Hacker News Reader

About the 1st one, it's often done "off-the-record" by the company itself.

Apple is notorious for this, it's an "unofficial announcement", given to select members of the press as to create hype and test the waters. Officially it still remains a secret.

Having represented whistleblowers, though, I can say it's difficult to find any pure cases. There's almost always something to crticize about the leaker's motive.

The evil is often an order of magnitude of difference between the leaker and the leakee. But Americans hate disloyalty, unless it's a clear crime --- and even then, we don't want to reward a snitch.

If you want a culture of transparency, you need to be comfortable rewarding some level of disloyalty or gain.

> But Americans hate disloyalty, unless it's a clear crime --- and even then, we don't want to reward a snitch.

If by we you mean people, maybe. But there's at least a case where the US government with qui-tam and other stuff can make whistleblower pretty rich: https://www.phillipsandcohen.com/whistleblower-rewards/

Can! But judges and the government can take steps to limit or torpedo recovery by less virtuous (or disfavored) whistleblowers.

They can both have the same negative consequence: a company's open culture becoming more secretive.

If the second type is occurring, the company is screwed, and the employee is screwed a anyway. Without the leaker it is very rare for the company to come out and say

"Oh ya, our profit at all costs behavior is immoral"

all on their own.

the problem at google is there are radical activities believing everything is type 2. there’s something to be said about solving problems internally. And in many cases no real problem exists but the person “whistle blowing” just wants to feel special or be an activist

Do you have any examples of this?

The second one is also personal gain, as you yourself explained. It's a way to protest the organization or harm coworkers without making a personal sacrifice. Morality is self interest as much as money is.

But it's for the society's best interest that such people keep their jobs, don't you agree?

When you are leaking something illegal there are laws usually in place to protect your job or compensate you if it can't be protected. However there is no way to protect you when leak what you think is unethical but is not illegal (yet). The recommended course action in that case participate in legal actions which help make such unethical actions illegal i.e. change the law, until then you are essentially committing a crime.

You may consider committing a such crime lesser cost morally than actually partaking in the unethical activity, this by design comes at a cost. Morality to reflect in laws comes at a great cost. Slavery was not made illegal just because it the right thing, it was made illegal because people fought and died for it.

You, as an employee, should attempt to change the laws such that the unethical actions become illegal? That sounds so farcical. Bringing light to the unethical practices (leaking) is the quickest way to get them under public scrutiny and possibly begin the process of legal change.

>You, as an employee, should attempt to change the laws such that the unethical actions become illegal?

This is something that large-scale strikes have historically accomplished. The 8-hour workday and the existence of the weekend are both results of that approach.

It doesn’t always fit, and whistleblowing can be powerful too.

The best way to mobilize large-scale demonstration and action is by informing the public. Try to do that through "legal" channels and see how far you get. Strikes and other worker-organized rallies were ruthlessly suppressed by the law before we arrived where we are today. Massive corporate entities will use every legal avenue available to silence you

i didn’t say it didn’t come without sacrifice. I said it worked.

The law is the legitimate consensus of the people on the matter of morality. If you think an action is unethical and the majority does not think that, then perhaps that action isn't unethical after all. In such a situation, you have every right to refraim from that action, but no excuse to force others to do so or to leak.

Nah whistleblowing is a simple way to bring light to unethical behavior and put these actions in front of the public so laws can be created and changed. Many of the unethical behaviors are completely new ground from the pov of the court system as we've trailblazed our way into the information age, mass surveillance, and data-mining. Maybe the majority doesn't think it's unethical yet because they simply don't know that it's occurring or the scale of the problem

Civil disobedience is always an option, but those who use this tactic need to accept that the law will temporarily punish them pending some societal realignment. It's a big bet. It's still unreasonable to expect an exemption from the law because one feels that one's cause is just.

> The recommended course action in that case participate in legal actions which help make such unethical actions illegal i.e. change the law, until then you are essentially committing a crime.

> Slavery was not made illegal just because it the right thing, it was made illegal because people fought and died for it.

These are two wildly incompatible assertions. All of those people fighting to end slavery in the US before the Emancipation Proclamation were committing crimes. Should the underground railroad not have started until they got the OK from the president?

The assumption that leaking, in the OPs second example, is always for personal gain is incorrect. There is always risk involved in some manner and there are plenty of historical examples wherein people will put an exceptional amount of personal sacrifice on the line. Sacrifice can easily outstrip any gains realized by the greater good than for the individual. I, personally, don't believe conflating them is accurate. Maybe it's convent if you're the large organization or government that is in the crosshairs.

But protesting against your employer is very rarely for personal gain. You are at minimum putting your job at risk. Of course there's personal sacrifice involved: you'll more than likely be fired if you are discovered.

One must take responsibility for one’s morals. Our given set of societal/legal norms impart a certain level of responsibility. Because of the law, one must be responsible whether one likes it or not. The individual sits at the mercy of the society in which the individual exists. I suppose the only recourse for the individual is to help change society (this is slow, and requires even more responsibility) OR move to a different society.

Upholding an ethical morality is not the same as following the law. The law frequently does not follow the values or mores of the people themselves. And often even if it is close it lags behind in time and it is only the actions of people contrary to the law which changes it. So, I believe that your claims are unsound. Indeed it is irresponsible to follow an unjust law comma because then you will just be reinforcing injustices. See the American civil rights movement for good examples of this.

morals != laws. Re-read and you will see no association made in the grammar. Words tend to reflect back the ideas and beliefs of the reader.

it appears to be the same thing in your comment, because you say that because there is a law people have a responsibility. And that responsibility to the law becomes a moral responsibility according to the way I have read what you say that makes sense as a response to the original comment. If you would like to explain it some another way then please do!

The law forces one be responsible (without choice). If a law is passed to “kick the leakers”, then if one leaks, they will be held responsible by having a good kicking for not bearing the responsibility of upholding the law. Morally, the individual is opposed to the law. Fine. Great. Even without the law, one is still responsible for their morals. Maybe the society doesn’t “kick” people, maybe society supports leakers. Doesn’t matter. There have been countless individuals acting “morally” (in their view), and we as a society have held them responsible. One should balance one’s actions against their morals, and society’s law.

Well there's the conflict then. Many people believe that morals are more important than the law, not the other way around.

And really, what you're talking about is a balance. Very few people actually believe that anyone has a total responsibility to always submit to punishments for laws. Nobody argues that people who helped slaves escape from their masters should have turned themselves into the state afterwards. Nobody argues that a North Korean dissonant should hang a sign on their door announcing their intentions to defect. Nobody argues that before the Boston Tea Party everyone involved should have said, "well there's no need for these disguises, the point will be the same regardless of whether we go to jail afterwards."

And of course in the opposite direction, nobody argues, "well, you had a good reason for running that red light, so it's perfectly reasonable to run from the police when they try to pull you over."

What you're really arguing is that leaks about a company's immoral behavior don't cross the line where people have a right to defend themselves from having their lives ruined. The reason GP disagrees with you isn't because they don't understand that orderly societies require laws. It's because they think it does cross that line.

Personally, I trend towards agreeing with them. It is very easy to tell other people that they should just buck up and accept unjust consequences as a result of helping me. The reality is I (and society as a whole) benefit a lot from whistleblowers. Given that whistleblowing is already a very dangerous process, it's not clear to me why it's in my best interest to heap additional social condemnation on top of that.

We can't have a society if disagreement with the law frees one from the consequences of failing to obey it.

> I suppose the only recourse for the individual is to help change society (this is slow, and requires even more responsibility) OR move to a different society.

Neither of these things is reasonable. Am I supposed to start an election campaign if I don't like the law? Am I supposed to move my whole life elsewhere?

No, undermining the powers that be -in this case by leaking- is the right thing to do.

No. But stating the Delimma allows us to talk about how to solve it.

I think there are a few omissions here.

1. There are three (not two) choices in modern life: follow the law, break the law, break the law with anonymity. The last still carries risk, but not nearly with the certainty of the second.

2. Between this and your replies downthread, we have to be clear that "society" consists of three parts: government, citizens, and capital (aka corporations). All of these influence the creation and enforcement of laws.

Because of the last, I would assert that in modern capitalist democracies, it is possible to break the law yet be in complete moral alignment with the citizens of your society.

An example would have been the original protests against the Tea Act of 1773.

Breaking a rule can involve many things at once: bravery in adhering to your moral code, cowardice in avoiding alternative paths, disrespect for your commitments to a society or team, empathy for people your society or team is harming. Leakers must weigh these things against each other and so must anyone looking at them - even if they weigh those things differently.

Believing either (a) that people should hold the law abover their own values, or (b) that people should only be judged on adherence to their own code, are not ways out of the conundrum - they're just a particular set of values.