You represent your organisation regardless of whether you cloak yourself in an alternate email

amszmidt 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

An employee doesn’t act as an official representative of their employer nor do they speak for the employee in any official capacity. That is what the message says.

The informal also didn’t cloak their identity (implies some malicious intent), they simple did not use their work email. Nothing wrong with that.

▲

conception 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I’m sorry, can you state which organization you are speaking for with this comment? It wasn’t immediately clear.

▲

throw0101c 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

anonym29 3 hours ago | parent [-]

@dang, can we establish a rule that NSA apologists should not be doxxing HN members for the sin of advocating against the NSA's preferred narratives and worldview?

Deliberate personal breaches of privacy against HN members as a response to the contents of their speech like this stifle free discourse to the highest degree possible and should be banned or at least harshly admonished, no?

▲

throw94901ap 3 hours ago | parent [-]

It's not really "doxing" when the public username they chose to use is their actual name, leading directly to their github profile, and their arguing that you always represent your employer, even if you "cloak" yourself in an alternate name.

Saying that it is a "breach of privacy" when the relevant details are being advertised by the person in question is silly.

▲

anonym29 3 hours ago | parent [-]

@dang if you ever need a volunteer to help investigate this network of accounts all named some variation of: "throw", followed by 4-5 numbers, and then 1-2 characters, who all seem to be conspicuously aligned in supporting NSA preferred narratives and attacking anyone criticizing them, please consider me. I'll gladly work for free on this. Government sockpuppets performing information warfare operations don't make HN a better place.

▲

throw49320a 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Pointing out that the above isn't "doxxing" isn't an "NSA preferred narrative".

Oh, by the way, since you keep calling for dad:

"Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data. "

▲

anonym29 3 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

throw49320a 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Edit: It's clear that the above person is having a bit of an episode of some sort, so I'm going to edit my comment and just wish them the best.

Edit 2: They've edited their comment to mirror mine, but this was their comment pre-edit, for posterity:

>"Holy cow, another one, literally created 9 minutes ago!

Don't you guys have some poor Venezuelan fishermen to be murdering or some orange boots to be licking?

Go destabilize someone else's country, stop being a traitor against your own. "I was just following orders" didn't count at the Nuremberg trials and it won't work at your trial either.

Anyway, I won't be responding anymore, in spite of your transparent efforts to obfuscate the fact that I'm critiquing NSA preferred policy while you and the rest of the throwaway accounts defend it.

You'd think for an "intelligence" professional, you'd be smart enough to realize that trying to employ the same manipulation tactics I literally just linked the training manual to above is a futile effort. But hey, then again, you geniuses did a great job stopping 9/11! Keep up the brilliance, nobody glows quite like you guys do ;)

Thanks for the chuckle - I love watching you schmucks take the bait from your own training manual. You clowns are all offense, no defense, and it shows."

▲

anonym29 2 hours ago | parent [-]

What on earth are you talking about, did you have an LLM write this?

	▲	throw49320a 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I'm sure dang or tomhow can confirm.

▲

3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]