-result I mean, sure. It's just that it's really hard to know how we got to any given end-result. Hey, we see a

by Verdex 6y ago

> Auditors and reporters should audit the end-result I mean, sure. It's just that it's really hard to know how we got to any given end-result. Hey, we see a guy who is really having problems getting services for his kids from the state. Investigation time! Oh, it turns out he's got a bunch of money but he just doesn't want to spend it on his kids. So the reason why he's not getting the services is legit. MEANWHILE A guy isn't getting services for his kids AND we see that his forms are all in the trash outside of the statehouse. And there's Jimmy from the service department emptying some more filled out forms into the trash. Ah ha! If it was an electronic form, then Jimmy could just hit delete (maybe even accidentally) and we would never know. The point of paper is to make it harder for people in government to get away with not helping. Yeah, ideally we would investigate everything, but we just don't have the resources for that. Forcing someone to throw away paper into a basket is a shortcut to help people investigate.

pas 6y ago
This seems to be some kind of epicycles argument. :) Paper is no different from digital documents when it comes to shady government business. It's just as likely for said magical auditors to find printed copies, email attachments, missing reports, missing data, misplaced data, forgotten backups, and so on. (Have I mentioned the tendency of digital things to be easy to get copied? Whistleblowers? Also I want to mention just to be redundant: backups!) Audits are conducted based on processes. If the process is so lax that it does not mandate adequate records keeping then that problem needs fixing. And ... reporters write about this all the time, paper or not, it doesn't matter. Just look at how the ATF's National Trace Center (the federal gun database) is still paper based to protect privacy. (To protect against a government overreach.) "Interestingly" other special interest groups were less successful in keeping their records out of searchable databases. If someone is not getting the money they are allocated by law, they usually sue. In the trial the plaintiff presents the evidence (documents in whatever form) that support (prove) that they are due whatever money they are not getting. Then it's the government's responsibility to contest that, show the problem with the argument, or show some document that changes the outcome of the assessment.

by Verdex 6y ago

pas 6y ago

This seems to be some kind of epicycles argument. :) Paper is no different from digital documents when it comes to shady government business. It's just as likely for said magical auditors to find printed copies, email attachments, missing reports, missing data, misplaced data, forgotten backups, and so on. (Have I mentioned the tendency of digital things to be easy to get copied? Whistleblowers? Also I want to mention just to be redundant: backups!) Audits are conducted based on processes. If the process is so lax that it does not mandate adequate records keeping then that problem needs fixing. And ... reporters write about this all the time, paper or not, it doesn't matter. Just look at how the ATF's National Trace Center (the federal gun database) is still paper based to protect privacy. (To protect against a government overreach.) "Interestingly" other special interest groups were less successful in keeping their records out of searchable databases. If someone is not getting the money they are allocated by law, they usually sue. In the trial the plaintiff presents the evidence (documents in whatever form) that support (prove) that they are due whatever money they are not getting. Then it's the government's responsibility to contest that, show the problem with the argument, or show some document that changes the outcome of the assessment.