[dsfyu404ed]

No it's not. A whistle-blower is someone who's been proven to go out of their way to be a government informant. Why would you knowingly give them access even if you think you're doing everything right? It's all downside and no upside. The original comment is using the exact same logic as "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear". It's just that we don't care because corporate citizens do not get the same rights as actual human citizens.

[laughinghan]

I mostly agree with you (I upvoted you), but I want to push back on two things.

1. "Why would you knowingly give them access even if you think you're doing everything right?"

Depending on the circumstances, maybe I respect their integrity and character for risking their livelihood and more to expose wrongdoing?

2. "It's just that we don't care because corporate citizens do not get the same rights as actual human citizens."

They shouldn't get the same rights. They only exist to be liability shields. Unlike the people they are composed of, nothing about them deserves empathy or fundamental rights---we grant them certain rights as a matter of public policy, not principle, because it makes our economic system work, and if that were ever to change, their rights should be changed or abolished accordingly.

[skookumchuck]

There's clear right and wrong, and then there are grey areas open to interpretation. There are ALWAYS grey areas. Who wants to get involved in litigating those?

For example, consider your taxes. Tax laws are always open to interpretation. You might believe you are doing everything correctly on your taxes, that the way you read the rules was correct. But would you still be undergoing a lot of stress if the IRS decided to do a compliance audit on you?

[laughinghan]

Did you mean to reply to someone else?

[throwaway55554]

> A whistle-blower is someone who's been proven to go out of their way to be a government informant.

Or, you know, they could have just been privy to information that the company they work for was doing something shady.

> Why would you knowingly give them access even if you think you're doing everything right?

This is because you have the mindset that whistleblowers are little snitches just waiting for the opportunity to tattle.

If a company is breaking laws, they should be punished. Right?

[skookumchuck]

> If a company is breaking laws, they should be punished. Right?

What about that professor who pointed out that on average, most people commit 3 felonies a day? It's all a matter of what the authorities decide to prosecute.

Did you come to a full and complete stop the last time you encountered a stop sign?

[eeZah7Ux]

This is a strawman. The discussion is about whistleblowing real crimes.

[skookumchuck]

What's a "real crime" is hardly clear-cut, why we have trials, and often up to the judge.

[eeZah7Ux]

What are you saying?

Exposing ongoing crimes in an organization is "all downside and no upside" for the organization?