5 ms·

Is it more of conflict of interest than the whistleblower potentially being entitled to a multi billion dollar commission from the SEC? Because that's barely be

by duud 5y ago

Is it more of conflict of interest than the whistleblower potentially being entitled to a multi billion dollar commission from the SEC? Because that's barely been mentioned in any of the negative articles. https://www.sec.gov/whistleblower https://www.sec.gov/whistleblower

elliekelly 5y ago
What is the conflict? She only gets paid if her claims are substantiated and lead to a substantial enforcement action. And perhaps I’m a bit too in the weeds on this sort of thing but when I read “whistleblower” I assume there is some avenue for remuneration either from the SEC or a qui tam suit or some other private right of action. Why would anyone blow their whole career up to bring fraud to light if they’re going to be financially hung out to dry? I think most people view whistleblower protections as aligning the interests of the public and the whistleblower.
- duud 5y ago
  Edward Snowden didn't need hundreds of millions to billions of dollars to do the right thing. Of course there should be some kind of compensation for potential loss of income but offering 50-1000x someone's annual income (10-30% of the fine) creates an incentive to present the facts in the way that maximizes the payday rather than the public good.
  - shadowfox 5y ago
    > creates an incentive to present the facts in the way that maximizes the payday rather than the public good Sure, it may create an incentive to do so. However, the facts must prove to be true and enforcement action must happen before the payout happens. So, however exaggerated the claims being made by the whistleblower in question, if it is not borne out by facts and substantiation, they are not getting anything for it. I am not sure I see an issue with that.
zwaps 5y ago
To answer your question, yes, it is more of a conflict of interest. A journalist is tasked with writing truthful articles that do not mislead the public. This holds at least for those who portray themselves as such (e.g., by making arguments appealing to our sense of truth or reason; i.e., anyone whose opinion we should at all value). In this case, however, the journalist is directly or indirectly paid by Facebook to spin the situation. As such, this is a conflict of interest (the integrity of journalism in particular being in the interest of the public). The whistleblower must provide actionable (in court) and therefore truthful information. Such information was, by definition, kept secret from regulation authorities who are tasked with enforcing societal rules. Rewarding this the whistleblower is not a conflict of interest. I mean, you could construe the wordings to say that the conflict is between loyalty towards the firm and loyalty to society / laws, and if this is a meaningful and acceptable rather than absurd contrast, then you are probably Elon Musk. For everyone else, it is hard to see a conflict of interest here.

by duud 5y ago

elliekelly 5y ago

What is the conflict? She only gets paid if her claims are substantiated and lead to a substantial enforcement action. And perhaps I’m a bit too in the weeds on this sort of thing but when I read “whistleblower” I assume there is some avenue for remuneration either from the SEC or a qui tam suit or some other private right of action. Why would anyone blow their whole career up to bring fraud to light if they’re going to be financially hung out to dry? I think most people view whistleblower protections as aligning the interests of the public and the whistleblower.

duud 5y ago
Edward Snowden didn't need hundreds of millions to billions of dollars to do the right thing. Of course there should be some kind of compensation for potential loss of income but offering 50-1000x someone's annual income (10-30% of the fine) creates an incentive to present the facts in the way that maximizes the payday rather than the public good.
- shadowfox 5y ago
  > creates an incentive to present the facts in the way that maximizes the payday rather than the public good Sure, it may create an incentive to do so. However, the facts must prove to be true and enforcement action must happen before the payout happens. So, however exaggerated the claims being made by the whistleblower in question, if it is not borne out by facts and substantiation, they are not getting anything for it. I am not sure I see an issue with that.

zwaps 5y ago

To answer your question, yes, it is more of a conflict of interest. A journalist is tasked with writing truthful articles that do not mislead the public. This holds at least for those who portray themselves as such (e.g., by making arguments appealing to our sense of truth or reason; i.e., anyone whose opinion we should at all value). In this case, however, the journalist is directly or indirectly paid by Facebook to spin the situation. As such, this is a conflict of interest (the integrity of journalism in particular being in the interest of the public). The whistleblower must provide actionable (in court) and therefore truthful information. Such information was, by definition, kept secret from regulation authorities who are tasked with enforcing societal rules. Rewarding this the whistleblower is not a conflict of interest. I mean, you could construe the wordings to say that the conflict is between loyalty towards the firm and loyalty to society / laws, and if this is a meaningful and acceptable rather than absurd contrast, then you are probably Elon Musk. For everyone else, it is hard to see a conflict of interest here.