> The Signals Network, the 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that compiled these legal considerations, is one of these actors. The Signals Network enables whistleblowers and international journalists to work seamlessly together to hold powerful interests accountable
A word of advice: Don't get your legal advice from the same journalists that want to use your story, and maybe also your name, to further their own career.
There's an inherent conflict of interest between someone who wants to use your leak to further their own agenda (be it activism or simply writing a juicy news story) and your own interests as someone with potentially massive legal liability. When the legal wheels start turning, it's not the journalist who is putting their finances and freedom at risk. It's the employee.
Leaking company documents or even violating NDAs you signed as part of your employment should not be taken lightly, no matter how friendly sites like this make it sound. Always engage with legal representation that is not affiliated with the journalists who want your story. Never let a friendly journalist talk you into divulging information that could expose you until you've worked through the legal ramifications, no matter how much they encourage you to push forward.
To be fair, some have said this leaker from Facebook is quite vulnerable to being sued or even prosecuted and are probably wondering why Facebook is not taking legal action against her. The most obvious guess is that she is effectively protected by the press that Facebook is receiving at the moment. Without that publicity, i.e., the help of "conflicted" journalists, her legal arguments for protection seem rather weak.
According to WSJ, her NDA permits disclosure to Congress, regulatory bodies like the SEC, and law enforcement. The disclosure to the press (the public) however is a different question.
We will do anything and everthing to protect and stop any retaliation against you in any legal action the company may bring or anyone else, with that made very clear in the course of these proceedings.
Yeah. The promise of protection would ring less hollow if it were made by the executive branch (and even then, that kind of promise often lasts until the next administration...).
A recent example would be Theranos, a clearly fraudulent company which was unusually aggressive towards its many whistleblowers (see John Carreyrou's excellent reporting). Theranos legally harassed its whistleblowers, but no-one had to go into hiding for 33 years, and the general view would be that Theranos's unusually aggressive approach has hurt its case rather than helped it.
I don't think anyone would claim that the Theranos whistleblowers weren't 'actual whistleblowers'.
I think she didn't leak novelties. Most of it is common sense or already known.
She is protected by the Democrats who want to install Internet censors at strategic corporations. Then the Democrats control all mainstream media and the mainstream web.
The big actual problem is of course massive data collection on everyone. That should be addressed, but won't, because the swamp needs the data.
Do you honestly view this as a partisan effort? There’s definitely a bipartisan interest in reining in “Big Tech,” though the rationales differ.
When a corporation begins to infringe on a government’s ability to manage its citizens you can be sure that there will be a concerted effort to limit those efforts.
A word of advice: Don't get your legal advice from the same journalists that want to use your story, and maybe also your name, to further their own career.
There's an inherent conflict of interest between someone who wants to use your leak to further their own agenda (be it activism or simply writing a juicy news story) and your own interests as someone with potentially massive legal liability. When the legal wheels start turning, it's not the journalist who is putting their finances and freedom at risk. It's the employee.
Leaking company documents or even violating NDAs you signed as part of your employment should not be taken lightly, no matter how friendly sites like this make it sound. Always engage with legal representation that is not affiliated with the journalists who want your story. Never let a friendly journalist talk you into divulging information that could expose you until you've worked through the legal ramifications, no matter how much they encourage you to push forward.