[aspensmonster]

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."

[jamesaguilar]

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.

[aspensmonster]

You asked me if I would let myself off the hook for blowing the whistle because I told my employer in advance that I would do so. I wouldn't characterize it as letting myself off the hook, because there shouldn't be a "hook" in my clavicle mandating unethical behaviour in the first place. I'd characterize it as doing the right thing if for no other reason than being ethically obligated to do so. Blowing the whistle should never be a "letting myself off the hook" gesture. It should be the expected default choice of action when the protocols put in place to address bad behaviour are being subverted.

>"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."

>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...

It seems the nail has met the head. Now, I don't know if you are indeed a software engineer for Google or not --and perhaps I'm torpedoing my own opportunity to join the ranks a year or so from now-- but Hacker News does seem to have quite a number of folks online that are genuinely involved in the thick of the industry. Of course, I understand that you cannot, will not, confirm or deny, comment or speculate. But you've brought about the very point I'm raising: Why on earth would asserting that I would behave ethically, affirming that I would blow the whistle if the protocols in place to address such issues failed, constitute "[disclosing] the main thing that jeopardizes my chances to be that whistleblower"? Why would such a statement constitute "[constructing] a scenario where [I] will never be called upon to do" the right thing? What is it about stating "my loyalty is to the company up until I'm expected to behave immorally, unethically, or illegally" that makes every last employer want to run for the hills?

>...and therefore I have trouble seeing how you came to the conclusion that the choice is easy or obvious.

I didn't come to either conclusion. Whistleblowing is neither easy nor the obvious answer. But when it becomes clear that it is the only viable answer, when every other avenue of objection is exhausted, it most certainly does become the right thing to do. Everyone has their own excuse for staying silent. They can be perfectly valid excuses. I wouldn't expect someone to blow the whistle if their dependents would be ruined by it. I wouldn't expect them to blow the whistle if they genuinely felt that it would make absolutely no difference and leave them forever destitute. But that doesn't make it right. Just excusable. And in the tech industry, a knowledge industry dominated by single, unattached, 20 somethings, I find it hard to believe that every last soul could have a valid excuse.

[jamesaguilar]

> Why on earth would asserting that I would behave ethically

Let me construct a parallel scenario that might make it obvious to you. Let's suppose you're hiring a nanny to care for your children while you are away at work (not that you or I could necessarily afford such a thing). You tell the candidates your requirements for how the children should be treated while you are away, including what food they may eat, what shows they may watch, the ways, if any, they might be disciplined etc.

One of the candidates, upon hearing these requirements, declares that he will follow them up to the point he feels they violate his ethics or morals.

Do you hire this candidate? If no, why not?

[rhizome]

No, of course you wouldn't hire a nanny who doesn't spank if you require them to spank your child under certain circumstances. You're talking about dealbreakers, and that is something that should be brought up as early as possible in the interview process. For both nannies and knowledge/technical workers.

[aspensmonster]

Seems like a very interesting example to choose. Hiring a nanny for your child is one of those cases where you would absolutely want to fully vet each candidate. Are you suggesting you'd sooner leave the nanny's ethical and moral compass as a question mark than fully investigate what his or her ethics and morals are? This seems like a case where someone's ethics and morals are absolutely required to be known, not left as an exercise. Of course, most people rely on friends and family for such jobs for precisely these reasons. And if I had to hire a stranger, I'd absolutely be interested in knowing about their ethics and morals. Given my limited ability to get to know every last person, I'd prefer to hire from a reputable agency (so much as you can trust their reputation, in any case).

The reality of course is that every candidate will follow your orders up until he or she feels they violate his or her ethics/morals. Whether they're open about it or not is irrelevant. If you ordered them to abuse your own children (of course you wouldn't, but we're both being good-heartedly facetious here) you could reasonably expect them to turn you in, whether they were up front about it during an interview or not. Playing coy about the matter during an interview is a recipe for disaster on both ends.

[jamesaguilar]

That is a fair point. But I take it you understood what it is that makes it hard to hire a candidate when their ethics go against what a company believes is ethical, and/or what a company is legally bound to do.

Also, don't worry about what you say to me. I'm nowhere near important enough for that to matter.