4 ms·

From the article: > Riordan is trying to start a company that improves email security. Partly, he says, that’s because blowing the whistle on Rothenberg dinged

From the article: > Riordan is trying to start a company that improves email security. Partly, he says, that’s because blowing the whistle on Rothenberg dinged his career prospects. After once telling a job interviewer he was a whistleblower, he didn’t get a call back. Still, he says, the cost was worth it. “I knew that to some extent I would be damaging my career,” he says. “I was just so sure that it was the right thing to do.”

BoorishBears 10y ago
Doesn't really explain how he knows the mention of being a whistleblower is the reason he wasn't called back.
- frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
  Of course not, companies let the hiring process be opaque for a reason. Common sense would tell us that blowing the whistle is not going to endear you to future employers.
  - BoorishBears 10y ago
    Really? Common sense tells me some types of companies will see it as a negative (what if he does it to us!), and others will see is as neutral (we asked why he left his last job, he answered, not the worst reason, not the best), and some will see it as a positive (someone willing to step up and put their neck on the line for what's right). Do I think there are a lot of companies in the first category? Yes (I also think there are a lot in the other two though). Do I think it's remotely reasonable to automatically assume every place that doesn't call you back after you mention being a whistleblower isn't calling back because you mentioned that? Not at all.
  - manigandham 10y ago
    As an employer, whistleblowers are not something to fear unless you have something to hide. What exactly is he going to expose if everything is legit? Better to have honest employees than those would do otherwise without question.
    - frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
      >As an employer, whistleblowers are not something to fear unless you have something to hide. We don't let that logic slide when it comes to individual privacy and I'm not sure we should for corporate privacy. Even a company completely on the up and up may have privacy concerns that deter them from hiring someone like this.
      - manigandham 10y ago
        Illegal vs private is a different discussion. Some companies like transparency, some don't, and that's fine. Proper security protocols are probably a better model for that since everyone is naturally curious and info tends to spread at even the most secret of companies.
tremon 10y ago
My point was that those events are positively minor, compared to what others have experienced. I think the term "blowback" is severely out of place here.

BoorishBears 10y ago

Doesn't really explain how he knows the mention of being a whistleblower is the reason he wasn't called back.

frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
Of course not, companies let the hiring process be opaque for a reason. Common sense would tell us that blowing the whistle is not going to endear you to future employers.
- BoorishBears 10y ago
  Really? Common sense tells me some types of companies will see it as a negative (what if he does it to us!), and others will see is as neutral (we asked why he left his last job, he answered, not the worst reason, not the best), and some will see it as a positive (someone willing to step up and put their neck on the line for what's right). Do I think there are a lot of companies in the first category? Yes (I also think there are a lot in the other two though). Do I think it's remotely reasonable to automatically assume every place that doesn't call you back after you mention being a whistleblower isn't calling back because you mentioned that? Not at all.
- manigandham 10y ago
  As an employer, whistleblowers are not something to fear unless you have something to hide. What exactly is he going to expose if everything is legit? Better to have honest employees than those would do otherwise without question.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
    >As an employer, whistleblowers are not something to fear unless you have something to hide. We don't let that logic slide when it comes to individual privacy and I'm not sure we should for corporate privacy. Even a company completely on the up and up may have privacy concerns that deter them from hiring someone like this.
    - manigandham 10y ago
      Illegal vs private is a different discussion. Some companies like transparency, some don't, and that's fine. Proper security protocols are probably a better model for that since everyone is naturally curious and info tends to spread at even the most secret of companies.

tremon 10y ago

My point was that those events are positively minor, compared to what others have experienced. I think the term "blowback" is severely out of place here.