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

101–110 of 121 posts

Re: The Personal Toll of Whistle-Blowing

#101

Post by [deleted] »

smush wrote: post #56
arminiusreturns wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First off I don't think you can make that determination, (was it worth it), only Snowden himself can. Second, while the toll was high for him, those of us who have sworn an oath to the Constitution take that oath very seriously and I applaud him for being one of the rare ones with enough conviction to act on his beliefs instead of just spouting them. Third I am eternally grateful to Snowden because without him all my…

Any other things the public hasn't caught up on that you care to share?

[deleted]

Re: The Personal Toll of Whistle-Blowing

#102

Post by towelr34dy »

tzs wrote: post #100
towelr34dy wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember the original comment only said that people plea because of the big threat. It is a big threat. And given the fact that you probably wouldn't take a 1:33 chance on Russian roulette, it seem it is a big threat to you. But not when it is on others. Then it's fine 'because low probability'. In fact, many of the apologists for what happened go as far as to conflate in a single post low probability with no probabi…

The 3% who were sentenced above the guideline amount were not chosen at random. They were people who had specific factors in their cases that allowed for an above guideline sentence. These are factors such as causing a death, causing significant physical injury, causing extreme psychological harm to your victims beyond that one would expect from the crime, abducting people, causing property damage beyond what is take…

Ah tzs again. Let me quote you:

"lot of reporting said he faced 30 years... Actually, he was looking at maybe 6 or 7 years if things went as favorably as possible for prosecutors."

So let me ask again, last time you didn't answer: Is the chance of a 35 year sentence for Aaron 0%?

No? Then do the intellectually honest thing and admit you are wrong. Your correcting somebody by saying wrong things. And then doubling down on it.

Low probability is not 0%. Whatever the probability was, it was real that they could have given him 30 years. Unlikely? Yeah. But I'll bet you wouldn't play Russian roulette at those odds; whatever they may be.

Re: The Personal Toll of Whistle-Blowing

#103

Post by Rebelgecko »

towelr34dy wrote: post #98
Rebelgecko wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think they're saying never . If you look at the recommended guidelines[1], for a crime like Schwartz's the maximum could theoretically be many years, but the guidelines would suggest a sentence between 0 and a few years (he'd be in the first column assuming he didn't have any criminal history. Depending on what modifiers come into play his "offense level" could be as low as 6[2]. Maybe it would be more than t…

Remember the original comment only said that people plea because of the big threat. It is a big threat. And given the fact that you probably wouldn't take a 1:33 chance on Russian roulette, it seem it is a big threat to you. But not when it is on others. Then it's fine 'because low probability'. In fact, many of the apologists for what happened go as far as to conflate in a single post low probability with no probabi…

I literally said the exact opposite of what you claim I said. Sometimes when I get riled up online it's helpful to take some deep breaths and come back to it later.

Re: The Personal Toll of Whistle-Blowing

#104

Post by grkvlt »

towelr34dy wrote: post #91
tzs wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suppose I toss a brick through the window of a government office overnight when no one is inside, causing $101 worth of damage. I could be charged with felony destruction of government property, a crime with the statute says has a maximum sentence of 10 years and a $250k find. Am I facing 10 years in prison? No! That's because the way sentencing works under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines is that the sentence range…

Your 6-7 years is 'probably'. PEOPLE DO GET MAXIMUM. It happens. Therefore you saying it doesn't won't change anything. Your equating low probability with no probability. This is a false equation. Have some intellectual honesty and admit you were wrong.

Did you read the link? See popehat [0] as well. The prosecutors said he should get the 6 or 7 years. And, if the judge went crazy and ignored the guidelines, this is what appeals are for. You seem to be the one lacking intellectual honesty here!

0. https://www.popehat.com/2013/03/24/three-things-you-may-not-...

Re: The Personal Toll of Whistle-Blowing

#105

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

readhn wrote: post #93
driverdan wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

30 months in prison is about 11 years of full time work (40h a week, 50 weeks a year). Not only will he be extremely rich but his family and children will never have to work again in their lives. Totally worth it. If a family member dies while you're in prison you're usually allowed to attend their funeral unless you're an extreme risk.

its not about attending a funeral ... its about not being there with your loved ones. you cant buy that time back...for a million or a billion..time is the most precious asset we own.

I am really, really baffled by this. If you have a full time job, you are quite literally trading the majority of your waking M-F time to be away from your family to earn money. People in the military are deployed and away from their loved ones for months at a time, as are lots of other workers, e.g. oil rig workers.

If he goes to prison now with his whistleblowing money, the whole point is he WON'T need to trade his time for money at all in the future.

Re: The Personal Toll of Whistle-Blowing

#106

Post by towelr34dy »

grkvlt wrote: post #104
towelr34dy wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your 6-7 years is 'probably'. PEOPLE DO GET MAXIMUM. It happens. Therefore you saying it doesn't won't change anything. Your equating low probability with no probability. This is a false equation. Have some intellectual honesty and admit you were wrong.

Did you read the link? See popehat [0] as well. The prosecutors said he should get the 6 or 7 years. And, if the judge went crazy and ignored the guidelines, this is what appeals are for. You seem to be the one lacking intellectual honesty here! 0. https://www.popehat.com/2013/03/24/three-things-you-may-not-...

>0% != 0%

Re: The Personal Toll of Whistle-Blowing

#107

Post by tptacek »

towelr34dy wrote: post #72
tzs wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's probably being down-voted for saying erroneous things like > 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. That's erroneous because very few federal defendants actually face such long sentences, so those that do so pleading guilty is no…

When you say "he was looking at maybe 6 or 7 years if things went as favorably as possible for prosecutors" Do you know this for a fact? Because the way I understand it is, he was facing multiple decades in prison IF all charges stuck. And once you got to trial, all charges can stick. It has happened. So he was facing 35 years. So saying he wasn't is just wrong. Your 6-7 years is 'probably'. I think what your saying…

We know his own lawyer said that he was unlikely to get more than a couple years, and was plausibly looking at a non-custodial sentence even if convicted.

We also know that the absurd sentences you're referring to would be departures from the federal sentencing guidelines, which spell out where in the range of possible sentences each specific case lands.

Re: The Personal Toll of Whistle-Blowing

#108

Post by ramblerouser »

gizmo385 wrote: post #69
ramblerouser wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> like "lying (not volunteering incriminating evidence) to an investigator" This is literally the purpose of the 5th amendment. If you get asked a question where the answer would incriminate you, you are well within your rights to refuse to answer the question. Taking the path of deliberately attempt to mislead investigators is most certainly a crime and it should be.

In principle I agree with you. In practice however, the FBI just uses this to harrass people. Look at what happened to Marth Stewart. She was totally innocent, did not say anything factually incorrect, but the feds thought she exagerated in some of her answers. That level of subjectivity shouldn't be involved in determining a criminal offense.

Re: The Personal Toll of Whistle-Blowing

#109

Post by ramblerouser »

tzs wrote: post #68
chrisbennet wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

He's probably being down-voted for saying erroneous things like > 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. That's erroneous because very few federal defendants actually face such long sentences, so those that do so pleading guilty is no…

People are risk averse. The maximum sentences exist to scare people into irrationally pleading guilty when they are innocent. Federal maximum sentences are out of line with state sentencing because the federal government is less local and less accountable. Many federal crimes exist solely to trump up this maximum possible sentence. Politically connected people use this system to protect themselves against whistleblowers and political activists like Swartz and Snowden. I dont think you have addressed any of these points.

Re: The Personal Toll of Whistle-Blowing

#110

Post by rebuilder »

Aeolun wrote: post #38

This wasn’t so much about the personal toll of whistleblowing as the fucked up system and the apparent impossibility to do wrong as a US corporation. This was a really depressing story on multiple levels.

It seems like the biggest problem outlined in the article was the inability to get a job as a known whistleblower. I think that would happen in pretty much any system, unfortunately.

It takes a lot of courage to rat on an employer. Your career is probably over if you do.

Post reply on HN