You can't expect me to actually go to jail for what I believe in, can you? Clearly, I can do more from the outside asking for permission! And I get to keep all my money too.
This comment feels really cheap to me. Two big issues:
1. Most people probably are not huge fans of this, but don't consider it a big enough deal to go to jail over it. I'm in that category (double disclaimer: not speaking in any official capacity for my company).
2. Even if someone DID think it a big enough deal, it's not easy to be a martyr. If it were, then presumably you would have already found yourself a job at one of these companies then spilled the beans. Considering you're commenting on HN, not languishing in prison, I can only guess that you find the prospect of such martyrdom much less appealing than your comment seems to indicate.
I'm not languishing in prison (yet). I certainly don't find such prospects appealing in the least. But my values are not hobbies. If push came to shove, prison is where I'd go. Granted, having a publicly stated policy of whistleblowing will likely put me on the bottom of a very long list of candidates for employment at these companies. (Well, it seems not to be the case with Google yet. I get prodded by one of their recruiters every semester, asking if I'm graduating yet or not. I'm unsure of whether I have the kind of technical chops they're looking for, but I suspect that even if I do, my personal convictions would leave the deal dead in the water.)
Hardly. I'd disclose that I will not carry out immoral or unethical behaviour on behalf of my employer, and will follow all protocol in pursuit of stamping it out, up to and including whistleblowing. That sort of attitude used to be a plus, dare I say something that was implicitly understood between the two parties. It's the sort of thing that you'd think people would want to ensure wound up in the contract all new hires signed when brought on board. I find it remarkable that such a policy would make anyone unfit for employment with anyone else. I'd like to think a company like Google would agree with such a policy. Their executive chairman seems to think as much:
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
OK, to me this reads, "No, I'd not disclose anything that jeopardizes my chances to be that whistleblower. I'd just disclose the main thing that jeopardizes my chances to be that whistleblower." I'm not trying to be (overly) confrontational, but I can't spot the difference between what I asked and what you said you'd do. It just seems like you've constructed a scenario where you will never be called upon to do what you seem to think is such an obviously good choice, and therefore I have trouble seeing how you came to the conclusion that the choice is easy or obvious.
No comment re: anything after "It's the sort of thing . . ." I don't know the company's employment policies in this area and wouldn't talk about them even if I did.