3 ms·

> It’s not “unknown” to technologists. I think the odd bit is that if this information isn't unknown to anyone in technology, even those not working on similar

> It’s not “unknown” to technologists. I think the odd bit is that if this information isn't unknown to anyone in technology, even those not working on similar systems, then how is this "whistleblowing". It's like calling informing people about marginal tax rates "whistleblowing" because so many people don't understand how they work.

anon9001 5y ago
> It's like calling informing people about marginal tax rates "whistleblowing" because so many people don't understand how they work. You mean like these? * https://www.propublica.org/article/lord-of-the-roths-how-tech-mogul-peter-thiel-turned-a-retirement-account-for-the-middle-class-into-a-5-billion-dollar-tax-free-piggy-bank https://www.propublica.org/article/lord-of-the-roths-how-tec... * https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trov...
- xboxnolifes 5y ago
  No, neither of those have anything meaningful to do with understanding marginal tax rates.
aeturnum 5y ago
It's whistleblowing, in this instance, because Frances Haugen released a bunch of internal documents showing what everyone has been saying. Generally the term is applied to someone who releases information from inside a company or organization showing that their public statements have been deceptive or are out of sync with the internal point of view.
_hlgc 5y ago
In this case it's a specific term related to SEC whistleblowing protections. The context is not about whistleblowing for some semblance of public protection, but whistleblowing for protection of investors who may have been misled.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
samstave 5y ago
It is important to discuss because its the INTENT behind what is being done, not so much HOW they are doing it technically - we 'technologists' love to know the how, but everyone needs to know the 'WHY' -- especially non-technical users. Just because most people are non-technical does not make them stupid... and it doesnt remove their humanity, which, as unpopular as it may seem, throughout human's entire history there was more privacy than there has been in the last 75 years. So, as we have evolved with actual privacy (due to lack of adequate/developed survellance technologies), and its idiotic to say that humans should have no expectation of privacy. Then why are you wearing clothes? is the intimate nature of your body not referred to as "private parts" -- so there are "private thoughts" and "private personal details" that shouldnt just be available because "government" says so...
- xboxnolifes 5y ago
  I agree it's important to discuss the WHY in things, but I don't see how that applies to my confusion around the usage of the term "whistleblower" at all.
  - samstave 5y ago
    I think my point was that the whistleblower is telling of the WHY. If you never have the WB telling of the why, then you cant put any personal context that affects you, and as such, have a ho-hum attitude to the situation, when one should be taking it much more seriously...

anon9001 5y ago

> It's like calling informing people about marginal tax rates "whistleblowing" because so many people don't understand how they work. You mean like these? * https://www.propublica.org/article/lord-of-the-roths-how-tech-mogul-peter-thiel-turned-a-retirement-account-for-the-middle-class-into-a-5-billion-dollar-tax-free-piggy-bank https://www.propublica.org/article/lord-of-the-roths-how-tec... * https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trov...

xboxnolifes 5y ago
No, neither of those have anything meaningful to do with understanding marginal tax rates.

aeturnum 5y ago

It's whistleblowing, in this instance, because Frances Haugen released a bunch of internal documents showing what everyone has been saying. Generally the term is applied to someone who releases information from inside a company or organization showing that their public statements have been deceptive or are out of sync with the internal point of view.

_hlgc 5y ago

In this case it's a specific term related to SEC whistleblowing protections. The context is not about whistleblowing for some semblance of public protection, but whistleblowing for protection of investors who may have been misled.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

samstave 5y ago

It is important to discuss because its the INTENT behind what is being done, not so much HOW they are doing it technically - we 'technologists' love to know the how, but everyone needs to know the 'WHY' -- especially non-technical users. Just because most people are non-technical does not make them stupid... and it doesnt remove their humanity, which, as unpopular as it may seem, throughout human's entire history there was more privacy than there has been in the last 75 years. So, as we have evolved with actual privacy (due to lack of adequate/developed survellance technologies), and its idiotic to say that humans should have no expectation of privacy. Then why are you wearing clothes? is the intimate nature of your body not referred to as "private parts" -- so there are "private thoughts" and "private personal details" that shouldnt just be available because "government" says so...

xboxnolifes 5y ago
I agree it's important to discuss the WHY in things, but I don't see how that applies to my confusion around the usage of the term "whistleblower" at all.
- samstave 5y ago
  I think my point was that the whistleblower is telling of the WHY. If you never have the WB telling of the why, then you cant put any personal context that affects you, and as such, have a ho-hum attitude to the situation, when one should be taking it much more seriously...