> So we are supposed to assume that the CEO fled injustice, him an all the reportedly very well-paid conspirators are heroes but this one guy who did the leg work is lying.
Who's saying that? The CEO looks guilty to me, but I don't know the details of the case.
>The conclusion follows the premise, but the premise is extremely rarely true.
This is exceptionally naive.
>Just because it is within my company makes it no different from a medium sized company providing services to another company who is involved in evil, even if those services are not directly related.
Agreed.
> you work for a payment processor and provide services to my company, then your own logic would make you as complicit as I am.
> No, you can?t solve it by making them anonymous, because then you will be accused of having an unaccountable Star Chamber of secret elites (especially if, I dunno, you just took the company private too). No, no, they have to be public and “accountable!”
This is bulls... Sorry.
Who cares what you are accused of doing?
Why does it matter if people perceive that there is a star chamber. Even that reference. Sure the press cares and will make it an issue and tech types will care because well they have to make a fuss about everything and anything to remain relevant.
After all what are grand juries? (They are secret). Does the fact that people might think they are star chambers matters at all?
You see this is exactly the problem. Nobody wants to take any 'heat'. Sometimes you just have to do what you need to do and let the chips fall where they fall.
The number of people who might use twitter or might want to use twitter that would think anything at all about this issue is infinitesimal.
> Also, he was the CEO of a tech startup, and the tech startup media did all the reporting on it, and all his investors literally said 'congratulations, I'm glad this is behind you' after he pled guilty.
Thank you for spelling it out for me. This bit with the inevstors apparently condoning the behaviour is what I was missing.
So what do you think should happen? The man pleaded guilty and paid his due, presumably.
> Sounds like a story of it's own, bigger than this one.
I think the key word you're overlooking is "most", as in "most of the core team" took steps to be anonymous, not all (steps that, for all we know, may never have worked).
>So we can see the 35 members in this Slack, but I don't feel comfortable posting that list. I have no idea who is real or fake and who may be working for this company unaware of what is actually happening.
>So I sent an email to two of them after I found them on LinkedIn to further help investigate this. One immediately responded unaware of this behavior occurring and left the group.
Although I admire the authors restraint, I am more than a little unimpressed with one of the contacted being "unaware" of the behavior. "Excuse me, did you know you're in a group that is actively committing crimes?" How do you think they're going to respond?
> 4. Recently they have cropped up a set of anonymous people who purport themselves to be insiders only to reveal complete ignorance about the topic at hand (otteroo on Twitter, for instance).
Can you clarify this? By “they” do you mean this Substack? I didn’t see anything about “otteroo” or Twitter insiders in a quick search of the Substack, but I didn’t exhaustively search the entire backlog.
> So 3 employees involved with security and not 1 employee. Also, they were pushed out AFTER alerting about security issues.
How much credibility do you put in such testimonies though? Especially if everyone is a "anonymous source", you can basically invent just about anything and publish it and pretend for it to be a genuine article without any fact under the hood.
> Who said conspiracies involving hundreds of people are impossible?
Companies are pretty opaque by design and I'm sure these people signed NDAs.
As long as they believed the company was acting legally (even if not ethically) they might not have felt like they had the legal right to share insider information.
Others might have simply felt the company was working on it. And others might not have wanted to damage the company that employs them.
The people that knew something wrong was going on and kept passing the buck are certainly at fault though and in retrospect I bet a lot of people wish they said something.
It's a tragedy what's happened and unfortunately a bunch of people probably could have saved some lives but didn't.
>I'm sure it's not hard to identify the customer either.
OP seems rather sure of the opposite:
>But I felt I needed to address one particular concern that has been repeatedly raised. That of the identity of the company in question.
>I’m a professional, and I’ve been doing this a long ol’ time. There is no way I’m going to risk the identity of the company, or my reputation, or the potential legal consequences for some interaction on social media.
>So to clarify, enough details of the incident and those involved have been changed to protect their identity and everyone else involved. I am confident that you could work at the company involved and not even be aware this happened, even after reading this Partly due to scale and partly due to managerial secrecy.
We can reasonably assume that the postmortem is truthful. Since they’re a publicly traded company, lying about this incident would be a quick way to turn an embarrassment into a felony.
Yes. The part where the CEO claims that of all the people seeking anonymity that less than 100 of them aren’t criminals o_O
Check out the last discord screenshot.
reply