4 ms·

There are two kinds of leaks. The first kind is leaks for glory, profit, etc, ie: we're about to release this hot new product and I'm sneakily letting TechNews

• fjsolwmv 8y ago
  The second one is also personal gain, as you yourself explained. It's a way to protest the organization or harm coworkers without making a personal sacrifice. Morality is self interest as much as money is.
  • egeozcan 8y ago
    But it's for the society's best interest that such people keep their jobs, don't you agree?
    • manquer 8y ago
      When you are leaking something illegal there are laws usually in place to protect your job or compensate you if it can't be protected. However there is no way to protect you when leak what you think is unethical but is not illegal (yet). The recommended course action in that case participate in legal actions which help make such unethical actions illegal i.e. change the law, until then you are essentially committing a crime. You may consider committing a such crime lesser cost morally than actually partaking in the unethical activity, this by design comes at a cost. Morality to reflect in laws comes at a great cost. Slavery was not made illegal just because it the right thing, it was made illegal because people fought and died for it.
      • OldFatCactus 8y ago
        You, as an employee, should attempt to change the laws such that the unethical actions become illegal? That sounds so farcical. Bringing light to the unethical practices (leaking) is the quickest way to get them under public scrutiny and possibly begin the process of legal change.
        • hprotagonist 8y ago
          >You, as an employee, should attempt to change the laws such that the unethical actions become illegal? This is something that large-scale strikes have historically accomplished. The 8-hour workday and the existence of the weekend are both results of that approach. It doesn’t always fit, and whistleblowing can be powerful too.
          • OldFatCactus 8y ago
            The best way to mobilize large-scale demonstration and action is by informing the public. Try to do that through "legal" channels and see how far you get. Strikes and other worker-organized rallies were ruthlessly suppressed by the law before we arrived where we are today. Massive corporate entities will use every legal avenue available to silence you
            • hprotagonist 8y ago
              i didn’t say it didn’t come without sacrifice. I said it worked.
        • quotemstr 8y ago
          The law is the legitimate consensus of the people on the matter of morality. If you think an action is unethical and the majority does not think that, then perhaps that action isn't unethical after all. In such a situation, you have every right to refraim from that action, but no excuse to force others to do so or to leak.
          • 8y ago
  • windexh8er 8y ago
    The assumption that leaking, in the OPs second example, is always for personal gain is incorrect. There is always risk involved in some manner and there are plenty of historical examples wherein people will put an exceptional amount of personal sacrifice on the line. Sacrifice can easily outstrip any gains realized by the greater good than for the individual. I, personally, don't believe conflating them is accurate. Maybe it's convent if you're the large organization or government that is in the crosshairs.
  • untog 8y ago
    But protesting against your employer is very rarely for personal gain. You are at minimum putting your job at risk. Of course there's personal sacrifice involved: you'll more than likely be fired if you are discovered.
• vxxzy 8y ago
  One must take responsibility for one’s morals. Our given set of societal/legal norms impart a certain level of responsibility. Because of the law, one must be responsible whether one likes it or not. The individual sits at the mercy of the society in which the individual exists. I suppose the only recourse for the individual is to help change society (this is slow, and requires even more responsibility) OR move to a different society.
  • triplesec 8y ago
    Upholding an ethical morality is not the same as following the law. The law frequently does not follow the values or mores of the people themselves. And often even if it is close it lags behind in time and it is only the actions of people contrary to the law which changes it. So, I believe that your claims are unsound. Indeed it is irresponsible to follow an unjust law comma because then you will just be reinforcing injustices. See the American civil rights movement for good examples of this.
    • vxxzy 8y ago
      morals != laws. Re-read and you will see no association made in the grammar. Words tend to reflect back the ideas and beliefs of the reader.
      • triplesec 8y ago
        it appears to be the same thing in your comment, because you say that because there is a law people have a responsibility. And that responsibility to the law becomes a moral responsibility according to the way I have read what you say that makes sense as a response to the original comment. If you would like to explain it some another way then please do!
        • vxxzy 8y ago
          The law forces one be responsible (without choice). If a law is passed to “kick the leakers”, then if one leaks, they will be held responsible by having a good kicking for not bearing the responsibility of upholding the law. Morally, the individual is opposed to the law. Fine. Great. Even without the law, one is still responsible for their morals. Maybe the society doesn’t “kick” people, maybe society supports leakers. Doesn’t matter. There have been countless individuals acting “morally” (in their view), and we as a society have held them responsible. One should balance one’s actions against their morals, and society’s law.
• raverbashing 8y ago
  About the 1st one, it's often done "off-the-record" by the company itself. Apple is notorious for this, it's an "unofficial announcement", given to select members of the press as to create hype and test the waters. Officially it still remains a secret.
• Rodneyj 8y ago
  The second one is just as selfish. You believe your feelings are more important than the security of your organization
• Aardappel 8y ago
  They can both have the same negative consequence: a company's open culture becoming more secretive.
  • pixl97 8y ago
    If the second type is occurring, the company is screwed, and the employee is screwed a anyway. Without the leaker it is very rare for the company to come out and say "Oh ya, our profit at all costs behavior is immoral" all on their own.
• Digory 8y ago
  Having represented whistleblowers, though, I can say it's difficult to find any pure cases. There's almost always something to crticize about the leaker's motive. The evil is often an order of magnitude of difference between the leaker and the leakee. But Americans hate disloyalty, unless it's a clear crime --- and even then, we don't want to reward a snitch. If you want a culture of transparency, you need to be comfortable rewarding some level of disloyalty or gain.
  • fhrow4484 8y ago
    > But Americans hate disloyalty, unless it's a clear crime --- and even then, we don't want to reward a snitch. If by we you mean people, maybe. But there's at least a case where the US government with qui-tam and other stuff can make whistleblower pretty rich: https://www.phillipsandcohen.com/whistleblower-rewards/ https://www.phillipsandcohen.com/whistleblower-rewards/
    • Digory 8y ago
      Can! But judges and the government can take steps to limit or torpedo recovery by less virtuous (or disfavored) whistleblowers.
• oculusthrift 8y ago
  the problem at google is there are radical activities believing everything is type 2. there’s something to be said about solving problems internally. And in many cases no real problem exists but the person “whistle blowing” just wants to feel special or be an activist
  • skj 8y ago
    Do you have any examples of this?