Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

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.


The Senate subcommittee also made quite clear that they'd be protecting Haugen against any legal, or other, threats, in yesterday's testimony.

How substantive that promise is I'm not sure, but i was made and is part of the record.

I strongly encourage listening if you have the time. Excellent information and discussion.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=GOnpVQnv5Cw


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.

Transcript as alternative to YouTube

https://archive.org/details/CSPAN_20211006_050100_Facebook_W...


Thanks very much for the transcript.

Relevant quote (mangled grammar in original):

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.

At the 1:35 a.m. timestamp.

https://archive.org/details/CSPAN_20211006_050100_Facebook_W...


I imagine they might haul Zuckerberg before the committee and spend a few hours asking him variations on "Why are you retaliating against Haugen?"


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...).


How likely is it that Congress or any regulatory body would be asking for whistleblowers if none ever talked to the press?

Press is the fourth estate, even if news as a profit center has tainted their motives of late.


[flagged]


What are you talking about?

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'.


He's referring to Julian Assange. And in that context, he is correct.


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.




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: