Top
Best
New

Posted by robin_reala 8 hours ago

The 'paperwork flood': How I drowned a bureaucrat before dinner(sightlessscribbles.com)
468 points | 387 commentspage 2
sidewndr46 8 hours ago|
For a second I thought this was one of my friends. He had his eyes removed due to a medical reason (already blind). He recently had to go to a vision doctor and take a vision test. To confirm to his insurance that he was indeed, blind.
theseanz 6 hours ago||
I have no eyes and I must take a vision test to prove I'm blind.
mlmonkey 6 hours ago||
"Cover your left eye .... look straight at that chart and tell me what the third line from the bottom says ..."
actionfromafar 7 hours ago||
Regulatory capture.
darepublic 2 hours ago||
Reminds me of Harry Tuttle from Brazil. And then the surreal scene where he becomes a magnet for government receipts and disappears under a pile of them
cowthulhu 7 hours ago||
The author really lucked out that the government employee was not actually malicious. I can think of a good few ways she could have made life much more difficult for the author, even if he was likely to ultimately succeed.
NGRhodes 7 hours ago||
This exact dynamic exists in the UK too.

Lifelong and degenerative conditions.

They have full access to bank accounts, revoked driving license, direct line to my consultants.

Every form filled, every document provided.

They still call to ask if my genes have fixed themselves.

Not sure what verbal confirmation they're expecting - "no, I made it all up"?

Edit: exact words were "Do you continue to have <REDACTED>" where <REDACTED> is a genetic disease.

Edit edit: I feel sorry for those having to follow these scripts.

looperhacks 7 hours ago||
I know it's fiction - but in reality, Karen is likely just as annoyed by this as the author. The spam should go to the person in charge, not the person who is forced to deal with this every day
scottlamb 5 hours ago||
> I know it's fiction

Or semi-fiction? The author is actually blind and tagged it nonfiction, but I suspect some embellishment.

> but in reality, Karen is likely just as annoyed by this as the author.

When I'm frustrated talking with an agent of a big organization, I try to remember they probably didn't set the policy. But I also expect them to express some empathy for how I'm negatively affected by that policy. The author/protagonist, accurately or not, felt the opposite from "Karen from compliance". In their shoes, I wouldn't feel much empathy for Karen in return.

> The spam should go to the person in charge

I also expect the agent to have a closer relationship with "the person in charge" than I do (none whatsoever). If I mention the policy is absurd, they could at least make some effort to pass that along to their manager.

Also, sending the information to the agent is necessary compliance, even if the volume is malicious.

> not the person who is forced to deal with this every day

Maybe they feeling a bit of the pain themselves might make them more likely to speak up. If this becomes a miserable job that no one will stay in, that might provoke a change.

squigz 5 hours ago||
> Maybe they feeling a bit of the pain themselves might make them more likely to speak up. If this becomes a miserable job that no one will stay in, that might provoke a change.

Unfortunately, it might also just cause anyone who wants to do good to leave, leaving people who just need a job and don't care about doing good.

scottlamb 4 hours ago||
> Unfortunately, it might also just cause anyone who wants to do good to leave, leaving people who just need a job and don't care about doing good.

I don't think the author would have acted this way toward someone who said "sorry, I know it's a burden, I know it's stressful to be at risk of losing these benefits, and I've told that to everyone I can repeatedly." So how much danger is there really that the inconvenience of reloading the fax machine is pushing out someone who is trying to do good?

(For the sake of argument, I'm going with all the details of the story, including that this caused Karen any distress at all. I think it's more likely a real office like this has a setup for which getting a 500-page fax is no big deal at all. And if it really is a DoS on their processing, the consequence I'd be more worried about is causing acceptance to slow down enough that other disability claims are not processed before their deadline.)

mrguyorama 3 hours ago|||
>I don't think the author would have acted this way toward someone who said "sorry, I know it's a burden, I know it's stressful to be at risk of losing these benefits, and I've told that to everyone I can repeatedly."

Have you seen how much public sector employees taking calls get paid to be abused all day?

If you want people with limitless wells of compassion, pay better. Public sector jobs generally get to scrape the bottom of the barrel and compete with the local grocery store.

squigz 4 hours ago|||
> I don't think the author would have acted this way toward someone who said "sorry, I know it's a burden, I know it's stressful to be at risk of losing these benefits, and I've told that to everyone I can repeatedly." So how much danger is there really that the inconvenience of reloading the fax machine is pushing out someone who is trying to do good?

It's not just the faxing that causes people to act the way Karen (supposedly) acted - it's the anger and maliciousness being directed at them by numerous people, all day, every day, even when they do try to be sympathetic to the fact that the system fucks everyone. But there's only so much empathy one can muster.

(Not to mention the various other factors that push good people out of government, such as working for decades to make the systems better only for them to get worse.)

To be clear, I agree with you to an extent; if instead of being malicious and directing anger at the people doing their best to help, people like the author more calmly expressed their frustration with the system, maybe they can bring it up with their superiors, as you said.

All of it's a mess, and not a single facet of this issue is without blame - not the recipients, not the bureaucrats, not the politicians, and certainly not the voters.

scottlamb 3 hours ago||
I hear you...to an extent. I just got off the phone with Comcast Business Class, asking for a refund after I had 26 hours of downtime in the past week. Not a company with a great reputation for customer service, and the agent I spoke with was probably not exactly earning a six-figure salary. He was empathetic. The outcome was unsatisfactory [1], but he was polite, he said he understood how important availability is my business, he put me on hold for a while, said he tried for more with his manager, and I believed him. That's all it takes, not like a master study in empathizing with your bitter enemy and de-escalating conflict. I'm mad at Comcast, but I'm not mad at him.

[1] A discount that was less than the delta between consumer-class and business-class prices, when the latter doesn't seem to actually be providing better availability lately.

simgt 7 hours ago|||
You can usually tell these people apart though, they sound empathetic. The one in the story doesn't.

Most of these bureaucrats have more power than what they want to let us think, but that means taking the risk of being told off for having been kind.

tryauuum 5 hours ago||
fascinating. And who is that mythical person in charge

I tried to delete my account on GitHub. I could not. The gdpr compliance email address they provide happily accepts emails but my account is still there, after more than 3 months.

Why am I writing this here? To show you an example of being powerless to the system. The only things I can do is things you can call "petty", like wearing a "Microsoft employees deserve Gulag" t-shirt. Since I tried many other options and failed multiple times

bmurphy1976 6 hours ago||
I worked briefly with an idvidual who had this extreme bureaucratic mentality. I just can't even imagine how you can talk to another person and have no empathy at all for their situation and only care about the process. I also know processes exist for a reason, people will abuse things, and these processes are designed to prevent abuse.

I don't have an answer. I just know that my empathy is too strong. I could never be so rigid and would not thrive in a career requiring that level of disconnect.

amai 2 hours ago||
This reminds me of a story from BOFH ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastard_Operator_From_Hell ), where he used a black piece of paper, put it into the fax machine, glued both ends together, so the fax scanned an endless roll of black paper and pressed send.
cl0ckt0wer 8 hours ago||
The fax machine we had in the office would convert the incoming faxes to email for us. Maybe that's a security violation for them but I find it difficult to believe they don't have some sort of all digital receipt system
jerf 6 hours ago||
The story may be posted today but there's no reason it has to be a recent story. Even the most backward government post in 2026 should have a fax-to-document service that integrates with their document tracker. But there was definitely a 15 to 20 year window from in the 1990s to somewhere in the 2010s where you could send faxes directly from a document one way or another but the recipient was almost certain to be dumping them straight to paper. The story mentions using an internet service which I am not sure would have existed in the 90s (maybe at the very end), but I extend the essence of the story back to the 90s because I remember having a modem that had a printer driver that allowed you to hit "print" and fax someone directly, which you could also easily use to do something like this without any sort of step where you're feeding paper into a physical machine.

Faxes have been "obsolete" a really long time.

miek 7 hours ago|||
While I refuse to work for the govt (my soul would rot), I have family and close friends that do, and the this story (w possibly exaggerated dialogue) is entirely believable.
neoCrimeLabs 7 hours ago||
Yeah, there are also business that provide this as a service.
harvey9 7 hours ago||
Funny to think of the author sending documents to a computer-to-fax service and the recipient doing the reverse.
spicymaki 7 hours ago||
Aside from the AI writing the blog itself seems to have a false timeline. It says there are posts from April 2017, but the domain has only been up for a year. There is all of this promotion about books, podcasts, volunteering to support the author.

What is this about?

calcifer 7 hours ago||
> It says there are posts from April 2017, but the domain has only been up for a year.

I don't know the author, but presumably the blog predates the domain.

phyzome 6 hours ago||
People migrate their blogs.
apexalpha 6 hours ago|
The problem in the UK, and many other countries, is that they refuse to split Disabilities in "objectively measurable disabilities" and "not objectively measurable disabilities."

Obviously, you can just objectively measure if someone is fully blind. Sure you can pretend, but that's very hard.

On the other hand there's disabilities like anxiety, where the only option is to ask the patient questions that the patient may or may not have already looked up online.

By not splitting the groups you are left with only two very bad options:

A) Everyone gets a regime with a lot checks and rechecks to keep the system affordable and scoped to people who need it.

B) You give everyone a lax, trusty regime that people will immediately start abusing by claiming they have anxiety or so.

0x3f 6 hours ago||
They're overly cautious about creating inadvertent structural forms of discrimination. Although perhaps they're not actually paranoid, given some recent court rulings.
tokai 6 hours ago||
>you can just objectively measure if someone is fully blind

No not really. Blindness is a spectrum.

https://www.cnib.ca/en/sight-loss-info/blindness/what-blindn...

https://www.perkins.org/what-blindness-really-looks-like/

0x3f 6 hours ago||
That's presumably what the word 'fully' is being employed for.
tokai 6 hours ago||
Sure, but its meaningless as you don't need to be fully blind to be legally blind. Its easy to delimitate things if can just change the units to fit your scheme and do away with the ambiguities.
squigz 5 hours ago||
I'm legally blind. This seems needlessly pedantic. What GP was highlighting was a valid distinction between disabilities that are likely or not to change, and how the lack of that distinction leads to the situations like TFA.
More comments...