Latest Breaking News

boppers

(16,588 posts)

44. Journalists are government representatives?

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 12:47 PM

Jul 2012

They were leaking confidential information to anybody who would listen, trying to lobby for changing the standards.

Typically, this happens when somebody has a financial interest in a competing product that would meet the changed standards... so, not roads, but millions and billions in sales of drugs and medical devices.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

65 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

In Vast Effort, F.D.A. Spied on E-Mails of Its Own Scientists [View all] choie Jul 2012 OP

Are those bowling balls or...wait, wait...HEADS ROLLING? MADem Jul 2012 #1

Damn I hope so..... DeSwiss Jul 2012 #2

Well, one thing about Congressmen--they aren't at all short of hubris. MADem Jul 2012 #4

In what way is using a public resource, to send a public message, over a public network.... private? boppers Jul 2012 #8

These people were whistleblowing. You're seriously thinking that anyone, for any reason, should be MADem Jul 2012 #9

Not their network, not their computers, not their email. boppers Jul 2012 #10

The keyloggers were abusing their Privacy Act oversight duties. MADem Jul 2012 #12

The networks are public property. The emails can be FOI'ed. boppers Jul 2012 #28

You can FOIA them, but you might not get them. MADem Jul 2012 #30

Was the software installed on private, personal, computers? boppers Jul 2012 #31

I don't mean to be rude, but when you keep repeatedly insisting that you are right, and you are not, MADem Jul 2012 #32

I read it. boppers Jul 2012 #38

Sorry--I continue to vociferously disagree with your argument. And I have first-hand experience MADem Jul 2012 #40

I have a bit of first hand experience, myself. boppers Jul 2012 #43

FDA has no "security issues" -- and the HHS IG said as much. MADem Jul 2012 #47

No, the IG and Federal Prosecutors said there was no criminal case. boppers Jul 2012 #50

What part of crossing the legal line is unclear here ? MADem Jul 2012 #55

"may have" boppers Jul 2012 #59

Maybe not if Obama gets his way. woo me with science Jul 2012 #45

To emphasized and convoluted for me to follow right now. boppers Jul 2012 #49

Sorry that was too difficult, woo me with science Jul 2012 #62

Mea culpa. boppers Jul 2012 #64

Okay, now I have myself put together. boppers Jul 2012 #65

"specifically protected under the law, including attorney-client communications, whistle-blower complaints to Congress and workplace grievances filed with the government. bananas Jul 2012 #16

So, all bitching to congress and lobbying should be protected? boppers Jul 2012 #29

Who's talking about lobbyists? You are being deliberately obtuse. nt MADem Jul 2012 #34

They were lobbying congress over FDA regulations. boppers Jul 2012 #39

You don't, quite apparently, understand what lobbying means. MADem Jul 2012 #41

Journalists are government representatives? boppers Jul 2012 #44

Last time I checked, journalists weren't members of Congress. MADem Jul 2012 #48

Read the OP. boppers Jul 2012 #51

I did read it--I understand what the scientists did. It's called whistleblowing, not "lobbying." MADem Jul 2012 #52

They saw a problem/solution which might affect their monetary interests. boppers Jul 2012 #56

No--you don't. And you've demonstrated that here very clearly. nt MADem Jul 2012 #60

Google "Dr. Andrew Wakefield". boppers Jul 2012 #61

You are wrong, you didn't read the article carefully at all. MADem Jul 2012 #53

Oh, "radiation" fear? boppers Jul 2012 #57

You didn't read the article, and now you are being rude, so yeah, we are done. nt MADem Jul 2012 #58

Wow - and then it was posted on a public website by a private document-handling contractor. nt bananas Jul 2012 #3

Yep--blazingly stupid. There's always some little fart digging around here! nt MADem Jul 2012 #5

Good one judesedit Jul 2012 #24

Too funny judesedit Jul 2012 #25

How does one send email "privately" from an employer- (i.e. government-) owned laptop computer? slackmaster Jul 2012 #6

Precisely! judesedit Jul 2012 #23

They sent emails from government accounts, on government computers, over government networks. boppers Jul 2012 #7

It's safe to assume they signed a computer usage agreement that explicitly says their activity... slackmaster Jul 2012 #11

specifically protected under the law,including attorney-client communications,whistle-blower complaints to Congress andworkplace grievances filed with thegovernment. bananas Jul 2012 #17

Anything you do on your employer's IT system is not private. FarCenter Jul 2012 #13

For those for whom the nuance of this story was lost..... sendero Jul 2012 #14

If you send to [email protected] the email belongs to EatNoFat FarCenter Jul 2012 #15

"specifically protected under the law, including attorney-client communications, whistle-blower complaints to Congress and workplace grievances filed with the government. bananas Jul 2012 #18

So the senders should put "whistle blower complaint" or "attorney client" in the Subject line FarCenter Jul 2012 #20

The "bosses" should not be keylogging the employees. MADem Jul 2012 #26

These asshole managers committed multiple felonies and should be thrown in jail for a long time. nt bananas Jul 2012 #27

Exactly! judesedit Jul 2012 #22

The other nuance is that their bosses in the criminal investigation division at Health and Human MADem Jul 2012 #36

The IG at HHS told them that the scientists and researchers were doing NOTHING WRONG. MADem Jul 2012 #33

When the IG of the agency above you says the scientist/researchers were doing NOTHING WRONG, I think MADem Jul 2012 #35

This appears to have been done by FDA IT security people with the advice of FDA counsel. FarCenter Jul 2012 #37

transparency you can believe in ? may3rd Jul 2012 #19

Sent privately? If they were on company computers that is standard practice really. That's what IT judesedit Jul 2012 #21

more kick.. n/t annabanana Jul 2012 #42

Sucks but isnt it legal if they were on government owned computers? nt cstanleytech Jul 2012 #46

The Inspector General did not authorize the spying. MADem Jul 2012 #54

Interesting. Someone may soon wish that they hadnt done this then. .nt cstanleytech Jul 2012 #63