>It's possible that there really is fire here, but that's a textbook example of how not to blow the whistle and be seen as credible.

For some reason, this statement strikes me as being cruel to someone who is willing to take a stand on moral principles. For someone to buck the orders, it takes a lot of courage and be able to stand up under pressure. There are no textbook examples of how to whistleblow and I think we owe these people who are willing to call out problems as they see it a more charitable hearing.

> For someone to buck the orders, it takes a lot of courage and be able to stand up under pressure.

But it doesn’t mean she’s right, it just means she feels strongly about it.

Or maybe she just overreacted and didn't understand the nature of the epidemiologist's data change?

Maybe its the morality of society in general or maybe its the Trump effect but I think we have been too quick to assign hero status and moral uprightness to people at the slightest opportunity. I'm not calling this woman a liar but as long as I can imagine a plausible scenario that provides an alternative explanation to whatever has been claimed especially considering that I dont know this person personally, I think I for one will not be so hasty with the canonization.

> I think we owe these people who are willing to call out problems as they see it a more charitable hearing.

In general, whistleblowers should be attended to, due consideration should be given to what they are risking.

But if you're going to do it, you need to build up a case and make it carefully and dispassionately, and above all maintain your professionalism. This reads more like a divorce proceeding.

If you're going to be dispassionate, you'll never whistle blow - nobody weighing the pros/cons dispassionately would consider ruining their career to expose one of the millions of shit companies a worthwhile endeavour.

> But if you're going to do it, you need to build up a case and make it carefully and dispassionately, and above all maintain your professionalism.

Last time I checked, the whistleblower wasn't raving or cursing on the way out.

It sounds like you're just generally uncomfortable with questioning authority.

Wrong number.

Problem is "someone who is willing to take a stand on moral principles" looks the same as "someone who was caught with their hand in the cookie jar and claims to be a victim".

Do you think that's relevant to this particular situation though? What did she do that counts as getting her hand caught in the cookie jar?

One big problem is the timing of all of this. In a typical government job, you could stab a co-worker to death, and management will sit around for three months mulling what to do about it.

In this case, it sounds like they told her to make a change, she said she disagreed but made the change anyway. And then they fired her? For what? This just doesn't ring true.

The coverup idea doesn't make much sense either. Apparently the "deleted" data was minor detail that would be published in a day or two anyway. Is it even material? Would anyone even be looking at it, aside from this scandal? Also sounds off.

My guess is that (right or wrong), she was already on someone's shitlist, and this was the last straw. The "my successors will be liars" thing certainly wouldn't make me want to work with her.

There will be an investigation, as there should be. I suspect there's little or no fire.

I actually agree with the beginning part of your comment, but then it makes much more sense to me that she was fired for political reasons. Pissing someone off or making them look bad is one of the few ways I see a fast firing happening in government these days.

One thing to add to that is that: Yes, it may be political, but it may be a very localized political situation (like a coworker or a PM or just this person's boss). The media/news/articles/discussion appear to be portraying this event in such a way as to portray the local governor/state-government in a bad light and as somehow responsible. See all the talk about the governor in this thread, the orders about nursing homes, etc.

"that's a textbook example of how not to blow the whistle and be seen as credible."

Considering that the last 2 years is full of whistle blowers that acted credibly and saw nothing happen, I doubt she cared about the larger optics. The data manger was probably more concerned with an immediate, clear response to users of the data.

And obviously being paid as per her first quoted remark.

It's different to be a whistle blower when you aren't sitting on a big savings account, other people's problems stop being a high priority.

Is the quote below the one you're describing? It's strongly worded, but I don't see how it would hurt her ability to be seen as credible.

“As a word of caution, I would not expect the new team to continue the same level of accessibility and transparency that I made central to the process during the first two months. After all, my commitment to both is largely (arguably entirely) the reason I am no longer managing it,” she wrote.

Yeah, I'm already seeing reports from other sources that the Florida data is now harder to access -- data going missing or unavailable for download, site crashing [1]. That would tend to support her remarks.

[1] https://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/2020/05/18/censorshi...

This is additional context: https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/495295-florida-orde...

Further context: https://www.tampabay.com/news/health/2020/04/29/florida-medi...

A spokesperson for the health department’s Hillsborough County office said a lag in reporting accounts for some of the difference. The health department is also excluding some snowbirds and other seasonal residents, along with visitors who died in Florida, from its count. The medical examiners are including anyone who died in Florida.

They stopped counting snowbirds cause that made the counts go down magically. Just like when the state prohibited medical examiners from giving results out (which is unprecedented in Florida). It's very clear they are going step by step to hide the true death count.

I just downloaded the entire dataset. All the same data seems to be there. Confusingly, this includes the "EventDate" field that she had been asked to remove.

I would not willingly hire or work with someone that wrote that in a public forum.

It reads to me like a person who believes they have integrity. I'd willingly hire and seek opportunities to work with people who value their integrity.

What about the statement bothers you?

She's publicly asserting that one or more of her colleagues will lie when they take over her role. She literally cannot predict the future behavior of these people, and is thus acting in bad faith.

Life is short, and I don't get paid enough to deal with people like that.

Where, specifically, does she assert that they will lie? She says they won’t be as transparent and she says they won’t be as accessible. Neither of those are accusations of an intent to lie.

And for what it’s worth, both of those accusations seem to have already played out as she expected. You can read more in comments in this thread here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23239014

Ahh yes, "no true whistleblower". Made up demands and processes so you "qualify". If anything is textbook, it's the retaliation.

Typically by virtue of being a whistleblower, you're throwing your career under the bus. That alone lends you more credibility, especially when you hold a position like she did.

Plus as someone else said, there have been plenty of whistleblowers this election cycle, all of whom were immediately claimed as being disgruntled workers, partisans etc no matter how professionally they tried to handle it. At a certain point we really need to start putting the burden of proof on the state and governmental agencies rather than playing defense for them.

>start putting the burden of proof on the state and governmental agencies

They'll just manufacture proof.

Let's not forget all the whistleblowers from before this election cycle.

Why do you think that? I find her statement pretty obvious and candid about the situation, and don't think it hurts her credibility at all.

"? I find her statement pretty obvious and candid"

It's neither obvious nor candid if it is in fact misrepresentative.

To me it looks terrible. She was fired for doing something wrong and she's claiming that 'only she has the ability to do it well, the newcomers cannot' which is definitely problematic.

Given the details of what she was asked to do and did not do so ... I don't see the state acting in any way towards 'censoring' information, just a disagreement as to what and how information should be presented.

Trump is claiming that Flynn was 'unmasked' and that this was some kind of crime, when in fact Obama letting Trump know that Flynn is under investigation was exactly what we want him to do.

The state seems reasoned in their justification, I don't see how someone would be 'whisteblowing' here.

FYI the state also made the claim that this issue was persistent, it wasn't just this one thing, and that she made changes to the site without consulting with her team, or the epidemiologists supporting the initiative, which is not good.

It's hard to make a full conclusion but I don't think it looks very good for a whistleblowing case.

Unless she knows what the team will do in the future (is that predictable?) she is prejudging them in an unkind light.

There has a been a repeated pattern in Florida to hide and obfuscate data. The Governor's Office has been trying to paint a particular version of events since day one. Everything from putting pressure on the law firm representing the Miami Herald trying to get data, to preventing coroners in the state from publishing data. This is just one more item to add to the list.

In a situation where you're fired for refusing to carry out your boss's instructions, it's pretty reasonable to assume that your replacement will be selected, in part at least, on their willingness to do what you would not.

Having that opinion is very different than publicly calling them liars before they've even had a chance to step into the role. Whatever else we ultimately find out about this, it is clear on its face that this act was unprofessional (and to me, destroys her credibility).

How very different is it when the order that was refused to be carried out was lying? In this scenario, someone was fired for effectively not lying. For that person to then make the claim that one could reasonably expect their successor to do the lying they were unwilling to carry out is only logical if they wanted to keep the job. Sure, perhaps calling them "liars" is harsh diction. But what's unprofessional is firing an employee because of their integrity in regards to the truth, especially pertaining to public safety

There are no perfect whistleblowers. If you're looking for something that destroys their credibility, you'll always be able to find one. Your particular complaint here is purely aesthetic and I think we'd all be better off focusing on the substance rather than going ten rounds about word choice and tone.

She's prejudging management. If she was fired for refusing to do something, is management likely to replace her with another person or team who will also refuse to do the same?

I think I understand where you're coming from; the way I see it, she isn't prejudging anybody, maybe if anything judging the people who fired her, but not those who will come after. She believes the reason for her termination was her dedication to the cause, so from her perspective, if whoever took the job after her shared in her dedication, they too would be theoretically fired and replaced until the individual set to fill her position is somebody who would not refuse to "manipulate data"

I found some very interesting quotes towards the bottom of that article, that seem to address some of the concerns about her credibility I've seen in the comments:

> The Tampa Bay Times automatically checks for changes in the data and archives new updates. Shortly before 10:12 a.m on May 4., data still included the EventDate field, showing records with listed dates that people reported symptoms as early as January 1. By 3:02 p.m., the column was gone.

For much of the next day, May 5, the column was either missing or empty, with every row listing “None.” Finally, it returned shortly before 8:02 p.m.

Times reporters asked Health Department spokesman Alberto Moscoso that day why the data disappeared. Two days later, he said, “This field continues to be represented on the Department’s COVID-19 Dashboard.”

Moscoso did not reply to requests for comment Tuesday.

According to internal emails reviewed by the Times, Department of Health I.T. Director Craig Curry emailed Rebekah Jones just before 5 p.m. on May 5. He cited Dr. Carina Blackmore, director for the Division of Disease Control and Health Protection.

“Per Dr. Blackmore, disable the ability to export the data to files from the dashboard immediately. We need to ensure that dates (date fields) in all objects match their counterpart on the PDF line list published,” Curry wrote.

The tables in the PDF documents did not include the column of data showing when symptoms were first reported, only the “Case Date” — the date the state recorded and confirmed the case.

“This is the wrong call,” Jones replied minutes later.

A few minutes later, she emailed Curry again. “Case line data is down.”

Then, just after 6 p.m., the I.T. director emailed both Jones and Dr. Blackmore. “Re-enable for now please.”

Jones replied, “10-4.”

Neither Dr. Blackmore nor Curry replied to requests for comment.

Hypothetically speaking, what should the email say in the scenario where she's virtuous, her bosses are scoundrels, and her successors are liars?

Nothing about the successors. Something like "I've tried to do good work here, and particularly with features A, B, and C. <This organization> does important work, and I'm proud to have been a part of it. (If needed) Sadly, we had crucial disagreements on the handling of the data, and I needed to move on. I wish my successors the best, and stand ready to assist in any way that I can."

If there's something truly horrible going on, go find the best reporter you can and tell them your tale. If you want to make a difference, forsake fame, forsake glory, forsake vengeance, forsake righteousness. Become quiet death to the evil worth fighting.

>forsake righteousness

I think you might have gotten a little carried away with your rhetoric there, that would mean keeping your job. ;) But this serves an important point, which is that vitriolic rhetoric can creep in even when the writer is a Hackernews commenter steeped in a culture of dry language and with no strong emotions or anything at stake. Filtering out information that comes along with vitriol is like filtering out any paragraph that uses the word "and" an even number of times.

Bah, I meant self-righteousness. Always get those confused. :-P