Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Should I testify?

news.ycombinator.com

121–130 of 250 posts

Re: Ask HN: Should I testify?

#121

Let's be realistic: there are many companies that won't hire you after this. The question is, are those the companies that you want to work for? It's a tough choice, of course. You mention that the company you worked at is popular here on Hacker News. So let's assume we are talking about Apple or Google or perhaps AirBnB. So from now on, when people look up your name, they will see something like "Testified against A…

> A lot of companies will quietly remove you from consideration This is probably true. At the same time, some will certainly see it as a good thing and want to hire OP.

That seems very unlikely. If given a choice between two candidates, equal in capabilities, where one has had some amount of public exposure in the manner described, and the other is relatively anonymous, generally the corporation is going to pick the anonymous one. There's no upside to attracting unnecessary, uncontrolled publicity.

At best, they'll ignore it. It won't be a net positive unless the hiring company is some kind of issue-oriented non-profit, or the role itself is issue-oriented.

Personally, there are some issues I would absolutely fall on my sword for. And there are some I certainly wouldn't. It's your own moral compass.

Re: Ask HN: Should I testify?

#124

When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on the bus to a white person, she lost her job as a seamstress. No doubt she found it difficult to find work after that.

But do you blame everyone else who didn't refuse?

That's a tough question.

Some would have had a lot more to lose than she did; say someone who had an outstanding arrest warrant, someone who owed a lot of money, no I would not blame them.

Re: Ask HN: Should I testify?

#125
The fearful are caught as often as the bold.

Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.

It is wonderful how much time good people spend fighting the devil. If they would only expend the same amount of energy loving their fellow men, the devil would die in his own tracks of ennui.

The above are all three quotes from Helen Keller.

I will suggest that you do whatever it is you believe to be ethical. Well paid careers are often careers in which character and trustworthiness are important. It is part of why you get paid: They can trust you with the keys to the thing or the personal data on people or whatever. If a law firm knew to contact you, then it isn't a secret that you have insider info. If you do the unethical thing, people learn of that.

If you want some "plausible deniability," sure, tell them to subpoena you. But reputation matters immensely and when something like this comes into your life, the question is not whether or not you can avoid the consequences. There will almost certainly be consequences. There will almost certainly be a price to pay and, whatever you choose, the price may well be painful. When all is said and done, do what you believe to be the ethical thing. It will do the most to protect your employability. So avoiding the consequences should not enter your mind. The choice here is which set of consequences do you prefer?

There is also no price you can place on a clear conscience. I like being able to sleep well at night. I have a medical condition, so a good night's sleep is something I have fought hard for. I would hate to lose my good sleep habits over a guilty conscience. Having lived my entire life suffering from a serious medical condition, I believe firmly that bars do not a prison make. The prison of our own body or our own mind is often far worse than anything anyone else can do to us.

Best of luck with both your decision and the path forward.

Re: Ask HN: Should I testify?

#126
How controversial are the laws broken?

For example, do you think they're good laws? Or do you think these laws are widely broken, at least technically, by all comparable companies because they're unrealistic, and any harm to non-consenting third parties is negligible?

Do only a few of the worst operators, or worst divisions of a larger company, break these laws? Do the laws effectively protect identifiable victims?

This could matter, because with good laws, lawful operators are happy to see transgressing competitors take a fall. And lawful operators need to hire people who help them stay compliant.

But with problematic laws, that are hard to obey and thus widely violated but with no harm to others, people who (cheerfully) become involved in their enforcement can become distrusted. (Did you earnestly try to check the lawbreaking when first observed, or just stockpile evidence for a later legal assault? The 2nd strategy can appear to be scheming or disloyal even if the law is righteous.)

IFF (and it's a big IFF) anyone ever sees your testimony as part of a hiring-evaluation, whether they care will depend on whether the case looks like a shake-down/gotcha/technical-violation, or a remedy-of-great-injustice.

OTOH, I tend to agree with others that this is unlikely to be a big deal. Individual witnesses don't get that much coverage. Unless you're the plaintiff/whistleblower, you're just one of many people called upon to tell the truth. The case could easily be resolved long before your testimony becomes public. Even if it seems at the moment like a giant controversy involving titans of the industry, it'll soon become a footnote, not a headline, about your career, and equally as likely to help (with most major and upstanding employers) as it could hurt.

Re: Ask HN: Should I testify?

#127

Tell them to subpoena you - then the choice to testify is not yours any more. You'll have to. But you can tell future employers that you were forced, if you'd like to.

Don't even tell them to. Wait til they do. Otherwise, if you then tell people you were forced, you will be lying.

Re: Ask HN: Should I testify?

#128
post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the sentiment but the issue I take with the original answer is that it is that it's completely unactionable. There's no litmus test defined for what "authenticity" to oneself is or how to achieve it, so there's no way for the OP to really take this information and tangibly apply it to their situation. In my personal opinion suggestion without actionability is not particularly useful and only convolutes t…

Of course it's actionable. Just because an algorithm can't do a cost/benefit analysis and come up with a deterministic solution absolving OP of all responsibility doesn't mean it's not actionable. The solution does however dodge the question as stated. OP asked what the consequences are of testifying, so he can decide whether doing the right thing is worth the risk/consequences. The solution suggested is telling him…

You sound like a good listener, do you really think the real question is about the risks or is it about personal guidance? Hard to say, right? My feeling is personal guidance, because it just seems so overwhelmingly obvious to me the question is not about what it's stated about. That's just the packaging. Unwrap it -- real q inside! :)

Re: Ask HN: Should I testify?

#129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A lot of companies will quietly remove you from consideration This is probably true. At the same time, some will certainly see it as a good thing and want to hire OP.

That seems very unlikely. If given a choice between two candidates, equal in capabilities, where one has had some amount of public exposure in the manner described, and the other is relatively anonymous, generally the corporation is going to pick the anonymous one. There's no upside to attracting unnecessary, uncontrolled publicity. At best, they'll ignore it. It won't be a net positive unless the hiring company is s…

Most people here are for OP testifying. Many people on HN make hiring decisions.

Yes, you can imagine that they would see things differently when actually facing a hiring decision, but my base assumption is that most of them don't.

Re: Ask HN: Should I testify?

#130
Edit: OP, if you read what I wrote, you will see why you shouldn't use the number of upvotes to make your decision: the point is precisely that a 'popular' choice can quickly turn south. At this point, all these upvotes will have disappeared and you will be alone facing the consequences.

----

If they did something so awful that it's keeping you awake at night, do it.

Otherwise, don't.

...

Wait... are you still reading?

Don't!

....

Okay, darn it...

If you STILL want to do it:

Career-wise, make sure it's something which is universally seen as awful AND will probably continue to be seen as such. If the wind changes direction, there's still going to be a record about what you've done. Things seen as obviously right can be seen as obviously wrong in the time of a single decade. When this happens, the 'major law firm' and all those who did encourage you to do it will magically vanish.

> Would it be a deal killer if I applied at your company?"

Depends on what and why you did it.

If you testify only because someone broke the law, from my point of view as a hypothetical employer, you are a huge liability. Most people break the law multiple times a day and don't even know it. I honestly don't want people around me who are ready to report me just 'because I broke the law'.

If you've done it for moral reasons, even if I agree with you, I might have to refuse to hire you because it might gives a bad image to my business.

Now, what if I agree with you and you did something which is currently politically correct. Is there any advantages? Not really... I still don't know if you are good at your job; I'll have to evaluate you the same as everybody else.

In short, there's no advantages (employer/employee-wise) to doing it. Only potential downsides.

It's like behind an asshole on a social network. It might gives your friend a few giggles, but it can hurt you years down the line.

Post reply on HN