Hacker News Reader

Comment by ChrisMarshallNY | Hacker News Reader

One thing that I should point out, is that he is not going after the WSJ, for any impropriety in his firing. They are really the ones that damaged his career.

So I suspect that there is more to this story than is apparent.

View on HN

Or he believes he was justifiably fired, but would have been able to get another job had the emails not been made public. The Journal is not interfering in his future prospects.

From what I can tell, there’s not necessarily more. It’s a clear conflict of interest to do business with a source for a story. Doesn’t sound illegal, but certainly gives the appearance of bias.

Reuters didn't say he did any business with the source, just accepting a gift ride on a yacht.

Publications like the Wall Street Journal have stricter ethical rules than apply in a lot of other situations. Accepting a "yacht ride" would be OK under some circumstances but possibly not in this case--and at least suggesting an openness to business deals could well cross the line as well.

How do you figure? The WSJ didn’t initiate or take part in the hacking scheme. They fired an employee that appeared to be engaged in impropriety / not meeting the organizations ethical standards.

It’s like if someone broke into you house and found letters to a lover and published them, and your partner then divorced you, would you blame your partner or the person that broke into your house?

I am curious why he is not naming the Emerati prince that hired the law firm.

Fair point.

> I am curious why he is not naming the Emerati prince that hired the law firm.

I suspect that he doesn't have enough evidence to prove it, or he doesn't want to poke the bear, because the Prince wasn't really after him; it was just collateral damage.

It seems to me that his beef is not with the WSJ because he was aware of the possible consequences regarding the potential conflict of interest.

WSJ is entitled to fire someone if they have verifiable evidence supporting that decision. If the evidence was illegally obtained....well, it would be an trial admissibility issue, but that wouldn't apply to a work/employment matter.

Employment is generally at-will. Employers can and do fire for a broad range of reasons, including suspicion without evidence.

9 times out of 10, in case of improprieties, a person is fired, and no further action is taken. In most cases, there is no upside to prosecution, and a lot of potential downside. In every legal case I've been involved with, there were deep improprieties, such as fabrication of evidence. If you're right, that's no guarantee of winning a case, and in most cases, both sides come out scarred and tarnished.

The legal system is random, and a high risk for everyone.

> Employers can and do fire for a broad range of reasons, including suspicion without evidence.'

Employers can, but those that are at the size of the WSJ probably don't. The bad PR, reputational damage and legal damages of an unfounded firing, isn't worth it.

With emails being so important to careers and reputations, why don't people use 1) encryption 2) Microsoft or Google to host their emails?

I believe... In the USA you cannot sue your employer for firing you unless it's for membership of a protected class or whistleblowing. If your employer wants to fire you because it's Thursday or they're just having a bad day or they don't like something you wrote in an email, tough.

so you're talking about at-will employment and it's generally the rule in America. however there are some states that have a good faith rule where you can't terminate a employee for malice. here's a map of which states are which: https://www.paycor.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Employment...

i believe WSJ employs in NY state so this doesn't apply.

No, employment law is much more complicated than that.

Every single person is a member of a protected class. Men are just as much a protected class as women are, and whites are just as much a protected class as blacks are. At least, this is what the law says, because I don’t think that all of these classes are actually equally protected by law in practice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com