Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Personal Toll of Whistle-Blowing

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 121 posts

Re: The Personal Toll of Whistle-Blowing

#31

Post by Gibbon1 »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #17
readhn wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you cant put a price on time behind prison bars and away from your family. what if during that time his father died? was 100million "worth it"?

Two points: of course you can put a price on being away from your family. It's called a job, a millions of people do it all the time, often for long, extended periods (e.g. the military, expeditions, etc.) Being in prison is obviously extreme, but if getting out with several lifetimes of wealth means you never have to work again, could easily be a fair trade off. Second, he went to jail because he committed crimes fr…

> Two points: of course you can put a price on being away from your family. It's called a job

In all due respect this is an opinion born of a sheltered life.

Re: The Personal Toll of Whistle-Blowing

#32

Post by Angostura »

ramblerouser wrote: post #27
samcday wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I wonder: if there was a way to reduce the duration of the cases, would that reduce the impact on whistleblowers? I remember reading somewhere recently about the standard M.O for federal cases. They take a long time in order to build an extremely solid case. That's why federal conviction rates are so high. Intuitively it makes sense. If you're gonna go after some naughty people for doing naughty things, you reall…

This is totally incorrect. The high conviction rate is a result of extremely high maximum sentences. People who are 100% innocent often plead guilty after being threatened with a 30-year prison sentence that would be only 1 or 2 years under local law. Many federal crimes are unconstitutional and deliberately vague, like "lying (not volunteering incriminating evidence) to an investigator" and "mail fraud" which is jus…

Ah, a sovereign citizen?

Re: The Personal Toll of Whistle-Blowing

#33

Post by e40 »

snarf21 wrote: post #29

I keep thinking that in cases of any real size that these people should be put into witness relocation programs. Additionally, continue to pay them their current salary but not require them to work. We need people who know to speak out and therefore need to protect them.

Additionally, continue to pay them their current salary but not require them to work.

An unintended consequence of this might be that people make false allegations. It's tough to find the right balance. Maybe they get a stipend to live on, and the money is put into escrow for when the case is resolved.

Re: The Personal Toll of Whistle-Blowing

#34

Post by Aeolun »

samcday wrote: post #8
dhh2106 wrote: post #5

>One interviewee, in response to a question about what advice he would give a potential whistle-blower, wrote, “[Can they] afford 5 years of their life in turmoil?” Another said, “Part of your ability to do anything about this is keeping yourself together,” and suggested that whistle-blowers find someone “like a minister or a shrink who’s confidentiality-protected,” because “this could go on for a while.” A high prop…

But I wonder: if there was a way to reduce the duration of the cases, would that reduce the impact on whistleblowers? I remember reading somewhere recently about the standard M.O for federal cases. They take a long time in order to build an extremely solid case. That's why federal conviction rates are so high. Intuitively it makes sense. If you're gonna go after some naughty people for doing naughty things, you reall…

You also don’t want them to continue fucking you over for years making billions, then get a solid settlement of a few million.

Re: The Personal Toll of Whistle-Blowing

#35

Post by Aeolun »

krageon wrote: post #30
SuperGent wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When asked about the Freedom fine, [Patel] responded, "I decided to take it as a cost of doing business." This is the problem, why should you not take dubiously legal or moral action, if there isn't a significant deterrent?

Because you shouldn't be an asshole. People aren't animals unless they have some sword of Damocles hanging over them keeping them in line, it is a conscious choice to do the wrong thing.

Of course it is, but you’re not in it for anything but the money.

Re: The Personal Toll of Whistle-Blowing

#36

Post by Aeolun »

whatshisface wrote: post #22
readhn wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

pretty typical. look at Snowden. The guy ruined his own life and nobody still gives a damn. Was it worth it? i dont think so. He definitely should have kept quiet even if it was against his own personal beliefs. It sucks but it is what it is. HSBC got slapped on the wrist for laundering cartel money. "If you’re suspected of drug involvement, America takes your house; HSBC admits to laundering cartel billions, loses f…

> He definitely should have kept quiet even if it was against his own personal beliefs. That argument for moral complacency is largely self-fulfilling, because if nobody thinks that one person defecting will change anything, you'll never get more than one defector at once, and nothing will ever change. In that way everyone will march in lockstep to hell and deserve every bit of the torture that's waiting for them. Th…

You can stop littering without being fucked over by it very easily.

Re: The Personal Toll of Whistle-Blowing

#37

Post by magduf »

krageon wrote: post #30
SuperGent wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When asked about the Freedom fine, [Patel] responded, "I decided to take it as a cost of doing business." This is the problem, why should you not take dubiously legal or moral action, if there isn't a significant deterrent?

Because you shouldn't be an asshole. People aren't animals unless they have some sword of Damocles hanging over them keeping them in line, it is a conscious choice to do the wrong thing.

You can't expect this of people. When you do expect this, as you seem to, you end up setting up a society where sociopaths like that guy are able to rise to the top and profit handsomely because the people who made the rules just can't seem to conceive of someone who doesn't mind being an asshole as long as it gets him ahead.

Re: The Personal Toll of Whistle-Blowing

#39

Post by chrisbennet »

ramblerouser wrote: post #27
samcday wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I wonder: if there was a way to reduce the duration of the cases, would that reduce the impact on whistleblowers? I remember reading somewhere recently about the standard M.O for federal cases. They take a long time in order to build an extremely solid case. That's why federal conviction rates are so high. Intuitively it makes sense. If you're gonna go after some naughty people for doing naughty things, you reall…

This is totally incorrect. The high conviction rate is a result of extremely high maximum sentences. People who are 100% innocent often plead guilty after being threatened with a 30-year prison sentence that would be only 1 or 2 years under local law. Many federal crimes are unconstitutional and deliberately vague, like "lying (not volunteering incriminating evidence) to an investigator" and "mail fraud" which is jus…

I assume whomever downvoted You has forgotten what happened to Aaron Schwartz.

Re: The Personal Toll of Whistle-Blowing

#40

Post by magduf »

Retra wrote: post #24
readhn wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

pretty typical. look at Snowden. The guy ruined his own life and nobody still gives a damn. Was it worth it? i dont think so. He definitely should have kept quiet even if it was against his own personal beliefs. It sucks but it is what it is. HSBC got slapped on the wrist for laundering cartel money. "If you’re suspected of drug involvement, America takes your house; HSBC admits to laundering cartel billions, loses f…

>look at Snowden. The guy ruined his own life and nobody still gives a damn. Was it worth it? i dont think so. If it wasn't worth it, you wouldn't know his name, and you wouldn't be talking about it today. Does that count for nothing to you?

Whether it's "worth it" is completely subjective, and differs from person to person based on their values.

You seem to value having your name remembered; i.e., you value fame, and you're projecting that onto Snowden. I don't know what Snowden values, but assuming he values fame as you do (or that the person you're responding to does) makes no sense.

If the person you responded to values only financial security and a peaceful life, then he's absolutely right to say he doesn't think Snowden's actions were worth it, because to him, Snowden sacrificed all that and got nothing in return but exile in Russia. (I guess it could be worse... there's worse places to live on the planet, but Russia is a pretty lousy place to live in my book.)

Post reply on HN