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

Whistleblower tells senators that Meta undermined U.S. security, interests

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 135 posts

Re: Whistleblower tells senators that Meta undermined U.S. security, interests

#61

Post by EasyMark »

jongjong wrote: post #11

It's interesting to think about the way in which the Chinese government operates compared to the government of other countries like the US. The US government was conceived as merely a public utility to fund public works; there was no single ideological basis beyond that. Freedom isn't a "single" ideology because it encapsulates all possible ideologies. The ideology rested with the people themselves to implement on an…

And China has no corruption or grifting in the government? I do not believe that at all. I reckon it's just as rife as any western government. What the do get right is long term planning and sticking to it, but giving it a time limit (5 years) and the reevaluate priorities. The American government literally has several founding documents and a purpose, I don't see how you think otherwise? Can cronyism happen? Sure, no one is denying that. However what set us apart during the recent downturn is we had some of the most free trade in the world. Now Trump is wrecking that with tariffs and short sighted "look a squirrel!" tactics.

Re: Whistleblower tells senators that Meta undermined U.S. security, interests

#62

Post by dralley »

vasco wrote: post #59

If you're a director of global public policy for seven years, who are you really whistleblowing, the company, or yourself? I appreciate the information coming out, but in some of these situations I can't help but picture that "the worst person in the room" in regards to the offenses might also end up being the person that then becomes the most holier than thou when they get out of the company. If you ever met someone…

https://imgur.com/wTWW1fE

Re: Whistleblower tells senators that Meta undermined U.S. security, interests

#64

Post by trhway »

MeetingsBrowser wrote: post #57
trhway wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She published a book with these FB "revelations" recently, like a month ago, so kind of PR tour.

Playing devil's advocate: If the allegations about Meta violating laws in the book are true, what would be an appropriate waiting period before the author testifies to the Senate, so that it doesn't appear to be a PR tour?

A negative value, about -7 years in this case.

Re: Whistleblower tells senators that Meta undermined U.S. security, interests

#65

Post by _DeadFred_ »

typeofhuman wrote: post #18
lokar wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And an NDA being void due to such a situation does not stop the company from taking legal action against, costing you lots of money and time to defend

Exactly. That's why the public hearing was held. To make her and the case famous. This is how you play the game. Now Meta can still sue but it risks damaging its public image by going after a famous whistleblower.

The US also has whistleblower protection laws.

Re: Whistleblower tells senators that Meta undermined U.S. security, interests

#66

Post by loeg »

MeetingsBrowser wrote: post #57
trhway wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She published a book with these FB "revelations" recently, like a month ago, so kind of PR tour.

Playing devil's advocate: If the allegations about Meta violating laws in the book are true, what would be an appropriate waiting period before the author testifies to the Senate, so that it doesn't appear to be a PR tour?

She could have raised her concerns in 2017 or earlier, rather than 2025, when her knowledge is eight years out of date.

Re: Whistleblower tells senators that Meta undermined U.S. security, interests

#67

Post by cookiengineer »

loeg wrote: post #66
MeetingsBrowser wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Playing devil's advocate: If the allegations about Meta violating laws in the book are true, what would be an appropriate waiting period before the author testifies to the Senate, so that it doesn't appear to be a PR tour?

She could have raised her concerns in 2017 or earlier, rather than 2025, when her knowledge is eight years out of date.

Not sure why you are writing this bad faith argument. Not a single legal system on the planet is that fast. All class action law suits take years of preparation time in their discovery phase.

Re: Whistleblower tells senators that Meta undermined U.S. security, interests

#68

Post by JumpCrisscross »

loeg wrote: post #46

FWIW, she was fired in 2017 and only now is trying to become a "whistleblower." If the conduct needed whistle-blowing, surely it would have been more timely to come out almost a decade ago.

> she was fired in 2017 and only now is trying to become a "whistleblower"

It's a lot easier to be a whistleblower once you're materially comfortable. More than the threat of legal action is the insidiousness of being blacklisted for employment. I wouldn't take the delay from the actions as evidence of her having ulterior motives. Just that we need contemporaneous notes and/or evidence to ensure she isn't misremembering.

Re: Whistleblower tells senators that Meta undermined U.S. security, interests

#69

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Alive-in-2025 wrote: post #30
goldchainposse wrote: post #10

> They have threatened her with $50,000 in punitive damages every time she mentions Facebook in public … even if the statements she is making are true,” he said. Unless Congress asks for the testimony, which is probably why Meta tried to stop the hearing.

But infinitely rich companies can of course bankrupt any ordinary human by suing them over and over again. They already look bad, so it doesn't make them look worse. Why wouldn't they just keep suing her?

> infinitely rich companies can of course bankrupt any ordinary human by suing them over and over again

No. Not only does SLAPP prevent that, a rich, unpopular company trying to silence a whistleblower through tort is running a PR campaign for their legal defence fund.

More realistic: being blacklisted from employment.

Re: Whistleblower tells senators that Meta undermined U.S. security, interests

#70

Post by tsimionescu »

Alive-in-2025 wrote: post #33
hluska wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did you just make up a legal proceeding? There are no proceedings (yet) - that is the entire point of this.

I heard about her book, I also heard about lawsuit threats from Facebook. Facebook is a rich company so a threat from them to sue you is a serious threat. I'm sure they threaten to sue people to try to quash uncomfortable information as do probably lots of companies. Are you thinking she made up the threatened lawsuits?

No, the poster they were responding to was claiming that the whisleblower didn't need to wait for a congressional hearing, that she could have just presented the documents she claims to have as "evidence for a legal proceeding". But such a legal proceeding doesn't exist (apart from the Congressional hearing she was waiting for), there is no one suing Facebook for corporate malfeasance or whatever where she could present some documents she has as evidence while abiding by her NDA.
Post reply on HN