5 ms·

This sends a bad message to would-be whistleblowers. I read it as... "next time, take your evidence, make contingency plans, and finally blackmail the criminals

This sends a bad message to would-be whistleblowers. I read it as... "next time, take your evidence, make contingency plans, and finally blackmail the criminals - you're more likely to get paid".

mariogintili 5y ago
it is literally how the world works these days
explorigin 5y ago
If you take this route, have a life-insurance policy.
navierstokes 5y ago
A lesson they teach in $IVY_LEAGUE, "you all know whistle blowers don't end up well." Direct quote from $INFLUENTIAL_DUDE in response to $PUBLIC_THING. Trust your gut. When it says leave, leave. Even if others encourage the opposite. Even if your extended family depends on your income. Make the effort to build and maintain a strong social circle. Filter for integrity. Assiduously avoid those who distort truth for personal advantage.
- navierstokes 5y ago
  When you know you're going to be alone and homeless, it's really hard to find the strength to keep on living. What's the point?
duxup 5y ago
I don't think this guy is just some rando whistleblower. He tried to make it a full time job, it's not clear why but he took out loans to do it ... it just was a bad "business" choice.
wsc981 5y ago
In The Netherlands and the EU there are quite a few well-known whistleblowers who received the short-end of the stick. One example would be Paul van Buitenen [0]. It's really risky to become a whistleblower and if you do, you better be able to live the rest of your life on your finances, because it might become very hard after becoming a whistleblower to receive another well-paying job. Also be prepared to deal with a lot of stress that might impact your health and mental wellbeing. --- [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_van_Buitenen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_van_Buitenen
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  It seems whitleblowing is more dangerous than fraud these days
- jacquesm 5y ago
  To receive another job, never mind the 'well-paying' bit. Companies would be scared shitless to hire someone that might expose their dirty laundry, especially if they already have a track record of doing so. If there is one thing that is pretty certain then it is that whistleblowers get to blow the whistle exactly once.
snarf21 5y ago
I personally think that we need to combine significant whistleblowers with witness protection. They need the same protections and compensation to give up their current life. This is why people don't come forward know. Someone is likely married to the child traffickers and corporate fraudsters off the world but you have to convince them to give up their life and be in a media circus and potentially risk the lives of them and their family. You have to reward them as such.
fieldcny 5y ago
Knowing the WSJ, that’s probably the point, it’s almost like the white collar version of snitches get stitches

This sends a bad message to would-be whistleblowers. I read it as... "next time, take your evidence, make contingency plans, and finally blackmail the criminals - you're more likely to get paid".

mariogintili 5y ago

it is literally how the world works these days

explorigin 5y ago

If you take this route, have a life-insurance policy.

navierstokes 5y ago

A lesson they teach in $IVY_LEAGUE, "you all know whistle blowers don't end up well." Direct quote from $INFLUENTIAL_DUDE in response to $PUBLIC_THING. Trust your gut. When it says leave, leave. Even if others encourage the opposite. Even if your extended family depends on your income. Make the effort to build and maintain a strong social circle. Filter for integrity. Assiduously avoid those who distort truth for personal advantage.

navierstokes 5y ago
When you know you're going to be alone and homeless, it's really hard to find the strength to keep on living. What's the point?

duxup 5y ago

I don't think this guy is just some rando whistleblower. He tried to make it a full time job, it's not clear why but he took out loans to do it ... it just was a bad "business" choice.

wsc981 5y ago

In The Netherlands and the EU there are quite a few well-known whistleblowers who received the short-end of the stick. One example would be Paul van Buitenen [0]. It's really risky to become a whistleblower and if you do, you better be able to live the rest of your life on your finances, because it might become very hard after becoming a whistleblower to receive another well-paying job. Also be prepared to deal with a lot of stress that might impact your health and mental wellbeing. --- [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_van_Buitenen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_van_Buitenen

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
It seems whitleblowing is more dangerous than fraud these days
jacquesm 5y ago
To receive another job, never mind the 'well-paying' bit. Companies would be scared shitless to hire someone that might expose their dirty laundry, especially if they already have a track record of doing so. If there is one thing that is pretty certain then it is that whistleblowers get to blow the whistle exactly once.

snarf21 5y ago

I personally think that we need to combine significant whistleblowers with witness protection. They need the same protections and compensation to give up their current life. This is why people don't come forward know. Someone is likely married to the child traffickers and corporate fraudsters off the world but you have to convince them to give up their life and be in a media circus and potentially risk the lives of them and their family. You have to reward them as such.

fieldcny 5y ago

Knowing the WSJ, that’s probably the point, it’s almost like the white collar version of snitches get stitches