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.
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.