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

Elon Musk Tried to Destroy a Tesla Whistleblower

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 254 posts

Re: Elon Musk Tried to Destroy a Tesla Whistleblower

#151

Post by drusepth »

zwerdlds wrote: post #44
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article certainly makes those claims. But Bloomberg doesn’t seem to have any evidence of those things, beyond Tripp’s raw assertion that his friends didn’t make the call and he didn’t do what the lawsuit says. With no corroboration, why should we believe him over Tesla at this point?

Because musk/tesla have a... questionable record with truth and safety, and all these guys claims were about said transparency/safety? Why do you trust musk/tesla over tripp?

One obvious answer is that Musk/Tesla have way more to lose than a random employee by lying. Any random person can lie about anything with pretty minimal downsides, even if they're caught red-handed in that lie.

A company and its CEO have way more to lose in getting caught in a lie, which puts a slight preference towards believing them in uncorroborated he-said-she-saids like this.

Also: "innocent until proven guilty" is a phrase that seems to be eroding away, which is a terrible, terrible thing. The real move here is not to believe either party until you have irrefutable evidence; there is likely some amount of wrongdoing on both sides but none of us are in a position to make judgement calls without that information.

Re: Elon Musk Tried to Destroy a Tesla Whistleblower

#152

Post by tedivm »

joekrill wrote: post #102
rchaud wrote: post #40

"Later that day, Tripp heard from the sheriff’s department in Storey County, Nev. Tesla’s security department had passed a tip to police. An anonymous caller had contacted the company to say Tripp was planning a mass shooting at the Gigafactory." Think of how this could have played out under different circumstances. We've already had numerous "swatting" incidents where innocent bystanders were hurt or killed. The mor…

I don't understand how we're jumping to the conclusion that Musk is responsible for this. No one seems to be claiming the "anonymous call" was made up, as far as I can tell. For all we know Tripp made the call himself to make himself look like more a victim. It's no less plausible than suggesting Musk made the call himself, or had someone make it on his behalf.

The sheriff debunked it, and then Tesla tried to get the sheriff to hype up the event. The sheriff declined, and then Tesla (according to the sheriff) leaked it to the press.

https://twitter.com/willCIR/status/1105906726782435328

Re: Elon Musk Tried to Destroy a Tesla Whistleblower

#153

Post by AnaniasAnanas »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #120
camjohnson26 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Re: Elon Musk Tried to Destroy a Tesla Whistleblower

#154

Post by sweden »

I usually like Bloomberg, it's one of my favorite news sources but this article seems way off.

They begin by talking about Martin Tripp's story (without any real details of what exactly happened), then they move to some random security guard with claims of sex and drugs in the factory, then they jump back to Tripp's story again and it takes a while for the article to get to the real point of Tripp's story which is:

> "While Gouthro was trying to address the sex, drugs, and raucous disorganization, Tripp decided to go public. He had access to Tesla’s internal production database and dug into it to figure out just how much material was being wasted. He decided to go to Lopez, who’d written about Tesla for Business Insider, emailing and texting her numbers showing wasted material and pictures of battery parts that he said could catch fire.

> Tripp hoped that when Lopez’s story came out, Tesla would be forced to make the changes he’d suggested."

So he actually leaked information. I'm not a Tesla defender but it feels like Bloomberg is trying really hard to portrait Tesla in the worst possible picture here.

Re: Elon Musk Tried to Destroy a Tesla Whistleblower

#155

Post by drusepth »

legohead wrote: post #63
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article certainly makes those claims. But Bloomberg doesn’t seem to have any evidence of those things, beyond Tripp’s raw assertion that his friends didn’t make the call and he didn’t do what the lawsuit says. With no corroboration, why should we believe him over Tesla at this point?

According to the article, the call about the mass shooting came only hours after his email exchange with Musk.

This is, by definition, circumstantial "evidence" at best. It infers a connection between two events that have no direct evidence connecting them.

Re: Elon Musk Tried to Destroy a Tesla Whistleblower

#156

Post by protomyth »

shkkmo wrote: post #126
protomyth wrote: post #77

To Antinoro, one of the strangest parts of the situation was that after he told the company the threat was false, it asked him to put out a press release hyping it. He declined, but Tesla publicized the incident anyway. Antinoro says he’s told his force not to bother investigating crimes at the Gigafactory unless Tesla starts cooperating. Big business, he’s decided, is its own strange world. “Standard Oil was probabl…

Umm... shouldn't the sheriff be fired for this? Investigating crimes is his job, corporate recalcitrance is not an excuse for not trying to protect that corporation's employees.

Like a lot of things, its a matter of resource allocation. Asking a sheriff to do a press release that's a lie lessens the credibility of the source. Having a company ask you to use your resources to "investigating crimes at the Gigafactory" without Tesla's honest cooperation is a waste of those resources and could get someone else killed while his people chase their tails. It is an extremely reasonable judgement call on the sheriff's part, and he should be commended for not bowing to the pressure of a big company over his office's integrity and the rest of the citizens he is responsible for.

Re: Elon Musk Tried to Destroy a Tesla Whistleblower

#157

Post by DuskStar »

AndrewBissell wrote: post #111
zmarty wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

B advised that the Tweets by Mr. Tripp yesterday were issued by him on his own accord. Mr. Tripp has clearly been impacted emotionally by what $TSLA has done to him.He is very concerned about being gagged & wants to protect the public, more than his own personal interest. ++ https://twitter.com/StuartMeissner/status/103013836984050073... It is accurate that we no longer rep M.Tripp in any matter.Nor do we have a need…

I don't see where Meissner says he knew they "didn't have a case" as you asserted in your OP.

In general, a lawyer saying something with the form "After $client did $actions without consulting us, we recommended that $client take $actions to do damage control, and they did so. We no longer represent $client" is about as far from a good sign as you can get.

Now, he might still have a case. But I'm pretty sure the above is lawyerspeak for "client fucked up, and we don't want to deal with them anymore".

Re: Elon Musk Tried to Destroy a Tesla Whistleblower

#158

Post by dylan604 »

camjohnson26 wrote: post #104
zmarty wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

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?

Re: Elon Musk Tried to Destroy a Tesla Whistleblower

#159

Post by gamblor956 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #120
camjohnson26 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Re: Elon Musk Tried to Destroy a Tesla Whistleblower

#160

Post by gamblor956 »

DuskStar wrote: post #157
AndrewBissell wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see where Meissner says he knew they "didn't have a case" as you asserted in your OP.

In general, a lawyer saying something with the form "After $client did $actions without consulting us, we recommended that $client take $actions to do damage control, and they did so. We no longer represent $client" is about as far from a good sign as you can get. Now, he might still have a case. But I'm pretty sure the above is lawyerspeak for "client fucked up, and we don't want to deal with them anymore".

No, lawyers are now more willing to fire clients that do stuff without consulting them first. Trump has taught them it's not worth the hassle.

It says nothing about the merit's of the clients case, but usually says volumes about what a pain in the ass it is to work with a client like that.

Post reply on HN