And what is there to say, really? "I clicked the wrong thing." The reason why that was likely to happen is blatantly obvious to anyone who has seen the screenshots of the interface.
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.
> And what is there to say, really? "I clicked the wrong thing."
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.
Have we actually seen the real interface? There was the first round, which was a mockup many were told was a 'screenshot', and a follow up that was a second mock up that was closer.
> “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.
Given all of the incompetency here, including the awful UI, and the password on a sticky note that got leaked, I wouldn't be surprised if the links themselves leaked info like: "Send missile alert (confirmation password is hawaii1)".
Not claiming they are competent. However it may be the case that the real screenshot would be exactly as shown, but also includes few extra lines of "buttons" that have captions not meant for public audience. This ban may be coming from federal level. Or reveal they are using IE5 or something. Just a far-fetched theory.
However, I'd still stand with Peter here [1] and think they just could not get the "screenshot tool" installed to the machine.
Everyone is talking about interfaces and clicks. Yeah, we know he clicked the wrong item. I'd be interested to know if there was a paper manual sitting on his desk with procedure instructions for this type of situation and whether or not his mistake was either not following the procedure or following it incorrectly. For all we know, there could be a control to avoid a false alert, even given a shitty interface, that should have been followed.
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.
> And STFU is smart advice in any situation where there is even a remote chance you will be charged with something.
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.
It's possibly a legal strategy... or possibly avoidant behaviour due to depression/anxiety for messing up so badly.
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.”
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.
> But they'll try their hardest to pin this on a scapegoat and he is the obvious choice.
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.
I'm pretty sure those officials are careful to truly refuse to answer or fail to recall at that moment, but there are also depositions of famous people being arrogant and speaking incorrectly.
No doubt he's under a lot of stress, be he shouldn't be blamed for a mistake that he was set up to make by a poorly designed system.
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.
Yes, there are two lessons to be learned here. One is about interface design. Or maybe more broadly about system design.
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.
I don’t think it’s the right move. There’s a difference between refusing to cooperate and willfully participating with appropriate counsel (union, lawyer, etc).
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.
Maybe I'm reading too much into the situation, but it's my impression that "cooperat[ing] with FCC, internal investigators" means talking with them without support from counsel and union representatives. Or at least, sharing more than they advise. I expect that it takes some time for them to negotiate on his behalf with those investigators. And in the meantime, saying nothing is the best option.
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.
The crash investigation is legally protected. Investigators don't have as their objective "find someone to blame" but "prevent future harm". Accordingly, co-operating with them makes sense because they are trying to make everything better, not trying to pick who gets strung up.
The smart move is to stfu, call your union representative, and don’t talk to the police until your lawyer makes the appropriate arrangements.