Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Bloomberg conveniently left out the reason why "Tripp has since changed lawyers". It's because he published on Twitter a trove of confidential internal Tesla documents. Once he did that his lawyer knew they had no case anymore. Tripp only deleted the documents after his lawyer was able to get in touch with him. This showed that he did in fact access internal Tesla systems and he did in fact exfiltrate this information. But somehow Bloomberg paints Tesla in a negative light, as they always do.

Whistleblower complaints are for obvious reasons typically based on exfiltrated documents. There may be liability against the whistleblower for that, but generally that does not impair the merits of the case against the company (except to the extent the company can use threats of legal action over the documents to keep the whistleblower quiet). And in some cases there are specific legal safeguards for whistleblowers whose complaints are based on confidential documents, especially in the case of public companies: https://www.zuckermanlaw.com/court-rules-whistleblowers-can-...

Agreed, and these kinds of criticisms always get me eye-rolling. "On the one hand, Megacorp committed <atrocious environment/safety violations>. But on the other hand, Whistleblower stole internal documents proving them. So, you have to accept, there's wrongdoing on both sides."

A succinct description of false equivalence. Quite nice.

Reminds me of criticisms WikiLeaks

A "whistleblower" that first leaked all information to reporters, and then only claimed he was a whistleblower once Tesla figured out who it was. A "whistleblower" that a few months later publishes all of these internal documents ON TWITTER.

Maybe he recognized that giving the information to SEC or DOJ would result in them dithering and keeping the information from the public for months or years on end as is their custom when facing complaints against well-heeled and connected corporate bad actors.

Tripp believed dangerous batteries were being placed in Tesla cars being sold to the public. It seems like none have been seen in the wild -- maybe because he was wrong or maybe because his public revelations forced Tesla to change course.

Even his own lawyer thought it was wrong to publish the documents on Twitter.

> Tripp believed dangerous batteries were being placed in Tesla cars being sold to the public. It seems like none have been seen in the wild -- maybe because he was wrong or maybe because his public revelations forced Tesla to change course.

Based on his actions and his credibility problems, it is reasonable to assume he was intentionally dishonest and was pursuing a personal vendetta, rather than acting in the public interest.

Who should he have leaked it to? Where should he have published it?

> Who should he have leaked it to?

The appropriate regulatory agency rather than the media.

> Where should he have published it?

Publishing internal documents is the last resort after everything else has failed.

Whistleblower protection laws generally do not require that the "appropriate regulatory agency" be the only person to whom disclosure is made...

Publishing internal documents is the last resort after everything else has failed.

No, that's usually the first and best option once the company has been made aware of the problem and chooses not to correct it...as is what is alleged happened here. Why make vague statements that Company X ignored Problem Y when you can just provide documents proving your claims?

> Whistleblower protection laws generally do not require that the "appropriate regulatory agency" be the only person to whom disclosure is made...

Whistleblower protection laws in some cases don't even exist and even where they do you're typically not going to have a fun time if you have to use them. When it comes down to it you do what you've got to do, but going there first rather than last is not a really great idea.

> No, that's usually the first and best option once the company has been made aware of the problem and chooses not to correct it...as is what is alleged happened here. Why make vague statements that Company X ignored Problem Y when you can just provide documents proving your claims?

For one thing, documents rarely prove anything on their own (how do you even know they're not forgeries?) without the investigatory powers needed to verify the information in them. Which the government has and Twitter doesn't.

For one thing, documents rarely prove anything on their own (how do you even know they're not forgeries?) without the investigatory powers needed to verify the information in them. Which the government has and Twitter doesn't.

We don't. The government is also not the only entity that can perform forensics on purported documents. News companies do it all the time, and their are hundreds of e-forensics firms in the US and EU that could happily do it for a fee. There's also thousands of people with access to Twitter and the spare time to dig into any purported document leaks to verify them for accuracy. In fact, Twitter is a good (but not even remotely the best) way to get all the interested/competent parties aware of the documents.

Forensics on digital documents can be a lot of pseudo-science, especially when you're talking about text documents and spreadsheets. Legitimate documents can have as many anomalies as a half decent forgery.

Confirmation is having somebody to go to the place and see if the materials alleged to be there are actually there. Unless you're lucky enough for them to be clearly and unambiguously visible from public space, that means you need some kind of authorization to go in and have a look. A picture of an unknown container is not very helpful.

> In fact, Twitter is a good (but not even remotely the best) way to get all the interested/competent parties aware of the documents.

What's wrong with bringing them privately to the subset of the parties whose interest is in fixing the problem?

What is wrong with publishing internal documents as the first step exactly?

Internal documents can contain confidential business information that is of use to competitors etc. which it may be illegal or a violation of an NDA for you to expropriate and publish. Then it becomes a public exhibit of everyone attacking each other and defending themselves instead of people working to actually solve the problem.

Moreover, "a company" doesn't do stuff, its employees do. If you're the employee, the first person whose job it is to keep the company from doing dumb stuff is you. And there is a process for that. If you're the one responsible for it, you fix it. If you're not, you alert the person who is, then their boss if that doesn't work and on up the chain to the government until it gets fixed. If that process works then the problem gets solved without there being anything to create a media storm over, and if that process would have worked but you decided to skip it then you're creating a media storm over nothing.

I guess it depends on the intent of the whistle blower. Is there a Project Zero type of way to publish? Wikileaks? Why does it have to go to any gov't body first? If the information is leaked out, do the governing agencies have a responsibility to investigate based on the leaked information or only investigate the suspect for leaking? Paralysis by analysis can be applied here, so just publish and let the chips fall where they may?

The ever-impartial Wikileaks? Sure, let's jump right on that...

The ever-impartial Wikileaks? Sure, let's jump right on that...

I don't think such a site has to be that impartial. I'll just settle for not evil. It would be best if they had competitors.

They're indiscriminate, so I tend to "trust" them. They don't really care what they put out, AFAIK.

Unless it's material detrimental to the RNC after they've met with Donald Trump Jr, of course...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com