Trump/Republican Coup Thread

[Broomstick]

Internal rot is tough to deal with.

[Solauren]

At least 12 National Guard service members have been removed from president-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration after authorities discovered they have ties to right-wing militia groups or posted extremist views online.

The discovery follows Defense Department and FBI efforts to screen National Guard members as more than 20,000 troops support law enforcement in Washington DC ahead of the swearing-in ceremony, days after a far-right mob breached the US Capitol.

Two service members were identified on Tuesday morning, according to the Associated Press. At least 10 others were identified by the FBI “as having ties to fringe right-wing groups or had posted extremist views”, according to the outlet.

Federal authorities have identified a growing number of law enforcement and military personnel who joined the insurrection on 6 January.

Link.

First, I hope more of those idiots are found, removed from their jobs, and charged. Part of the insurrection or not. Most of those militia style groups have views and stated goals, that run contrary to being part of law enforcement or the military. (Not all of them, and not just right-wing ones.)

Second, shouldn't a review like this being happening on individual service-men and women, or even government employees, every 6 - 12 months?

[Bedlam]

At least 12 National Guard service members have been removed from president-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration after authorities discovered they have ties to right-wing militia groups or posted extremist views online.

The discovery follows Defense Department and FBI efforts to screen National Guard members as more than 20,000 troops support law enforcement in Washington DC ahead of the swearing-in ceremony, days after a far-right mob breached the US Capitol.

Two service members were identified on Tuesday morning, according to the Associated Press. At least 10 others were identified by the FBI “as having ties to fringe right-wing groups or had posted extremist views”, according to the outlet.

Federal authorities have identified a growing number of law enforcement and military personnel who joined the insurrection on 6 January.

Link.

First, I hope more of those idiots are found, removed from their jobs, and charged. Part of the insurrection or not. Most of those militia style groups have views and stated goals, that run contrary to being part of law enforcement or the military. (Not all of them, and not just right-wing ones.)

Second, shouldn't a review like this being happening on individual service-men and women, or even government employees, every 6 - 12 months?

Who gets to decide what is considered an extremists view? Would you be happy for a future government to be able to remove all service people or government employees who, for example, believe that abortion should be legal?

[Broomstick]

Second, shouldn't a review like this being happening on individual service-men and women, or even government employees, every 6 - 12 months?

Well, let's see...

1,300,000 active military members.
800,000 reserves.
450,000 National Guard.
2,100,000 Federal employees.

So that's 4,650,000 people to review every 6-12 months.

I suspect, given the sheer number of people, that there are some logistical challenges there.

[Solauren]

Who gets to decide what is considered an extremists view? Would you be happy for a future government to be able to remove all service people or government employees who, for example, believe that abortion should be legal?

The ones advocating the overthrow of the government come to mind.

[Solauren]

Second, shouldn't a review like this being happening on individual service-men and women, or even government employees, every 6 - 12 months?

Well, let's see...

1,300,000 active military members.
800,000 reserves.
450,000 National Guard.
2,100,000 Federal employees.

So that's 4,650,000 people to review every 6-12 months.

I suspect, given the sheer number of people, that there are some logistical challenges there.

I'd assume the non-military jobs have yearly job reviews. (Every government job I've worked at, every department has them).
Probably 1 on 1 with their Immediate supervisor. Expand that to include two other supervisors, (and preferably someone from HR and security) and they have to login to their social media accounts, and let the supervisors look around at their group memberships and the like. (and that claim they don't have any social media, you google them, take a picture, and reverse look it up on google, etc).

Screen-shot and email the groups to HR for a quick review of anything that is eyebrow raising but not immediately 'alarming'.

Anything immediately alarming, you go in, review their posts, and if it's further alarming (i.e if they posted that outside of a private group, the FBI might want to talk to them...), remove them from the premise, suspend their access, and hand it over to Federal law enforcement.

It's only a logistical challenge if there isn't a review process in place at their workplace already.
(Which, if there isn't, that in of itself is alarming).

[Broomstick]

The problem is when you have a group of them in the same workplace, and such things have happened. Then you need outside review.

[Solauren]

The problem is when you have a group of them in the same workplace, and such things have happened. Then you need outside review.

That's what the HR + Security people. They'd get external reviewed first, vetted, and then help with the other reviews.

Also, you could have law enforcement monitoring those online social groups, and as members join, do searches against the employee records of all government organizations. Instant flag for monitoring.

[Ralin]

There are civilian companies that demand access to prospective employees' social media accounts as part of their interview process. It's generally considered to be pretty fucked up and invasive. Why exactly is it appropriate to normalize that by requiring government employees to do the same on the regular?

[Gandalf]

Do they do such things for people who want security clearances?

[Ace Pace]

Do they do such things for people who want security clearances?

Depends on the clearance but yes. But security reviews don't happen often enough and people change over time. Someone who pegged as reliable in 2018 can be utterly nutty in in 2020 and the manpower to keep track of that is not small.

[Solauren]

There are civilian companies that demand access to prospective employees' social media accounts as part of their interview process. It's generally considered to be pretty fucked up and invasive. Why exactly is it appropriate to normalize that by requiring government employees to do the same on the regular?

Social Media presence is becoming normal. People often list (and link) to their employer. This is form of public relations for the employer.
(Incidently, it's why i lift my employment as 'self employed').

Companies vet their advertisers, right?

Also, more and more, employee mental health is being considered and actively monitored by employers. A review of social media accounts during the hiring process let's companies pre-screen potentially toxic personalities, thereby guarding the mental health, and 'social environment' health of their existing employees.

Also, if you make friends at work now a days, usually ad some of them on social media. (Hell, my team at work has discussed setting up a facebook group just for our team). I'm willing to bet, there has been the odd case of people getting fired because a co-worker reported something on the offenders Facebook or Instagram account.

So, what's the difference between the company taking a look at someone's social media account, or waiting until an employee does it for them?

One, is you've let a potentially toxic presence you could have avoided into the workplace, and the potential negative effects on the workplace are prevented.

Two, is by pre-screening someone before hiring them, you avoid the complication of contracts, or union involvement.

And three, if someone refuses to let a potential employer look at their social media, they're showing they do not trust the company. So why should the company trust them?

[Ralin]

Social Media presence is becoming normal. People often list (and link) to their employer. This is form of public relations for the employer.
(Incidently, it's why i lift my employment as 'self employed').

Companies vet their advertisers, right?

You, uh, really want to say that employers can declare that all of their employees represent them and are accountable to their employer for what they say and do in their free time?

Also, more and more, employee mental health is being considered and actively monitored by employers. A review of social media accounts during the hiring process let's companies pre-screen potentially toxic personalities, thereby guarding the mental health, and 'social environment' health of their existing employees.

How in the holy mother of fuck is my employer either competent to assess my 'mental health' or entitled to do so?

So, what's the difference between the company taking a look at someone's social media account, or waiting until an employee does it for them?

One, is you've let a potentially toxic presence you could have avoided into the workplace, and the potential negative effects on the workplace are prevented.

Two, is by pre-screening someone before hiring them, you avoid the complication of contracts, or union involvement.

"Dealing with contracts and unions would make it more difficult to get rid of someone because we don't like their politics, religion, sexuality or general attitude in their off time, so best get it done before those things apply" isn't the reasonable take you seem to think it is.

And three, if someone refuses to let a potential employer look at their social media, they're showing they do not trust the company. So why should the company trust them?

Because they're gay or transgender and have reason to want to keep that private? Muslim? Atheist? In an interracial relationship? Childfree? Do you not recognize that people are entitled to have a personal life separate from work?

[Broomstick]

Do they do such things for people who want security clearances?

I am not allowed to discuss the security vetting I underwent when I applied to the TSA but yes, at a certain level they can ask for social media accounts. Among many, many other things.

For some extremely sensitive levels of security clearance they don't just investigate YOU, they investigate your entire family. In some cases friends.

[Broomstick]

Social Media presence is becoming normal. People often list (and link) to their employer. This is form of public relations for the employer.
(Incidently, it's why i lift my employment as 'self employed').

Companies vet their advertisers, right?

You, uh, really want to say that employers can declare that all of their employees represent them and are accountable to their employer for what they say and do in their free time?

My employer has been pretty explicit about how they do and do not want to be featured in our social media. The main thing is that the employer does not want negative publicity due to the off-hours actions of their employees.

More rarely, employees don't want negative impact on their lives due to the actions of their employer, which has also happened.

Currently, I maintain two on-line identities. This one, which is anonymous (although I expect the FBI/CIA/NSA/other government agencies can figure out who I am if they really want to do so), and another one under my legal name, which is full of very, very mundane stuff. If I'm going to dis my employer it's going to be on this one. And if I'm going to PRAISE my employer it will probably be on this one, too.

But not everyone does that. And setting up "Broomstick" in 1994 probably helped keep things a little more resistant to amateur trolls and doxing than if I was setting it up today.

Because they're gay or transgender and have reason to want to keep that private? Muslim? Atheist? In an interracial relationship? Childfree? Do you not recognize that people are entitled to have a personal life separate from work?

Remarkably, quite a few Americans don't understand that.

[Solauren]

Because they're gay or transgender and have reason to want to keep that private? Muslim? Atheist? In an interracial relationship? Childfree? Do you not recognize that people are entitled to have a personal life separate from work?

I do. However, if you're posting it on social media, then it's no longer private, now is it?

As Broomstick said in a previous post, some places run full security checks on you, and your family, and the people you know, and if you do not co-operate with that, you do not get hired. Period.

And because they can simply say 'we've decided not to hire you', and are under no obligation to explain why, they could decide not to hire you because of the fact you wore a competitors watch 10 years ago, and there would be nothing you could do about it.

[Ralin]

I do. However, if you're posting it on social media, then it's no longer private, now is it?

It is if you need me to fucking log in and show it to you.

As Broomstick said in a previous post, some places run full security checks on you, and your family, and the people you know, and if you do not co-operate with that, you do not get hired. Period.

'Some places.' That doesn't mean it is good or justified to make it a standard practice.

And because they can simply say 'we've decided not to hire you', and are under no obligation to explain why, they could decide not to hire you because of the fact you wore a competitors watch 10 years ago, and there would be nothing you could do about it.

And as such there is every reason why we should not increase their ability to abuse their discretion by refusing to hire people on discriminatory or arbitrary grounds. My employer isn't entitled to butt in on my personal life when I'm not at work. And given that I'm a teacher who deals with kids there's more reason to be concerned about my issues than most.

[Solauren]

I do. However, if you're posting it on social media, then it's no longer private, now is it?

It is if you need me to fucking log in and show it to you.

Employer: "Please login to your account, so we know it's your account we are looking at. We don't want to mistake someone without a proper profile picture as you, and disqualify you from the job because that individual is a racist asshat."

Potiential Hire: "Why not just search function me and I'll point it out to you?"

Employer: "Please login to your account, so we know it's your account, and you are not claiming another account as your own to hide the fact you are a racist asshat, or that someone has stolen your profile picture to frame you as a racist asshat."

[Ralin]

Employer: "Please login to your account, so we know it's your account we are looking at. We don't want to mistake someone without a proper profile picture as you, and disqualify you from the job because that individual is a racist asshat."

Potiential Hire: "Why not just search function me and I'll point it out to you?"

Employer: "Please login to your account, so we know it's your account, and you are not claiming another account as your own to hide the fact you are a racist asshat, or that someone has stolen your profile picture to frame you as a racist asshat."

So a coerced invasion of privacy that should not be against labor law...why?

[Solauren]

No one told them to go to the job interview.

[Ralin]

No one told them to go to the job interview.

And now you're pretending we don't routinely set limits on the sort of questions employers are legally allowed to ask during interviews. Are you just trolling now?

[Solauren]

No, I'm not.

From what I've seen, most places that will look over your social media tell you up front. They ask you to bring your cellphone, and explain why.
Thereby giving you a chance to go 'no, I don't want this job if I have to do that'.

At that point, you have a choice of going, and thereby giving your consent, or not going, and not giving your consent.

Simple as that.

And I would have absolutely no problem with that being a condition of employment by the government, armed forces, or law enforcement. Those are the people charged with protecting our lives (law enforcement/armed forces), and administrating services fairly and without prejudice.

Trusting a homophobe to not give a LGBQT a hard time "because it's their job" is foolish, and potientaly dangerous to the LGBQT individual. (for example).

[GuppyShark]

It would be fairly trivial to bypass if it is a known requirement. The reason this purge worked was because it was a surprise. They'll just have one 'squeaky clean' profile and do all their white supremacist chatter on a secret one.

[Solauren]

It would be fairly trivial to bypass if it is a known requirement. The reason this purge worked was because it was a surprise. They'll just have one 'squeaky clean' profile and do all their white supremacist chatter on a secret one.

If they're smart, they'll do it off social media all together. (By that I mean Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc).

Really, it's private discussion forums that are the big consideration. (Which, for the record, I am AGAINST people having to login into for their employers to look around. You need a warrant for those kind of forums for a reason).

[EnterpriseSovereign]

In theory the searching and pointing out should be enough if the profile picture is clearly you. I might be persuaded to pull it up on my phone and show, but I won't let anyone else touch my phone, and I sure as hell won't use one of their devices!