[gnicholas]

I recall learning in law school that “if there is no tipper there can be no tippee”. In order for there to be a tipper, the person has to have an intent to provide a tip improperly. Imagine there’s a CEO talking in an obscure foreign language in his own backyard, to a colleague on the phone, he is not a tipper — even if someone who happens to speak that obscure language is walking by his fence at that moment. As a result, that person cannot be a “tippee” because there was no tipper in the first place.

I’m not sure that not being a tippee means you’re completely in the clear, since you have material information. But it’s presumably not non-public information since hundreds of people know it, and thousands more are finding out by the minute.

[Johnny555]

>Imagine there’s a CEO talking in an obscure foreign language in his own backyard, to a colleague on the phone, he is not a tipper

Is that actually true? I could believe it if he were speaking in a cryptographic code, but even an obscure language has more than one speaker so he shouldn't be revealing corporate secrets where he can be overheard even if he's speaking a foreign language.

[s0rce]

Apparently there are a few languages with only 2 speakers left, so I guess in that case its true.

[gnicholas]

Technically he wouldn’t be a tipper (vis a vis the stranger on the other side of the fence) even if he were speaking English. To be a tipper one has to have intent to share the information inappropriately. I only included the language bit to make it clear he was taking some level of precaution, and had a reasonable expectation that he was not spreading the information around. Even carelessness does not make one a tipper vis a vis a stranger, IIRC. But it’s been a couple decades since law school, so I could be wrong, laws could have changed, etc.