3 ms·

Now here’s the strangest part: having discovered this blatant fraud my friend walked away from the deal but did nothing to bust the offending web site. His law

by powera 14y ago

Now here’s the strangest part: having discovered this blatant fraud my friend walked away from the deal but did nothing to bust the offending web site. His lawyer advised that because he signed a non-disclosure agreement with the crooks my friend might be legally liable if he turned them in to the authorities. It is his intention, though, to bust them just as soon as the NDA expires… in three years. - I thought the existence of whistleblower laws was exactly to allow for people to report things in situations like this. That is, if the article is accurate. I think it's more likely that the story has been exaggerated in retelling several times, and "we can't reveal this for NDA purposes" is just a way for the author to not have to give any proof of any of the claims.

JackC 14y ago
I'm a lawyer with just a tiny bit of experience with whistleblower issues. The part of the story where a whistleblower decides not to go public after consulting with their lawyer strikes me as totally plausible. You could think of being a whistleblower as kind of the career equivalent of firing a gun at someone who you're pretty sure is an armed intruder in your home. Yes, if you have the facts right you're probably entitled to do it and (if it will protect other people) it might well be the right thing to do. No, that doesn't mean your life won't get complicated for a while afterward -- especially if the facts aren't what you thought they were, or you miss. I think whistleblowers are incredibly important to society, and there are often good laws to protect them. But they're doing something brave. By far the easiest and safest path is to just look the other way. Or leak it to the media ... (Note I'm not saying this particular story is accurate of course.)
- powera 14y ago
  Possibly, but those people probably don't talk to reporters about exactly what was going on there.

by powera 14y ago

JackC 14y ago

I'm a lawyer with just a tiny bit of experience with whistleblower issues. The part of the story where a whistleblower decides not to go public after consulting with their lawyer strikes me as totally plausible. You could think of being a whistleblower as kind of the career equivalent of firing a gun at someone who you're pretty sure is an armed intruder in your home. Yes, if you have the facts right you're probably entitled to do it and (if it will protect other people) it might well be the right thing to do. No, that doesn't mean your life won't get complicated for a while afterward -- especially if the facts aren't what you thought they were, or you miss. I think whistleblowers are incredibly important to society, and there are often good laws to protect them. But they're doing something brave. By far the easiest and safest path is to just look the other way. Or leak it to the media ... (Note I'm not saying this particular story is accurate of course.)

powera 14y ago
Possibly, but those people probably don't talk to reporters about exactly what was going on there.