3 ms·
Well, yeah. The leaker signed an NDA. You of course take the risk that you will be punished by the NDA’s consequences that you sign unless you are using whistle
by sailfast 6y ago
Well, yeah. The leaker signed an NDA. You of course take the risk that you will be punished by the NDA’s consequences that you sign unless you are using whistleblower statutes. That’s the whole point of the NDA.
Edit: you don’t publish your company’s proprietary source code and then expect you just walk away right? You’d be sued into oblivion. It’s important that people abide by their agreements. Whistleblower statutes exist to ensure protection when fraud, abuse, or other illegal activity occurs. I’m not clear if this actually meets that standard.
- shawn-furyan 6y agoWhat's you're point? This is a normative discussion. The presence of NDAs says nothing about what is morally correct. For example, Harvey Weinstein systematically used NDAs to silence his victims and cover up his violent crimes.
- Dahoon 6y agoThis is just BS. Hiding a crime behind an NDA doesn't mean it should be illegal to tell about that crime.
- DoctorOetker 6y agonot only shouldn't it be illegal, it probably isn't while the NDA might be illegal (and be evidence of conspiracy)
- sailfast 6y agoThat’s why I mentioned the whistleblower statutes. SARs are not crimes. They are potentially suspicious activity. If there is a crime not being reported after collection of these SARs then blow the whistle. No reason to leak a bunch of them unless you believe the collection of such data to be illegal in the first place (it’s not). For what it’s worth, the problem is that most folks don’t know what SARs are, when they’re filed, etc. This is basically the equivalent of leaking a bunch of private banking records that banks have to provide to the government, not “leaking hidden crimes that nobody stopped”