←back to thread

763 points tartoran | 8 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
nla ◴[] No.45683007[source]
The Leahy Law requires the U.S. government to facilitate receipt of information about alleged abuses by U.S. supported forces.

The State Department confirms it no longer operates the HRG, but says it is still receiving reports through other direct channels.

I couldn't find any requirement in the law that requires a public website.

NGOs can still submit information through established contacts or by email.

I would think email is a lot easier than a webform.

replies(5): >>45683166 #>>45683179 #>>45683181 #>>45683231 #>>45693128 #
1. rco8786 ◴[] No.45683231[source]
> I would think email is a lot easier than a webform.

why

replies(3): >>45684309 #>>45684981 #>>45686053 #
2. jmole ◴[] No.45684309[source]
Not sure about you, but when I submit a “contact us” form, I am about 10% sure someone will actually read it.

When I send an email that isn’t bounced back, or better yet, get an auto reply with a ticket number, I’m a lot more certain it’s going to get read.

replies(3): >>45684326 #>>45684664 #>>45687111 #
3. estearum ◴[] No.45684326[source]
Sounds like a characteristic of the responder system more so than the input system.

Whereas what’s clearly a distinct advantage of a web form is that you can find it on the web.

4. slg ◴[] No.45684664[source]
>When I send an email that isn’t bounced back, or better yet, get an auto reply with a ticket number, I’m a lot more certain it’s going to get read.

An "auto reply with a ticket number" is not a feature of email, it is something that someone built that could just as easily be attached to a webform. Plenty of webforms work that way, I have personally built some in my career.

5. palmotea ◴[] No.45684981[source]
>> I would think email is a lot easier than a webform.

> why

Because email is a well-honed tool with lots of excellent implementations. You've got formatting, attachments, a text-entry region bigger than a peephole, etc.

A "contact us" webform is a crappy tool, usually quickly thrown together, that probably just sends an email anyway.

replies(1): >>45700405 #
6. anigbrowl ◴[] No.45686053[source]
Don't do this. It wastes everyone's time. If you disagree with the idea, say so and say why.
7. rco8786 ◴[] No.45687111[source]
The assertion is that one is easier than the other. But regardless I’m never confident about sending an email to some generic email inbox.
8. arendtio ◴[] No.45700405[source]
You are comparing 'excellent implementations' with 'crappy tool'. Technically, both can be equally good.

I would not prefer email for multiple reasons:

- First, you always need an account to send one, and therefore have to decide which identity you want to attach to a communication. With a form, you sometimes can skip that decision. However, I suspect that in this case, this argument does not apply, because you probably have to attach an identity either way.

- However, email is one of the most unreliable protocols due to its poor solutions for handling spam. For example, if someone from outside my organisation tries to contact me, I can never be sure whether the email reaches me, due to various factors in spam detection. Sometimes an email is delivered to my mailbox, sometimes to the spam folder, and sometimes it just gets lost in transmission. I had even cases where I sent an email to two people in the same organization, and one would receive it and the other would not, even though they were using the same email server.