Hacker News Reader

> To expect there will be no retaliation for pissing off higher ups would be incredibly naive. Even if what you are doing (strictly speaking) is legal and retaliation is illegal. You can't expect to not suffer any repercussions for pissing off those that ultimately are in charge of your pay cheque. That's just not how people operate - even if that's how the law (and society, on the surface) says they should.

The whole point is that this is illegal and wrong. We discuss it in order to, hopefully, fix a bad thing rather than throw up our hands and say, "oh well, she had it coming!"

I don't disagree at all with what you're saying. What I'm saying is that human nature and politics are an incredibly complex game. Look at the dirty politics involved in presidential campaigns (see, this behaviour is even in evidence at the very top of the food chain!) as an example. Until you fix the mentality of the people at the top, shit will continue to roll downhill. This goes for corporate environments, political environments, society as a whole.

What exactly is the point of having a law if you don't expect it to be upheld? If these managers illegally retaliated for sharing salary information, then nail them to the fucking wall. Who the hell cares if they're "uncomfortable" that things are changing?

Yeah, maybe a tiger attacks people when it feels threatened. You still put it down.

There's a huge issue of laws built around the intention of an action. That is, the action itself is not illegal unless also backed by a given intention. These cases are nearly impossible to prove in court. How do you prove that someone did something with a certain intention? Especially when they have 5th amendment protection? Unless they come out and say it voluntarily, or unless you have solid evidence such as emails, you're not going to get very far.

Laws where intent is a necessary component of violation are not nearly impossible to prove in court (given how common this is with criminal law, and the higher standard of proof there than in civil cases, yours rarely see criminal convictions in cases that went to trial were intent nearly impossible to prove in court.)

Intent can be inferred from circumstances and other actions alongside the prohibited action; and this is particularly true in civil cases where the standard is a mere preponderance of the evidence rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Upholding a law is more tricky that being obtuse about how the world is going to unfold before The Judgement Day (TM). Look at Aaron Swartz. There is a way to have things done - if the world is becoming a better place it is because a lot of people are doing a lot of things behind the smokescreen.

You're absolutely right that these sorts of things are all too common but that isn't really a reason to shrug off her story.

So, are we all now just blaming it on the victim, “she should have known better, what else did she expect”?

Why is that okay in a Employee / Corporation setting? Is that also okay in a rape victim / rapist setting? Where do we draw the line now?

Far from blaming it on the victim, I'm pointing out that this mentality is endemic. I don't disagree with what she did in any way. I fully believe that what she did, she did for the good of all and I applaud her for doing so. What I am saying is that the suggestion that she thought there would be no retaliation is incredibly naive. That is all.

It is still fair to expect there will be no illegal retaliation in the "do no evil" megacorp.

And, naive or no, it is absolutely reasonable to act as though there would be none, knowing that you may receive it, so that you can draw attention to it if it happens, because it is illegal.

This is, at least nominally, a rule-of-law country, and that law's been on the books for a long, long time.