Ask HN: Should I testify? - <AUTHOR> I've been contacted by a major law firm to testify against a former employer about how they've broken California and federal law. I have proof and witnessed it from a bunch of people inside so I'm not worried about that part.
But what will this do to my career? Now when people google me, they find good stuff like projects and presentations and blogs posts. They won't let me be anonymous and the employer is prominent and popular here so people will find out. What happens if they find this instead? Would it be a deal killer if I applied at your company?
I'm looking for career advice here, not legal advice. I have enough of that. <comment><USER2> Tell them to subpoena you - then the choice to testify is not yours any more. You'll have to. But you can tell future employers that you were forced, if you'd like to.

<comment><USER3> This is smart. Guilty as sin or not, testifying against an employer seems risky for one's career. You want to be able to explain to future employers what happened in a manner that takes personal character assessment out of the equation: somebody broke the law and you got a subpoena.

EDIT: I've worked at some shops that were "cultish" and would look at testifying without a subpoena as not being part of the team. Fucked up, but organizations are often so. You need to do the right thing in the smartest way possible.

<comment><USER4> > Fucked up, but organizations are often so.

You can choose not to be a part of these organizations.

<comment><USER3> You can certainly aspire to that. Some companies are really good at hiding their true colors.

Mortgage, kids... Sometimes you need a paycheck.

<comment><USER5> This is what they mean by 'your house is not an asset'

Mortgages are not inherently bad. It's what you take the mortgage for is the bad decision.

Example:

Good:

Having a mortgage for a legal duplex (2 dwellings) and renting the other half out, while you live in one.

Bad:

Getting a house that's one big sink hole of cash and having more bedrooms/lawn/what have you.

You can be employed to build someone else's dreams. However there are other options available to you that don't involve being a rat.

<comment><USER6> My reading of "your house is not an asset" is "Robert Kiyosaki apparently failed Introduction to Accounting because he still doesn't know the definitions of basic accounting terms." (Except in very rare cases, like when the verdict against you for the neighbor kid drowning in your pool is more than your house will sell for.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'd say there's something even more important operating here for you than career, and that's who do you choose to be? This is really a question it works for you to answer yourself. Consult your own values, search your feelings, is this something that really inspires you? Are you being you authentically if you do testify or not? Whatever you discover, take the risk and act on that, whichever it is. The choice that is you, even if it's risky. This is an identity inflexion point. Get your game face on :)

<comment><USER8> crypt1d's response on this level is invisible for being flagged, but I think he does raise a serious point: wouldn't OP be admitting that he has broken the law or allowed the law to be broken for a longer period of time? What would be the consequences for him because of that?

<comment><USER9> It's a civil suit, not a criminal suit, and he's not the one being sued. I think only company officers may be personally sued for company behavior.

<comment><USER7> Great point. I'm no law expert tho I've heard there's different types of companies ( Delaware c ? ), as a matter of curiosity I wonder if the indemnification changes depending on the type of company.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm going to answer from my own experience, which may or may not fit your situation at all (you're kind of vague about it, so there's no way to judge). This is also in part inspired by the comment of humanarity ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9360218](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9360218))

Several years ago in The Netherlands we had a website blockade of The PirateBay. Most ISPs had to block it, it was stupid, and it did not work at all. The ISPs were challenging it legally. The question got asked: "How effective is this blockade anyway? Can we measure it?".

I did not realise it at the time, but this was somewhat an identity inflexion point for me, and very much changed my career.

As a scientist in computer networking, with some knowledge of Bittorrent, I thought to myself, how hard can it be? I could take some torrents off TPB, record IP addresses passing by and checking which ISP they come from. I finished the bittorrent measurements, wrote a report, and tried to publish it. Only the dean and the faculty lawyer got wind of it, and they were not amused, and saw a risk of getting sued by the entertainment industry.

I challenged them on this, and noted that I would publish this, even without their support. Fortunately I also got full support of my professor, and we did get to publish it. It was used in the court case, and it helped show the ineffectiveness of the website blockade, so it got lifted.

This little weekend project changed my research interests, has made me focus on ethics in computer science research, and especially security research. This has changed much of how I initially planned my career, and it has gotten me to where I am now. I have enjoyed every minute of it, and months later also realised I was not happy with the way my career was going.

I took some risk in doing this, but it was something I believed in. The change was possible because I was a researcher at a university, so that made it somewhat easier.

<comment><USER11> And now downloads have been made illegal. So you were right in the short term but the longer term effects were actually worse than the blockade was!

Still, kudos for standing up for what you felt was right and not giving in in the face of such pressure, that was pretty brave.

<comment><USER10> I have less of a problem with downloading being illegal in general. I strongly object to censorship in a democratic society, especially without a good checking mechanism or rules about ending a blockade.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> A few thoughts based on my experience, which included being subpoenaed by the U.S. Department of Justice while I was at Wired. We filed a motion to quash, which was unsuccessful, so I was forced to take the stand. I posted the docs here: [http://mccullagh.org/subpoena/](http://mccullagh.org/subpoena/)

So, the thoughts:

* I would refuse to testify against my former employer unless I were subpoenaed. Even then, I may move to quash the subpoena (this may be different in your case, of course).

* Being subpoenaed could include depositions and travel and courtroom testimony and rescheduled evidentiary hearings because the judge has a murder trial that's running long -- it could take weeks of your life. This is not an hourlong process. Also, everyone else involved in this process is going to be paid for their time; who pays for yours? Do you even _want_ , ethically speaking, to be paid for your time? Remember the "major law firm" does not work for you and does not have your best interests at heart; their interests may be opposed to yours. To protect yourself you could hire your own attorney, who isn't going to work for free.

* If your former employer has an active fanbase and strongly and convincingly denies your allegations, you could be attacked by name, and your family members dragged into this, online and via social media.

* There are innumerable laws and regulations, some of them rather nuts, and at least one employee at every large company may have innocently violated one of them at some point. Do the laws you believe your ex-employer violated punish behavior that _you_ personally believe should be illegal ( _malum in se_ vs. _malum prohibitum_ )? And did management know about and approve these illegal actions, or was it a rogue employee at fault? If the answer to either question is "no," you may want to drop this.

* Now that you've been contacted by a law firm, you could be subpoenaed even if you do not respond and try to drop this.

* If you believe your former employer has institutionally engaged in actions that are illegal and unethical, you have other options beyond testifying. You could write up your experiences and post them publicly, anonymously if necessary.

<comment><USER13> This..

When the rubber hits the road this is what happens and worse

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Let's be realistic: there are many companies that won't hire you after this. The question is, are those the companies that you want to work for? It's a tough choice, of course.

You mention that the company you worked at is popular here on Hacker News. So let's assume we are talking about Apple or Google or perhaps AirBnB. So from now on, when people look up your name, they will see something like "Testified against Apple".

A lot of companies will quietly remove you from consideration, if they see that you have testified. And, sad to say, this might exclude you from a lot of the better paying jobs in the industry.

All the same, you have to ask yourself, how will you feel about yourself if you don't testify? What kind of world do you want to live in? What sort of tech industry do you want to live in?

<comment><USER15> There's got to be lots of companies that, as a policy, don't do illegal things. Especially smaller businesses that can't afford to break the law. But larger ones too.

Presumably, those kinds of places just wouldn't care if you testified against a former employer who broke the law. Because it just wouldn't matter.

<comment><USER16> This to me is a silly idea, as I am confident that if you let me follow any person, or work in any company for a day, I could find laws that they are breaking. Everybody breaks laws, and nobody wants to have the passenger in their car report them for speeding 5mph over the limit.

<comment><USER17> The OP does not seem to be testifying against a company for under declaring the amount of stationary they have though, unless that involves major law firms, and breaks state and federal law.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> There's a lot of naive bullshit in here, with people running their mouths about integrity or other nonsense. Remember that the only person prosecuted for waterboarding is the whisteblower John Kiriakou, and he got two and a half years for his trouble.

My point is, you need to look out for number one and not let some law firm looking for (their own) payday get you entangled in their profits, because none of them give a fuck less about you.

So without more clarity on which laws were broken and your role in this (are you the primary witness? Sole witness? One of a dozen?) it's hard to give specific advice.

But just don't let yourself get screwed because some lawyers see a payday they damn well aren't going to share with you.

ps -- if you get a subpoena, get your own lawyer. Maybe even get one now; a lawyer's job is risk management and that's what you need.

ps2 -- Depending on what happened, when people ask, "What kind of person do you want to be" the response might be, "The sort who has a career and can afford indoor living." Here's another whisteblower about mortgage fraud who has destroyed her career [1]

[1] [http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-9-billion- witn...](http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-9-billion- witness-20141106)

<comment><USER19> "integrity or other nonsense"

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Testify. It demonstrates integrity. Any firm that doesn't want to hire you, especially if the case is clear cut, is not worth working for.

<comment><USER21> This is bad advice. This is living life on hard mode. I wouldn't testify. You don't have anything to gain other than morality points, but you'll have everything real to lose.

<comment><USER22> Confucius once wrote that 'seeing the right thing and not doing it is cowardly'. This is still true today. But you are right that the life of a coward is easier.

Living a virtuous life is always 'hard mode'; if it were not, would we ever have bothered to identify virtue?

<comment><USER21> Why stop here then? Why not donate 90% of your income to charity and live in a shanty town?

<comment><USER23> Sometimes doing the wrong thing (or at least "not the right thing") allows you to do a much bigger right thing in the end.

For example, Bill Gates. We all hated on Microsoft in the 90s. But Gates has become an amazingly generous humanitarian, which he couldn't have done if he donated all his money to charity in the beginning and didn't focus on ruthlessly building his company.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Data point (as requested): I can't imagine factoring trial testimony into a hiring decision, nor can I imagine wasting years of my career I'll never get back at the kind of company that would do that.

</comment><comment><USER25> I don't think any company here will tell you it'd be a deal breaker. Certainly it will have an impact though. You could testify but still have a plan for controlling what comes up when people search your name. For example, by doing SEO on yourself.

Also, if the law that was broken was actually a major thing then I'd be hard pressed not to testify. It might affect your career, but only with companies that themselves have questionable ethics. You probably don't want to work for them anyway.

<comment><USER26> I agree with the advice above, and adding on to it, as a founder... If the case is morally and ethically sound then I wouldn't hold it against you, probably applaud you. On the contrary if it's a shakedown of sorts I would be questionable.

As an exercise I would look into the recent lawsuit against VC firm Kleiner Perkins. Search the web for "kpbc lawsuit" and read how people have reacted to that case.

<comment><USER27> I'd agree with this; if it's something along the lines of "executives were embezzling from the company," I'd consider it a sign of integrity. If it's "Uber isn't complying with taxi regulations!" then I wouldn't want to work with you.

<comment><USER28> "Uber isn't complying with taxi regulations!"

->

"XXX isn't complying with YYY regulations!"

->

"Apple isn't complying with workforce competition regulations!"

So what you're saying is there's a certain level of integrity, and if someone goes over that level of integrity then they are too integer, and you don't want to work with them?

<comment><USER29> No. What he is saying is that there are some common sense good laws he agrees with and there are some outdated laws that no reasonable person would want to continue to uphold and need to be changed but our grandpas in congress have not gotten around to it yet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> My name is associated with a lawsuit where I testified against a former employee. It's all in the public record, but it's almost impossible to find using Google unless you know a few of the details. Like you, I've been creating a lot of my own content for a while and that's still what dominates the results for my name in Google. From a practical standpoint, unless you get mentioned by name in all the resulting press, you're probably safe.

</comment><comment><USER31> If you do want to testify, definitely do it. If you are worried about people able to Google you and find that you testified, there is a lot of ways to solve that problem.

You don't even need to go for extensive SEO, as Search Engines may change their algorithms every now and then.

What you can do is, you can create a website for your professional profile where you write blog posts. In one of the blog posts, you can clearly explain your standpoint in your own words. Just link this website to your Linkedin and other social networks. This is important because you have to say in your own words what you want others to see about you, so as to nullify any false idea others may get on googling you.

The recruiter who is going to hire you will surely see the link to the website that YOU have listed and if he really cares about you, that person will read the blog posts. So you definitely have control.

Celebrities all across the world have to deal with stuff which might malign their image, every single day. And you can notice that many celebrities just give a clear statement in their own words and it works out well.

Finally, it comes down to the decision whether you would like to testify or not.

<comment><USER32> not sure if you should testify. If you do, remember that there are services to clean up your image on google ...

<comment><USER32> btw, did you try carrers.stackexchange ?

we here seem to be using a lot of opinion and not much fact ...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> It really depends on what the lawsuit and testimony are about. If it's a frivolous kind of lawsuit that you disagree with, don't volunteer. If the lawsuit is about something that you support, your ethics should compell you to testify.

Either way, be aware that you can be forced to testify. As long as your testimony is based purely on facts, then I don't see future employers as having issues with it.

</comment><comment><USER34> As someone who blogs about interviews and legal issues, I am very paranoid about my online footprint. I have talked to many of my friends who are recruiters at tech companies. The recruiters don't dig that deep and the interviewers are discouraged from looking at more than the candidate's LinkedIn profile.

I am still inundated with invitations to interview.

I think you will be fine too.

Edit: Look up the names of people who have sued their employers. [http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/](http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/) Try googling their names and see if you can link them to the cases. I bet the connections are hard to make.

</comment><comment><USER35> Testifying isn't as big of a deal as someone who bring a lawsuit against their company. There are a lot of people who testify in lawsuits, and their names never make it to the articles. I wouldn't worry too much about it.

</comment><comment><USER36> I'm in slightly similar situation in terms of speaking out against a huge firm in the Valley. This firm found out about my east coast start-up and invited us to demo our novel technology. They made promises of buying it for lots of money. Well we flew out there and it was a nightmare, as we were treated like dogs and or worse.

There is a ton of bad behavior going on in this industry and I have pondered whether or not to write about our experience as a warning to all other start- uppers/innovators. I've been going back and forth on whether or not to come out and say who the company is and those who scammed us out of our technology. Though will doing such make me look bad, when the narrative is Silicon Valley companies are no friend to the little guys with no connections!?!

<comment><USER13> Well in this case you have to speak out.. to atleast signal to the next set of scammers to not mess with you.

<comment><USER36> Scammers HA this is one of the biggest companies in the world. They have some real jerks working for them!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> "major law firm" \--> you are not the main character in the movie. So please keep this in mind. As soon as something goes wrong, you will not be first one to be saved from the bad situation. At the same time this is a risk that can lead to both good and bad stuff.

For the career advice;

You will be a lot more known than your projects since this topic will be covered by media as well.

This can be risky too.

The bad:

If law firm loses the case, then you will end up with them as a loser too which will lower your chances getting a similar job like you are working now.

Keep in mind that you former employer also have lawyers to defend themselves, and at the end after the case, they will most probably be still operating.

The good:

You will be known as someone that actually did something about the problem. This can open opportunities for you to work for/as something else than what you are doing now. (they might want to host you on TV, interviews, people would would want to hire you to do some other things, i don't know maybe IT specialist for law firms?)

For both cases, doing what you are doing now MAY not be easier for you after this. (This is my opinion)

Taking or not taking this risk should be ONLY your decision since advantages and disadvantages will mostly affect you.

There are some other things came to my mind that might be worth thinking about as well.

\- Do you have a family to take care? (taking risks are easier when you are single)

\- Would you be happy doing something else than what you are doing now?

\- What are you expecting that will happen when the case is over? (How will you feel about it?)

And one more thing,

Since i am not a lawyer, you actually can find another law firm or a lawyer and ask them about this offer you got. And listen what they are saying about the whole thing.

Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER38> If it's clear the company has behaved immorally, and that you have no ulterior motive, I don't think anyone would hold it against you.

When people are thinking of hiring you, they aren't thinking whether you'll sue them legitimately. They're afraid of a spurious suit.

</comment><comment><USER39> I'd be more likely to hire someone who testified all things been equal, it's an incredible indicator of integrity.

<comment><USER19> agree

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> The standard you walk past is the standard you accept. (a line from [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaqpoeVgr8U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaqpoeVgr8U) , if you've not seen it)

Can you live with yourself ethically if you don't testify?

Are there ways that telling the truth about what you witnessed could actually be an advantage to your career?

Say, for example, that you witnessed sexual harassment and were put on the stand to talk about that. Sure, there may be some shitweasel who won't hire you because you "snitched" \- but there may be a woman founder of a healthier and more profitable company ([http://qz.com/361602/companies-run-by-women- perform-better/](http://qz.com/361602/companies-run-by-women-perform-better/) , just sayin') who takes your having testified as a positive, rather than a negative, signal.

Integrity counts for a lot. If someone doesn't want to hire you because you showed integrity under difficult circumstances, did you really want to work for them in the first place?

Now if you're worried about testifying because you yourself behaved unethically, that's a whole other story.

</comment><comment><USER41> The kind of company you want to work for is the kind of company that looks positively on the responsible and professional response to difficult situations like this.

Not everyone is willing, interested, or capable of affording themselves the luxury of working for such a place though it can be very rewarding to make those life choices.

In this sort of circumstance the merits of the case might make a difference to future employers and to yourself, whether the legal action and your participation in it seems morally just.

You have to weigh your specific circumstances and the circumstances of the case to make your decision, likely nobody but you can really understand enough to give solid advice.

</comment><comment><USER42> Your question is a lot trickier than you might think at first. A lot of comments seem to imply that any potential employer that opts to pass on your resume based on you testifying is a company that you wouldn't want to work for. Maybe, but I don't think that's how most HR departments would be considering it.

Their goal is to add value to the company with each hire. They could agree with your ethics and even applaud your speaking out, but still pass on you because your past history as a whistleblower (or at least close enough to one for the term to broadly fit) makes them nervous about what you might do over a difference of opinion even if _they_ believe their company to be ethical and law-abiding. Unless you happen to be a major witness in the case and the defense manages to drag you thoroughly through the mud, it's unlikely that your CV will be tarnished enough for it to be automatically rejected as though you marked down a felony conviction on the application.

It's not completely analogous, but imagine a hypothetical case where Edward Snowden is applying for a position at Google. Were you to poll Google employees, I'd expect strong support for his actions. Hell, his leaks _clearly_ benefited Google by informing them what the NSA was up to and how they were tapping into their internal traffic. But would that support prevent them from worrying about what might happen if he disagreed about certain activities at Google? Snowden already demonstrated a strength of character strong enough to go against the massed might of the United States government of all entities, and for all of their marketshare, Google's own reach pales in comparison. I don't think it'd automatically disqualify Snowden, but it's something that would probably be considered at least in part.

For an employer, it boils down to a simple risk analysis. What's the likelihood that the applicant will find themselves in a similar situation again, and how does that weigh against the value that their work would add to the company? There's really no simple answer here, let alone a guaranteed one. If you're a strong candidate that they'd otherwise want, it'll matter less would be the case if you had little to offer them compared to other candidates.

</comment><comment><USER43> It's fairly straightforward - follow the legal advice of counsel that represents you.

It's not going to affect your career in the slightest, unless it's a gigantic, newsworthy case and even then, it's unlikely anyone will care about your participation as a witness.

</comment><comment><USER44> How controversial are the laws broken?

For example, do you think they're good laws? Or do you think these laws are widely broken, at least technically, by all comparable companies because they're unrealistic, and any harm to non-consenting third parties is negligible?

Do only a few of the worst operators, or worst divisions of a larger company, break these laws? Do the laws effectively protect identifiable victims?

This could matter, because with good laws, lawful operators are happy to see transgressing competitors take a fall. And lawful operators need to hire people who help them stay compliant.

But with problematic laws, that are hard to obey and thus widely violated but with no harm to others, people who (cheerfully) become involved in their enforcement can become distrusted. (Did you earnestly try to check the lawbreaking when first observed, or just stockpile evidence for a later legal assault? The 2nd strategy can appear to be scheming or disloyal even if the law is righteous.)

IFF (and it's a big IFF) anyone ever sees your testimony as part of a hiring- evaluation, whether they care will depend on whether the case looks like a shake-down/gotcha/technical-violation, or a remedy-of-great-injustice.

OTOH, I tend to agree with others that this is unlikely to be a big deal. Individual witnesses don't get that much coverage. Unless you're the plaintiff/whistleblower, you're just one of many people called upon to tell the truth. The case could easily be resolved long before your testimony becomes public. Even if it seems at the moment like a giant controversy involving titans of the industry, it'll soon become a footnote, not a headline, about your career, and equally as likely to help (with most major and upstanding employers) as it could hurt.

</comment><comment><USER45> It would change my thoughts on hiring you. What were the crimes? What were the values you were defending? Are those values I want in my company? How much were you sticking your neck out?

Your answers and justifications could swing the pedlndulum either way. I would want to know that you believed you did the right thing, and that you took the time to really question what the right thing was.

</comment><comment><USER46> i was a named plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against google in 2009. that didn't stop them from contacting me repeatedly to try and hire me, and i did work for google for a bit in 2013.

i wouldn't worry about it.

</comment><comment><USER47> This is definitely not legal advice, just some personal experience/thoughts.

You're thinking only about your career? How about the mental and emotional toll that being involved in a court case can take? Don't doubt that there is one. These are all costs to you.

This may be too simplistic and quite conservative, but if you are not personally involved in the legal case, nor the actions that were taken which were illegal, then it is the company's problem and not your own. I like to hope the legal system was designed to get to the bottom of the issue, which has already been identified.

From a career or personal perspective, it might be a better idea to stay out of it unless you must be involved, either because it is needed to serve justice or because it is required because you are subpoenaed. Why not let the court decide if that is needed? One thing I know for sure is, if one side or the other needs/wants you bad enough, you will get dragged into it.

On the other side, if you don't need to be involved, it is probably safer to stay on the sideline. Especially if there is any chance that you aren't sure about the legality of the issues involved. Why take the unnecessary risk and burden to yourself? The company probably wouldn't do that for you.

As for your career question - I think most reasonable employers may ask, but would realize that the actions of a corporation do not equal those of an individual working at that corporation. I do think your career can survive being associated with such an entity, even if you have to be involved.

Worst case, change the entry on your resume to make the company name anonymous when applying for jobs... instead of XYZ, Corp, just say "A Major Consumer Technology Firm", etc. I have seen folks do that and it is not totally unacceptable.

Good luck with your decision.

</comment><comment><USER48> HN tends to be populated by people who either are or claim to be very successful, and are very confident they will always have well-paid work.

But many other people have to pay their bills and exist in a hiring environment which is somewhat hostile - maybe they can't move to the Bay Area, they are not very outgoing and networked, rumors have been spread about them, they are old - this industry is punishingly picky and hiring managers like nothing better than filtering you out. So, bottom line, a lot of us don't have leverage and do have to play stupid corporate games (and work at shitty and occasionally unethical employers) on pain of losing our livelihoods. It's all fun and games until you have to stop writing code and go work at Wal-mart.

If this issue is of Schindler's List magnitude, I guess you have to bite the bullet, but if all you're doing is making a law firm happy by being a +1 that might not be worth the risk of self-destruction.

</comment><comment><USER49> This article gives some ethical analyses:

[http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/23/nobody-likes-a- tattleta...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/23/nobody-likes-a-tattletale/)

</comment><comment><USER50> It depends if you plan on working in big Companies or small to medium size Companies/startups.

Large public Companies (assuming we are talking about a case against a public Company) may be reluctant to have you because HR might freak out. HR is all about damage control and compliance. But startups to medium sized Companies can be talked into it, and if you work is valued and appreciated, you should be fine. As a founder or executive of several Companies from 1 to 80 people here in California, I would not take this against you.

As a side note, I would also advise you to do some SEO on yourself as was said by porter. It's unfortunate, but worth it.

</comment><comment><USER51> So if the law firm has contacted you then it makes things a bit clearer. Either you'll testify willingly or, if they feel your testimony is important enough, they will subpoena you to appear and you'll testify anyway. (or serve time in jail for contempt, which is not advised)

So it really isn't a choice of "do I or don't I" it is really about the choice you made when asked. The actual choice here may be whether or not you need representation.

</comment><comment><USER52> I'll give the consultant answer- it depends. There are still a surprising number of employers who don't do a internet search on prospective employees, but assuming you apply to one that does, testimony would only have a negative effect if they a) found the testimony and b) thought you to be risk because of it.

As others have said a) is pretty easy to avoid if you aren't the star witness in a major trial and you have any sort of web presence (or you have the same name as someone famous.) Assuming a potential employer did hear about the trial, they are going to care a lot more if your testimony is related to something they MIGHT be doing\accused of doing. If you are being asked to testify that your ex-employer over worked employees or allowed a culture of harassment to exist, then sadly the HR person or hiring manager may worry that you'd make an accusation against them because those conditions are sadly pervasive and\or subjective. If on the other hand you are testifying that the ex employer is clubbing baby seals to make fancy watch bands, then they are much less likely to care because they know they aren't also clubbing baby seals (or if they are, you should be happy they pass on you.)

On a personal level, I'd probably ask them to get a subpoena and testify. I'm reading between the lines, but it sounds like you think it's the right thing to do. If you really believe that then it's worth doing, even if it might have s marginal effect on your some job applications down the line. Tech is big, good engineers are scarce, and most jobs will come from your personal network anyways, and the small downside is worth sleeping well at night.

</comment><comment><USER53> If you feel the law that was broken should be upheld then go ahead and testify. If I were considering hiring you I'd probably look at your decision to testify as a positive one unless I strongly disagreed with the law.

While I don't think we should selectively obey laws, there are certainly some that are very stupid and I'd question the judgment of someone who went to great lengths to punish a firm for violating one.

</comment><comment><USER54> Most companys CEOs have a "My Tribe" versus the rest of the world attitude, with the law beeing defined by themselves. They will see you as a potential traitor no matter what if you testify. Good or bad arguments for or against that dont factor into that view on the world.

You certainly can try to fit into that perspective, but those vasalls and slaves turn productive companys into king-courts that go nowhere. Better start sooner then later to openly not be one of those. So it actually depends on the crime comitted. If the crime in question was part of such a court and the shenanigans those produce. Hit it. And write it in your resume. Dont hide it. Show it and the reason why you did it. And would do it again. Make clear, that kings without cloths have a tendency to loose there head throughout history and that speeding up the fall of unmerited authority is a virtue.

Also, it wont be found out over the web, but via personal contacts. You and everbody meets twice in live, and they will chat. So if you do testify- tell it right now.

</comment><comment><USER55> It will hurt your career, sure some companies will be enlightened and not hold it against you but some will. That means less places will hire you, meaning less prospects. Are those places you would want to work otherwise? Maybe.

That doesn't mean don't testify though, what's more important to you, your career or getting the company punished for what it did?

</comment><comment><USER56> I suggest that you don't testify for the reasons you've mentioned. Even a good company with good people will have a harder time hiring you. When you hire someone and you have to choose between different people, then a normal HR manager will choose the one that is less noisy. They are not looking for someone who does the right thing, but someone who will provide more value to the company than trouble.

The only thing you haven't mentioned that might be relevant is if your silence might hurt someone. Then you have to weight own disadvantage against their disadvantage. Although I'd probably do the moral choice, I don't think it's the smarter one. In real life moral decisions often don't pay off, not even for the people you try to protect.

Also if you have spouse or other people who depend on you (e.g., brothers/sisters) discuss with these people and make a decision together. Your decision will also influence their life.

</comment><comment><USER57> I think it depends a lot on what the actual infraction is.

If it's something that most people in your industry actually think is bad, go for it.

Then again, there are now so many and so broad regulations that any business will violate some on a daily basis. I would like to work with people who don't go to the legal system whenever they can.

</comment><comment><USER58> I don't wanna sound evil, but why not something else? You could let them know you've got proof and try to get into a deal.

After that, even if you left the company, they wouldn't get sued or have any media attention. You wouldn't be known as 'the whistleblower' and probably get a decent compensation.

</comment><comment><USER59> I can't tell you what you should do. I can say for myself, what matters the most to me is what looks back at me in the mirror. If I felt my former employer had done something for which they should be held accountable, I would testify. I would not worry about future employers who would discard my resume over my choice...I would instead welcome the benefit of their filtering action, which would lead me away from companies that are intent on breaking the law, leaving only companies that are lawful and ethical as potential employers. Companies who would view my actions as those of someone with integrity. Because the bottom line, the only company who would pass someone over for something like this is one that operates on legally shaky grounds to begin with.

</comment><comment><USER60> _The fearful are caught as often as the bold.

Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.

It is wonderful how much time good people spend fighting the devil. If they would only expend the same amount of energy loving their fellow men, the devil would die in his own tracks of ennui._

The above are all three quotes from _Helen Keller._

I will suggest that you do whatever it is you believe to be ethical. Well paid careers are often careers in which character and trustworthiness are important. It is part of why you get paid: They can trust you with the keys to the thing or the personal data on people or whatever. If a law firm knew to contact you, then it isn't a secret that you have insider info. If you do the unethical thing, people learn of that.

If you want some "plausible deniability," sure, tell them to subpoena you. But reputation matters immensely and when something like this comes into your life, the question is not whether or not you can avoid the consequences. There will almost certainly be consequences. There will almost certainly be a price to pay and, whatever you choose, the price may well be painful. When all is said and done, do what you believe to be the ethical thing. It will do the most to protect your employability. So avoiding the consequences should not enter your mind. The choice here is _which set of consequences do you prefer?_

There is also no price you can place on a clear conscience. I like being able to sleep well at night. I have a medical condition, so a good night's sleep is something I have fought hard for. I would hate to lose my good sleep habits over a guilty conscience. Having lived my entire life suffering from a serious medical condition, I believe firmly that _bars do not a prison make._ The prison of our own body or our own mind is often far worse than anything anyone else can do to us.

Best of luck with both your decision and the path forward.

</comment><comment><USER61> You are what defines your career, not the other way around. There are a lot of companies out there, some will see testifying as good, some bad. If your choice is true to yourself, and the company you want to work for really doesn't like that, I'd say eventually you will not go along well with that company and this acts as a "fail fast" filter.

Finding a good career path may take quite some time, but working for the wrong company can cost magnitudes of more time.

For most HN readers, including me, the answer is an obvious "testify", because we see it as a big plus. Do you want to work for people who see it as the right thing to do, or people who avoid it?

</comment><comment><USER62> Edit: OP, if you read what I wrote, you will see why you shouldn't use the number of upvotes to make your decision: the point is precisely that a 'popular' choice can quickly turn south. At this point, all these upvotes will have disappeared and you will be alone facing the consequences.

\----

If they did something so awful that it's keeping you awake at night, do it.

Otherwise, don't.

...

Wait... are you still reading?

Don't!

....

Okay, darn it...

If you STILL want to do it:

Career-wise, make sure it's something which is universally seen as awful _AND will probably continue to be seen as such_. If the wind changes direction, there's still going to be a record about what you've done. Things seen as obviously right can be seen as obviously wrong in the time of a single decade. When this happens, the 'major law firm' and all those who did encourage you to do it will magically vanish.

> Would it be a deal killer if I applied at your company?"

Depends on what and why you did it.

If you testify only because someone broke the law, from my point of view as a hypothetical employer, you are a huge liability. Most people break the law multiple times a day and don't even know it. I honestly don't want people around me who are ready to report me just 'because I broke the law'.

If you've done it for moral reasons, even if I agree with you, I might have to refuse to hire you because it might gives a bad image to my business.

Now, what if I agree with you and you did something which is currently politically correct. Is there any advantages? Not really... I still don't know if you are good at your job; I'll have to evaluate you the same as everybody else.

In short, there's no advantages (employer/employee-wise) to doing it. Only potential downsides.

It's like behind an asshole on a social network. It might gives your friend a few giggles, but it can hurt you years down the line.

<comment><USER62> I'm genuinely curious about the downvotes. Which part of what I said didn't you like?

Is it because you think he should testify, and you just downvote the opposed side?

Is it because you don't agree with my hypothetical employer?

Is it because you don't like the distinction between morality and law?

It would be much more helpful to say what you don't agree with.

<comment><USER63> I've been watching the votes from the start and the ones against testifying get downvoted quite often. If I had to guess, it is probably because those voters refuse to believe that they will someday have considerations other than their "ethics" or "integrity".

<comment><USER62> Yeah.

The sad thing about this is that OP specifically asked for career advice, not an open "should I / would you do it".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> I would not. Even firms that are not doing anything blatantly illegal steer clear from whistleblowers and the like. A recruiter that googles you and finds you testifying against a former employer may just pass on your resume.

<comment><USER64> In terms of career, there is no possible upside to this; I don't think anyone is more likely to hire you because of this. And, there are plenty of downsides.

What's good for society may not always be good for the individual.

<comment><USER65> Why wound't an employer want to hire someone who is honest and complies with the law?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> Do what you think is the right thing to do. Any firm that doesn't hire you based on your decision is saving you the frustration of working with a group that doesn't match your ethics.

</comment><comment><USER67> Do you think you can go your whole career making everyone like what you do?

If not, do what you think is right. You'll be your best critic and fan, pay attention to what's good for you.

Separately, if you want to spend your life working for soulless corporations, then the publicity could hurt you.

If you want to work for good people that understand real issues, they'll appreciate what you do if you handle yourself honorably.

This reminds me of John Boyd's famous question: "Do you want to be somebody or do you want to do something?"

</comment><comment><USER68> Any action you take causes some reaction somewhere out there, be it now, or later; sometimes you know but other times you have no idea where that somewhere is or will be. Whatever you decide think strategically and long term.

It's highly admirable to care about the world, but sometimes it turns out the world will not care about you.

Listen to all the opinions/advice you can get, adjust your beliefs in the light of this new information, then make a decision you'll be most conformable with.

<comment><USER69> Sometimes you have to have the courage to care anyway, or nothing will change. When you look back, history is full of people giving a shit against all odds.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> If you have the information and the law firm knows this, and you resist voluntary testimony, both your testimony and the evidence in your position can be subpoenaed, at which point you will legally be compelled to provide the testimony and evidence. I've heard of this happening to people who didn't want to testify, and also of people preferring to be subpoenaed so that they could honestly say to others that they testified only because compelled.

</comment><comment><USER71> What do you gain from testifying? Probably nothing. So why would you do it for free?

Maybe I grew up listening to too much rap music, but personally I would stay on the sidelines.

</comment><comment><USER72> Career advice- it's a wash I don't see how it realistically would hurt you or benefit you much either.

However, don't get pressured into doing something you're not comfortable doing. If you morally want to do something, but only feel comfortable doing it anonymously just stick to that. And if the law firm doesn't see any benefit from your anonymous reporting then I would recommend to just leave it at that.

</comment><comment><USER30> My name is associated with a lawsuit where I testified against a former employee. It's all in the public record, and if you try really hard, you can find all about it on Google. But it would take you a lot of work. Unless you get mentioned by name in all the associated press, you're probably safe, especially given your projects and presentations and blogs posts.

</comment><comment><USER73> While the "tell them to subpoena you" answer is obviously more correct than the "do the authentic thing" one, I want to point out that by making certain sacrifices (you probably shouldn't make any babies if you're going this route) it's entirely possible to have a career where you simply make the ethical decision every step of the way.

</comment><comment><USER74> I would recommend that you engage a good lawyer, one with significant litigation experience and an understanding of the issues at hand, to represent you and your interests, which are different and distinct from either of the parties. Assuming that you are a fact witness and that your testimony is confined to facts, your good name and reputation will not be sullied.

</comment><comment><USER75> People are giving surprising answers here. But it is really quite simple:

\- do you think the company did something wrong?

\- do you want to help discourage other companies from doing the same thing in the future?

If the answer is yes to both, then you should testify.

The truth is, no one here has a crystal ball that will tell them the impact of testifying on your future. In life, you sometimes have to just go with what you think it right.

<comment><USER7> Yes. You don't know so choose on your values. It's a fallacy to judge choices by their results anyway. You sound like a prosecutor, capable of convincing people to testify! :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> It would not be a deal killer if I saw this when I Googled your name while researching your background. Depending on the nature of the case, I might even bring it up in an in-person interview as interesting smalltalk, as it definitely sounds like it could be a good story.

</comment><comment><USER77> Testify.

As an employeer, the kind of lawsuits that give me pause would be from a sanctamonious employee out to make a quick buck.

This lawsuit look like the testamony is coming from a principaled employee: the kind of employee that I would be proud to work with that would call me to better behaviour.

</comment><comment><USER78> I've worked for a number of employers that violated state and federal laws, in fact one asked me to lie on in a federal court on their behalf.

Ive always kept my mouth shut for the same reasons... most employers are doing something wrong, and no one likes a tattletail.

</comment><comment><USER79> That's your chance to do something that is worth for the world. IMHO you should not let it pass. Good recruteirs will not judge you by that. If they do, they aren't good recruiters. And good companies should have good recruiters.

</comment><comment><USER80> Seems like any company you would potentially work for that is turned off by the fact you testified against a former employer who was BREAKING THE LAW...probably isn't the type of place you should be working. Right?

</comment><comment><USER81> Don't be afraid, I would always hold someone with ethics above a peer of comparable ability and background. Testifying against someone who has done wrong would only prove an ethical standing.

</comment><comment><USER82> Tell the law firm to f*%k off. Attorneys are vultures and just care about themselves (spent most my life working with them). You are just toilet paper to them. What is the benefit of testifying?

</comment><comment><USER83> I wouldn't want to work anywhere that wouldn't hire someone for testifying against wrongdoing. Ideally we'd be more concerned that you weren't a whistleblower.

</comment><comment><USER84> I think most companies are more worried about hiring an employee of POOR integrity. Such a person is more likely to shirk work and be a liability. You should definitely testify.

</comment><comment><USER85> Why not offset?

Instead of doing the world a service by testifying, you could do the world a service by not buying t-shirts made in sweatshops, or something like that.

The moralising in this thread is too much.

</comment><comment><USER86> If you testify, a company that is good and wants good people to work there might see you in a more positive light. This can have positive external effects.

</comment><comment><USER87> Imagine that there are thousands of people in the same situation as you. Do you want all of them to testify or to keep their mouths closed?

</comment><comment><USER88> I would say if you apply for big companies, it probably doesn't matter. The people who hire you are also employee. But startup may hold that against you, if they aren't very good companies. Also what you can do is to write an article about why you choose to testify, to huffpost blog or similar blogs (it is actually quite easy to write a blog there, especially with your story), then when people search, they hear the real story about you, not just a media coverage of the case.

</comment><comment><USER89> If you agree with the law, testify. If you do not agree with the law keep your mouth shut. Anything else lacks integrity.

</comment><comment><USER90> It would not affect my decision to hire you. In fact, I'd probably admire you more for doing the right thing.

</comment><comment><USER91> First off: You already have google results, this one will probably not be on the first page, and you can easily push it down further.

Secondly: A good employer is interested in your current abilities to fulfil the role they need, and will ignore unrelated information.

I've worried about having anti-commercial anti-proprietary statements on my google results, but I've never had a problem getting job offers from proprietary software companies.

</comment><comment><USER92> You don't need career advice, you need to degauss your moral compass.

<comment><USER18> I really respect you, but that's spoken by a person relatively unlikely to need to convince someone else to hire him again.

<comment><USER93> Come on. I just want to see a reply from ONE person on HN (presumably working as a programmer or related job) who had to testify against an employer in the US and then faced significant difficulties in getting a job.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER94> If you don't care about the crime, don't do it.

</comment><comment><USER95> Would you mind specifying what was the law being broken?

</comment><comment><USER96> Try to imagine how you would think about this if you were 80 years old. Don't do something you fear you would regret sometime later. Be sure about yourself and only about yourself.

</comment><comment><USER97> What's the personal benefit for you, if you _do_ testify? It sounds like they are asking you to go out on a limb, without compensating you.

</comment><comment><USER98> FWIW, I wouldn't hold it against a prospective employee if they testified that their former employer did something illegal.

</comment><comment><USER99> Is it Gawker? Please be Gawker.

</comment><comment><USER100> If it's a deal killer for a company, then that company may have a precedent of acting illegally or immorally.

</comment><comment><USER101> I'd say the only reason you shouldn't is if you disagree with the law. Otherwise, I'd testify.

</comment><comment><USER102> Do you want to be a free person or the indirectly indentured slave of a small group of large organisations?

</comment><comment><USER103> So you want to work for companies that won't hire you because you speak up when you witness injustice?

</comment><comment><USER104> Testifying in such a case certainly wouldn't be a negative for being hired into my group.

</comment><comment><USER105> Do the right thing.

</comment><comment><USER106> Do what's right for others and it'll be right for you too.

</comment><comment><USER107> What is the moral thing to do?

</comment><comment><USER108> When the end comes and you look back on your life, how will reflect on the choices you made?

I would testify.

Consider that the law firm can subpoena you. If the choose to do that you would have no choice but to testify - or rather, you could be prosecuted if you choose not to.

<comment><USER109> Presumably in California USA you can be forced to take the stand as witness but not compelled to bear testimony or indeed speak? (eg [http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/fifth- amendment-...](http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/fifth-amendment- right-against-self-incrimination.html) penultimate heading).

<comment><USER108> The fifth amendment right against self-incrimination only applies to criminal matters, not civil matters. There is a lot about employment law, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act that is civil and not criminal.

Also it is the right against SELF incrimination. One can be compelled to incriminate others.

<comment><USER109> Surely as late2part's sibling post sort of suggests without hearing your testimony the judge can't determine whether it's likely to incriminate you or not - you're called as witness to an RTA that you weren't involved in but you were running drugs at the time? Or you're called on a employment law issue but you should have been under a non-compete [which of course may not be legal, but you don't know that and you can't disclose it without _potentially_ incriminating yourself]? Or ...

What's the measure for "self incrimination". For example if I'm called as a witness for a relatively minor offence (non-violent theft say) but it will mean giving evidence that I was cheating on my spouse; that's not criminal but it's potentially going to ruin my life, why would I testify?

What about the converse, there's almost always something you could decide was unlawful, you were speeding, you dropped litter, you jaywalked, you illegally parked - if your testimony might reveal such things then can you claim the fifth?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER108> When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on the bus to a white person, she lost her job as a seamstress. No doubt she found it difficult to find work after that.

<comment><USER110> But do you blame everyone else who didn't refuse?

<comment><USER108> That's a tough question.

Some would have had a lot more to lose than she did; say someone who had an outstanding arrest warrant, someone who owed a lot of money, no I would not blame them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER111> do you have FU money in the bank? financially can you retire now? if not, I think its wiser to say no. Caveat if this is a case of something truly evil that was done. If its more of a protocol/regulatory/victimless kind of law, then I'd argue its not worth hurting yourself financially over. Again, unless you already have FU money in the bank.

There is no single perfect advice anyone can give. This is my off-the-cuff sense for what my own thought process would be.

<comment><USER112> As someone who is currently getting screwed over for helping someone out, by the person I helped out, because the thing I let him do was done improperly and it has caused ~$50K in damages I will likely end up footing, I agree 100% (I'm not going to provide details here just take it as given that I did someone a solid and they #$%^ed me hard in return, and yes, I have a lawyer, that's factored into the $50K).

IMO in our bizarre litigation-driven society, no good comes out of putting yourself out there unless you 100% CYA which is the mistake I made here. CYA or you'll (probably) be sorry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER113> I wouldn't testify because there is nothing for me to gain monetarily.

</comment><comment><USER114> avoid it

</comment><comment><USER115> DO NOT TESTIFY

</comment><comment><USER115> DO NOT TESTIFY.

</comment><comment><USER116> ...because of your career? Are you working in IT or the Mafia?

</comment><comment><USER117> Snitches get stitches.

</comment><comment><USER118> What benefit are you getting for testifying? Is it enough to warrant the possible negatives?

It's simple: do the positives outweigh the negatives?

</comment><comment><USER119> Don't do it. What's the upside for you? What's the downside?

</comment><comment><USER120> Are you going to get remunerated enough for testifying? the law firm is probably as corrupt as your employer.

<comment><USER121> Usually it's only ethical to pay expert witnesses. At most maybe try to get some free suits and first-rate hotel rooms out of it :) ... but if you're judged to be a whistle-blower you do get paid for winning.

</comment></comment><comment><USER122> You getting paid? If not, then do not testify.

Everything has a price, and if you aren't getting paid, someone else is.</comment>


Brain Hack: turn your Loss Aversion Bias on its head - <AUTHOR> http://www.petermichaud.com/essays/loss-aversion-bias/

<comment><USER2> I don't think his first example is good because it isn't just about a "loss" it's about feeling wronged. By the reasoning he gives we should just let criminals and murderers free because it costs more to jail them and give them a fair trial than it does to just let them be free and commit the occasional crime.

The argument would be more persuasive if the example used had to do with something where it was a pure gain / loss as opposed to having a right / wrong component to it. I think the dating example was better, though that wasn't used as his central argument.

<comment><USER3> True, it was a terrible example. The guy in the story obviously didn't care about the $11 and change, as much as he cared about seeing justice done. His impulse has value to society that far exceeds $11.

Edit, re: _By the reasoning he gives we should just let criminals and murderers free because it costs more to jail them and give them a fair trial than it does to just let them be free and commit the occasional crime._

In some cases that does in fact make sense... 9/11 comes to mind. The price of living in a free society isn't $2 trillion plus incalculable collateral harm, it's losing a building and a couple of planes every once in awhile.

<comment><USER4> Perhaps, but the scam site probably didn't care about the $11 either. I can't see them in dispair, OMG Somebody claimed the $11 back Crime Doesn't Pay! This wasn't a serious attack on their "business model".

The Loss Aversion Bias is also behind one of the classic mistakes people make when investing in stocks: holding on to a loser while the price goes down and down, unwilling to sell and accept the loss before it gets any worse.

<comment><USER5> > _Perhaps, but the scam site probably didn't care about the $11 either._

I'd expect the scammers to have a chargeback, which can be just the difference but is usually the total value and again can be more with an admin cost added. They also get a black mark from the bank which could with repetition lead them to having their account closed (but probably not if they're making good profits for the bank).

Banks don't like spending money that could be used for bonuses and so the admin costs are more significant and will turn the bank off their client quite readily.

Edit: there's Bystander Effect in there too - why should I complain as it probably won't do any good because other people won't complain.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The "hack" at the end is a nice touch, but the dilemma raised in the story he tells isn't really the loss aversion bias, but the _sunk cost dilemma_.

Joe didn't set out to spend hours to get his $11 back. He thought it'd just take an e-mail to resolve it - easy. After that was unsuccessful, he thought it'd just be a phone call to resolve it - easy, no?

Once he got far enough down this road, the sunk cost issue sank in (pun fully intended) because if he'd already spent an hour or two trying to get $11 back, he might as well not let that time spent "go to waste" and instead fight until he achieved success.

<comment><AUTHOR> You might be right. Loss aversion is closely related to the sunk cost fallacy. That's why I wrote this last week:

<http://www.petermichaud.com/essays/sunk-cost-fallacy/>

And I have a post coming up that ties it together. Look for that next week sometime.

<comment><USER7> Are you planning to change or qualify this current post based on this thread?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The actual studies by Kahneman and Tversky mentioned at the start are more interesting and solid than this handful of anecdotes. If you're not familiar with them, they might well be one of the most important things you've ever Googled for.

The results: people weigh losses and gains with "1) a value function that is concave for gains, convex for losses, and steeper for losses than for gains, and 2) a nonlinear transformation of the probability scale, which overweights small probabilities and underweights moderate and high probabilities." This does little to convey the soul-crushing horror you will feel when you see these preferences demonstrated experimentally.

<comment><USER9> Do you have a particular link? Googling returns a lot of different things.

<comment><USER10> Try the paper(s) named (Cumulative) Prospect Theory.

<comment><USER11> Prospect theory has been around for almost 30 years and has it's own problems. But of course the experimental results are illuminating..

A good summary of these findings can be found in <http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~camerer/ribe239.pdf>, the intro to Advances in Behavioral Economics (2003)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I found the article mostly related to the sunk cost fallacy.

Two of the the examples ($11 and the work overtime) are sunk cost fallacy since people don't know beforehand how long it's going to take and what the total gain/loss is going to be (how does one know beforehand that all the overtime will become a 10% wage increase?)

I would discuss some more but it makes no sense to dissect so little material that seemed to be more confusing than enlightening to me.

Of course, all this comment could be replaced by a downvote which doesn't exist here.

</comment><comment><USER13> I think it comes down to no matter how logical you think you are, in a fear situation it's easy to protect yourself, take the personal loss of not putting yourself out there, despite the logical fact that you'd be better off in the long term by acting. Of course, sometimes you do act, against your rational holdbackness. That is the paradox of bring human. Sometimes it is better that we just act than think.

</comment><comment><USER14> Author assumes that his friend didn't realize that he is at loss with the case which is unlikely.

There are people who prefer to punish others that in their opinion misbehaved event at their own expense.

Pleasure from punishing misbehaving one is greater for these people than loss that was necessary to deliver punishment.

Money is no less virtual than pleasure from single person point of view.</comment>


China has made obedience to the State a game - <AUTHOR> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-has-made-obedience-to-the-state-a-game-a6783841.html <comment><USER2> Wow! I can only begin to grasp the potential of such a system! I mean it sounds creepy at a personal level (so I'm not that eager to enroll myself as a test subject to this kind of experiment) but I'm very interested in the macro- social level results that may come out in the end. Fascinating!

</comment><comment><USER3> It all sounds so ominous when it's china, but how is it different from what happens here?

<comment><USER4> Ummmnh... because we don't have public state-sponsored obedience score scheme, and if we would, it would sound really creepy?

Or do you have some parallel western system in mind? We have a credit worthiness system, but you only get a marking when fail to pay your bills, not when you give thumbs up to the wrong kind of posts in facebook.

Or maybe you are thinking about all the profiles marketers gather about us? As far as I know they are not public (or at least they should not be). And I don't remember seeing anyone boasting about their awesome adWords profile (it would be nice to be able to see some kind of representation of it tho).

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Is a Grade Point Average really very different?</comment>


Awesome-whitespace – Collection of the best whitespace found around the web - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/brock/awesome-whitespace <comment><USER2> Phenomenal curation.</comment>


Purism – Privacy-Respecting Laptops - <AUTHOR> https://puri.sm/ <comment><USER2> I'm pointing out that these laptops are no more free then any other laptop out there. It's just an average laptop shipping a Linux distro.

These guys won't be able to get the binary blobs from neither Intel nor Nvidia released, this have been pointed out many times before from several places.

They are even kind enough to mention it themself: [https://puri.sm/posts/purism-software-freedom- deconstructed/](https://puri.sm/posts/purism-software-freedom-deconstructed/)

[http://blogs.coreboot.org/blog/2015/02/23/the-truth-about- pu...](http://blogs.coreboot.org/blog/2015/02/23/the-truth-about-purism-why- librem-is-not-the-same-as-libre/)

[https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/3anjgm/on_the_librem...](https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/3anjgm/on_the_librem_laptop_purism_doesnt_believe_in)

<comment><USER3> The money quote from the linked coreboot blog post is:

       Laptops with libre operating systems have existed for
       decades. The only real innovators in this area have been
       Google and GluGlug. Google ships partially free
       firmware, although insufficiently libre to be able to
       provide the "respect your privacy" guarantee. GluGlug
       can make this claim, and it ships laptops with fully
       libre firmware. The downside of GluGlug is that it's an
       aftermarket add-on. GluGlug and Google have been in
       business far longer than Purism. So, what has Purism
       brought in that's new and exciting and libre? Nothing.

The content of the post is disputed in the comments by someone who claims to be a "volunteer of Purism project":

       Purism is actively working on porting coreboot to Librem15 with
       some coreboot developer(s). @mrnuke is more than welcome to join
       the effort :) There, that's the truth about Purism.

<comment><USER4> I think the money quote from a comment is

      Purism's Librem 15 will ship with an Intel CPU fused to **run unsigned BIOS** code

This is apparently the first time a laptop is (almost) available with a recent Intel cpu where this is the case. This is needed for an attempt to port coreboot to be _possible_.

Original claim here: [https://puri.sm/posts/pioneering-cpu-efforts-to- liberate-lap...](https://puri.sm/posts/pioneering-cpu-efforts-to-liberate- laptop-hardware/)

<comment><USER5> That claim only deals with Haswell since before that, there was no fuse to prevent running unsigned BIOS code (also known as Intel Boot Guard).

Since there are Haswell Chromebooks, there are devices on the market that also provide this feature.

The limitation for libreboot devices using recent Intel chips is the ME firmware which is always signed, but not on the CPU and not BIOS code. So the statement is technically correct - through some _very_ careful choice of words.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Not to discredit this product, but I'm having a harder and harder time trusting products that feature high security. They seem like trojan horses. I think I'm probably just being paranoid - is there a trustworthy independent third-party of some sort that verifies just how private these types of products are?

Edit: to be clear this is most likely an awesome product put out by people who care about security and privacy. I'm not trying to call this product out specifically. Privacy / security are really bold claims and without any specific regulations in the area that I'm aware of I feel extra cautious around anything claiming to provide those things. Like I said, I'm probably just being paranoid, but I like to think strategically, and if i were to be a spy agency of any sort and thought I could get away with it, selling a not-so- private privacy product would definitely be a move of mine.

<comment><USER7> _> without any specific regulations in the area_

What regulations, issued by which authority, would you trust?

The Purism claims are relevatively small (e.g. camera/microphone hardware switch can be verified by a motherboard inspection) and are an incremental move in a positive direction.

What we need are more competitors to Purism.

<comment><USER8> For example, Free Software Foundation:

[https://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/respects- your-f...](https://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/respects-your-freedom)

<comment><USER9> I'd recommend getting an old thinkpad or macbook compatible with libreboot ([http://www.libreboot.org/](http://www.libreboot.org/)) which is apporved by FSF and only runs free software in the bootloader/BIOS. Purism, on the other hand, uses a proprietary bootloader, as well as proprietary BIOS, as well as proprietary code for Intel FSP, Intel ME, Intel VBIOS, and Intel CPU microcode updates.

<comment><USER7> At user request, the Intel i7 CPU in the Purism 15 was chosen to include VT-d support (needed for Qubes security, which isolates the GPU to a single driver VM) and to _exclude_ support for the black box Intel ME hardware (vPro).

In contrast, on virtually every mainstream laptop with VT-d, you are forced to use a CPU which includes Intel ME/vPro support.

[http://ark.intel.com/products/84993/Intel- Core-i7-5557U-Proc...](http://ark.intel.com/products/84993/Intel- Core-i7-5557U-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-3_40-GHz)

<comment><USER10> ME is in the chipset and not the CPU[1][2]. Chances are the silicon for it is there and working, but Intel doesn't officially "support" ME with that chipset+CPU combination and supplies firmware that doesn't use it. It doesn't necessarily mean there is no ME capability that could be exploited.

IMHO "support" has become a bit of a weasel-word today, meaning everything from "it's physically _impossible_ because the hardware doesn't even have the circuitry" to "it's all there and functional, but we just don't want you to use it". In between are things like disabled via undocumented hardware jumpers or software settings (remember how certain AMD CPUs could have extra cores "unlocked"? Same principle.) The older models without ME are the former, but I'm almost willing to bet that the latter is the case of the newer CPUs and chipsets.

[1] [https://ruxconbreakpoint.com/assets/2014/slides/bpx- Breakpoi...](https://ruxconbreakpoint.com/assets/2014/slides/bpx- Breakpoint%202014%20Skochinsky.pdf)

[2] [http://recon.cx/2014/slides/Recon%202014%20Skochinsky.pdf](http://recon.cx/2014/slides/Recon%202014%20Skochinsky.pdf)

<comment><USER7> Thanks for the links.

It will be good to run some tests against the Purism 15 motherboard, at least to evaluate the dormancy/presence of the Intel ME via publicly known interfaces.

It's still a step in the right direction to be able to buy a laptop with a CPU that "does not support" the Intel ME, because it will permit some testing of the Intel claim. It also helps that Purism is using non-Intel components for wired and wifi networks, since Intel ME/AMT/vPro requires Intel networking.

<comment><USER5> > It will be good to run some tests against the Purism 15 motherboard, at > least to evaluate the dormancy/presence of the Intel ME via publicly known > interfaces.

The ME is required to be able to boot contemporary Intel devices. It's required to do power management for years. There is no way they ship a device with Intel CPUs and no ME.

What they can do is ship a system without the AMT/vPro features that are implemented in ME firmware. The difference being if the firmware for that part of the chipset is 2MB or 6MB. If you want to know what Intel requires 2MB of firmware for a chip that isn't supposed to be very active, I have no idea either.

But given that the 6MB firmware supports intercepting USB (for keyboard and mouse) and the GPU to route them over the network interface for the soft-KVM feature, be aware that the chip has these capabilities in hardware, no matter the firmware. It just doesn't use them (or so Intel claims).

<comment><USER7> An interesting distributed project would be Intel ME honeypots connected to the Internet by transparent hardware firewalls with full packet capture.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Am I the only who thinks that it's way too expensive for what it offers? I mean a U i7 processor, 4GB of ram and a 500GB HDD for $1800+. It sounds insane to me (I'm still a college student so my perspective might be skewed a bit)

EDIT: Can anyone explain how they manage to max the memory to 32GB when the intel ark page[1] for that processor says that the maximum it supports is 16GB?

[1]: [http://ark.intel.com/products/84993/Intel- Core-i7-5557U-Proc...](http://ark.intel.com/products/84993/Intel- Core-i7-5557U-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-3_40-GHz)

<comment><USER12> I totally agree. I like all the specs except for the price. Cut in in half and maybe you might have something decent. Otherwise, I can just turn off the wifi, tape a sticky note to my camera, and install Linux myself, thank you.

<comment><USER7> Hopefully mainstream manufacturers will adopt some specs, e.g. Thinkpad Retro, [http://blog.lenovo.com/en/blog/retro-thinkpad- survey-2-displ...](http://blog.lenovo.com/en/blog/retro-thinkpad- survey-2-displays-keyboard/)

<comment><USER13> Interesting to see how people overwhelmingly chose 7-row and other traditional ThinkPad designs. Despite having implemented their new design changes for a few generations, few people are really loving their changes.

Somewhere on their blog, they noted that the new layouts "didn't take too long to get used to". In other words, they were changing things purely to satisfy some poor design sense, not to benefit customers.

I spent over 2 grand on the X201, yet a new X250 is about $1000 with a reasonable config. I wonder if they're leaving money on the table by not offering better options, or if people like me are just a strange anomaly that's worth ignoring.

<comment><USER7> It sounds like the Retro is aiming squarely at that classic, premium segment who know what they want.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The irony of promoting a "Privacy-Respecting Laptop" with a website that uses Google Analytics...

</comment><comment><USER15> I like the marketed focus of these laptops. However, because I dislike deceptive marketing I don't like Purism. They present their laptops as extraordinaly open when they are in fact _no_ different than a lot of other laptops on the market regarding openness. All I see in them is the addition of a hardware switch and the installation and configuration of trisquel.

The only company I know of which sells considerably more open laptops than the competition is Minifree Ltd[1]. They have the RYF certification from the FSF. Still, there is non-free code running in the devices as a system — think hdd firmware — but the advances they've made are substantial.

[1] [http://shop.gluglug.org.uk/](http://shop.gluglug.org.uk/)

<comment><USER16> > All I see in them is the addition of a hardware switch and the installation > and configuration of trisquel.

I'm not aware of any major commercial computer with a FOSS BIOS or a hardware RF killer for the wireless parts.

<comment><USER15> First, the purism laptops have no foss bios.

        The Librem PCH X99 uses [the Intel Management Engine blob]
        and the board will not boot without the blob.[1]

Second, the laptops sold by Minifree Ltd have a foss bios.

Fun fact: Purism even links to me.bios.io[1], which contains this little gem

        there is a little man inside your pc... and his thing is bigger
        than yours. Your wife knows this.[2]

about the Management Engine.

[1] [https://puri.sm/posts/bios-freedom-status/](https://puri.sm/posts/bios- freedom-status/)

[2] [http://me.bios.io/ME:Introduction](http://me.bios.io/ME:Introduction)

<comment><USER17> Any modern Intel computer needs the Intel ME. It is a harmful opaque binary but the only ways to get around it is to a) use an ancient chipset (i.e. GlugGlugs x60s) or b) use a different processor like ARM.

I dislike Purism in that they say things like "Purism OS" rather than Linux / Trisequel, but if they do ship a coreboot bios laptop running Trisequel (Trisequel is just Ubuntu stripped of non free kernel components) then I believe it will be the most free Intel laptop with a modern chipset available.

<comment><USER15>
        it will be the most free Intel laptop with a modern chipset available.

How will it be any more free than the laptops listed here[1]?

        Any modern Intel computer needs the Intel ME.

My reaction to that is to evade modern Intel like the pest. I wonder if I've enough company in this reaction to be noticeable for the people at Intel who listen to money.

[1] [http://www.coreboot.org/Supported_Motherboards#Laptops](http://www.coreboot.org/Supported_Motherboards#Laptops)

<comment><USER18> For one thing, Intel Boot Guard is disabled unlike many other modern Intel laptops, allowing you to modify the firmware in the first place. I think this is more important than being "100% FOSS" or the like.

<comment><USER15> All the laptops that can run coreboot also have no Intel Boot Guard or equivalent function, which couldn't be disabled by the user.

I remain with the conclusion that Purisms marketing is deceptive, borderline lying.

<comment><USER18> Yes, my point is that the only modern Intel alternative I know of without Boot Guard is Chromebooks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It's an intriguing idea, and I'm glad someone is doing it. However, I suspect they would do better to separate the hardware products from the software.

I would happily buy a laptop with a good hardware spec that came with Windows without the junkware and with physical switches to disable all the sensors and transmitters. That would be a significant improvement on the things available to me today, and I would be willing to pay a modest premium for it. (These devices do already look quite expensive given their specs.)

However, by taking this pure stance on the software side as well, it runs headlong into the same thing that keeps most people out of FSF world: you buy a computer for the software you can run on it, and the software you get that way simply isn't as good in many cases as what you can get on Windows or OS X.

Here's an obvious example. I can buy a new Windows PC and probably watch the Blu-Ray I bought while I was out by (a) inserting the disc, and (b) pressing play. In contrast, the site here explains in great detail how installing software on Linux to watch a DVD is likely to be illegal in many places and they aren't going to supply the software themselves for that reason. Which of these is going to give a better user experience?

I wish them luck, because their goal is a noble one even if I'm not personally willing to give up the useful capabilities of mainstream software to go as far as they do. I hope they at least inspire more hardware companies to install physical switches to prevent abuse of the ever-increasing numbers of sensors and transmitters on these mobile devices, and inspire the likes of Microsoft to provide better controls over what software running on their platform can do.

<comment><USER20> > However, by taking this pure stance on the software side as well, it runs > headlong into the same thing that keeps most people out of FSF world: you > buy a computer for the software you can run on it, and the software you get > that way simply isn't as good in many cases as what you can get on Windows > or OS X.

I've been running Linux for over fifteen years, and I beg to differ: free software is almost always preferable.

> In contrast, the site here explains in great detail how installing software > on Linux to watch a DVD is likely to be illegal in many places

That's simply an unfortunate fact of living under repressive regimes which try to forbid one from playing the DVDs one has bought; it's certainly not their fault.

<comment><USER19> _I 've been running Linux for over fifteen years, and I beg to differ: free software is almost always preferable._

It depends what you're doing, but if it involves anything to do with gaming, professional/business software, or the creative/multimedia industries, I stand by my previous comment.

For example, arguing that LibreOffice is an acceptable professional substitute for MS Office is fine until your accountant can't open the spreadsheet you sent over because of some incompatibility in the macros, at which point the amount of money it's going to cost for the lost time on that one occasion will instantly cover the cost of buying the real thing.

For another example, despite the recent push by the likes of Valve, gaming on Linux is still a far cry from gaming on Windows or any recent console.

 _That 's simply an unfortunate fact of living under repressive regimes which try to forbid one from playing the DVDs one has bought; it's certainly not their fault._

But most people aren't going to care, because they want to watch their movie, and this laptop won't let them unless they jump through hoops and, in many places, break the law along the way.

<comment> TD-Linux >gaming on Linux is still a far cry from gaming on Windows or any recent console.

You mean, like the Steamboxes?

<comment><USER19> _You mean, like the Steamboxes?_

Those are due to be released later this year, but no-one really knows yet how they will work out in terms of performance or cost-effectiveness, or what range of games will be available for them. Even if Valve port all of their own big titles over, the major titles from others in the industry may or may not follow, and it will probably take time if they do.

So yes, Steam machines are what I was referring to, but yes, gaming on Linux is still a far cry from gaming on Windows or any recent console.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> An important-to-note additional detail:

> Purism's Librem 15 will ship with an Intel CPU fused to __run unsigned BIOS > __code, allowing a future where free software can replace the proprietary, > digitally signed, BIOS binaries.

[https://puri.sm/posts/pioneering-cpu-efforts-to-liberate- lap...](https://puri.sm/posts/pioneering-cpu-efforts-to-liberate-laptop- hardware/)

<comment><USER21> So they haven't solved the problem of getting a free implementation, they've just disabled the security feature that stops rootkits from replacing your bios?

Now I don't have the freedom to modify the code _or_ improved security. How is this making me better off?

<comment><USER18> Coreboot is mostly open source. I think being able to modify the firmware at all in the first place is more important.

<comment><USER22> _Me_ being able to modify the firmware of my laptop is somewhat important. _Other people_ being unable to modify the firmware of my laptop is very important.

If there's no way to get one without sacrificing the other, the better option for my privacy, security, and freedom is to take a static but non-free BIOS.

<comment><USER5> Signed firmware isn't static. They don't fuse a hash into the CPU, but a key (to a key to a key, see [http://www.apress.com/9781430265719](http://www.apress.com/9781430265719)) to verify signatures.

So the result is that you can't update your computer's firmware, but somebody else (although probably not the average criminal).

The standard solution is to lock down the write access to the flash chip. While current era firmware requires writable flash for memory init (or you lose suspend to RAM capabilities), it can be locked down directly afterwards and before code from somewhere else is executed. That works nicely without Boot Guard, but not so good with UEFI (which stores its persistent variables in the same flash memory part).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The first? How about LibreBoot [0]?

[0] [https://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/gluglug](https://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/gluglug)

</comment><comment><USER23> Seriously, couldn't they have gone a lot further with the Pure* rebranding? I have: PurePlayer, PureTerminal, PureNotepad, PureMenu, PurePurePure, PureShit and so on and so forth ...

Or, of course, they could have been honest with the OS and browser they are using ...

</comment><comment><USER24> Isn't this also one of the goals of bunnie's novena? [http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?tag=novena](http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?tag=novena)

Something built from the ground up, where you can build and (with inspection) trust every part of it.

</comment><comment><USER25> I don't know about this Purism ideology thing. Having watched the video, they keep saying things about people losing privacy through the use of various websites, that's the main point of the video. You can't solve that with better hardware, if you provide data about yourself to a third party.

And the hardware they do provide is not significantly more secure/libre than any run-of-the-mill laptop. I mean Intel, with Intel Management Engine? Surely, you're joking.

Providing a linux distro-spin-off as an OS?

To me, these guys sound like crooks, because they make a lot of claims, and they are nowhere near delivering on those promises. And they use a bullshit language with terms like ideology, but again with no real substance to back this up.

I'd much rather buy a Novena, if I was really concerned about this kind of things. Just my 2 cents.

</comment><comment><USER26> They're beautiful, certainly. But who do they target? Me? I love Linux so all I want to know is: what is the default OS based on? It seems like the desktop environment is Gnome and they pre-install Libre Office, gimp and inkscape. Nice but what happens if I install Arch or Ubuntu? Does everything work out of the box? Does the SSD work perfectly with the current kernel?

Or do they target privacy curious Mac and Windows users? In which case: What happens when these users want to design and order a photo book? (Here in the Netherlands, nobody offers that on Linux and it is a big thing keeping me from switching my "please remove my browser toolbars once a month" mother in law to Linux.) Even more knowledgeable computer users don't simply switch to Linux, and this page does not even mention its OS, so what can you expect? I think the difference is way to big to just glance over it and say you have mac/windows compatible software. As a Windows user going to a Mac is a big step, many people I know hated it and move back. Imagine them moving to Linux...

I'd buy one, if it would mean I'd get a System76 like machine that just works with in-kernel stuff for sure. The hardware switches, the lack of a windows key and the nice looks are very attractive extra's.

<comment><USER6> from the crowdsourced page:

> Bundled with the fully free/libre, no mystery software Trisquel GNU/Linux > operating system, with free/libre professional quality web browser, email, > graphics, drawing, word processing, presentation, spreadsheet, and media > software, users can easily replace their existing computer. Since it is a > GNU-based distribution, users can add hundreds of thousands of free/libre > and open source applications easily.

<comment><USER26> Hmm, feels a bit disingenuous that they don't mention Trisquel and call their Firefox/TOR combination "Pure browser". I don't like that. Question remains, who likes the software? Who do they target? I love the hardware... Perhaps they should have partnered with Elementary so we'd know what we'd get.

<comment><USER27> Apropros your Mother who needs printed photobooks, are there not services in the .nl where you can just send them a set of digital photo's and they'll print the books for you, or is your Mother used to a Windows-only app for 'preparing and uploading' the prints to a local shop? It is an interesting problem that you have no Linux solution - but I think indeed there are probably ways to move to Linux and yet overcome this issue, if it is one ..

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Am I the only one who can't understand what this product offers exactly?

<comment><USER29> I think their messaging is pretty clear. These are laptops built with a focus towards keeping your information private.

<comment><USER28> But that doesn't really say much!

How does their hardware tackle privacy issues? What do they do exactly?

<comment><USER30> They put some power switches on the webcam/microphone and wireless modules. That's about it.

They also disabled signature verification on the chipset firmware, but it's not clear that solves any privacy issues, given that the only extant firmware is the closed-source one from Intel. (If anything, disabling signatures is a net _negative_ for privacy, as the authors of a malicious replacement wouldn't even need access to Intel's signing key to create one.)

<comment><USER18> Intel Boot Guard is about the BIOS, not the "chipset firmware".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> If the situation with blobs and proprietary code running alongside your CPU looks so bad with Intel chips, why doesn't anyone try to use AMD chips? Or are there equally bad things there as well? (I'm aware of the SMU in recent chips, is there anything else?)

</comment><comment><USER32> 1.800 USD for a button which toggles microphone and camera, I'm not saying you could do exactly that with a USB periferic.. but.. yea, you get pretty close anyway.

</comment><comment><USER33> I like the hardware off switches. Wish my Thinkpad had them.

</comment><comment><USER34> I like the idea, but the site contains way too much FSF ideology and too little actual technology as far as I'm concerned. And for that price, I'd rather go with tried-and-tested System76 rather than an unknown company. (Or rather, since I don't have the money, go with a cheap Lenovo and install my favourite distro myself ;-) )

</comment><comment><USER35> To provide a truly secure laptop one need to control entire stack of software, which means OS verifying kernel module signatures, no third party software, BIOS verifying OS and MBR and TPM verifying BIOS (unless it's made truly read only which would probably require custom chip these days). Anything else would be an illusion.

</comment><comment><USER36> Nice idea, but i am sorry: Those prices are ridiculous.

</comment><comment><USER37> My current Dell Inspiron 3437 came pre-installed with Ubuntu and only cost 250+ USD.

It is true that I do not trust Canonical or Dell, but why would I trust Purism instead? What proof of trustworthiness do they provide?

My Dell's very low spec is good enough for what most developers typically do: use a text editor to deal with source files and use the shell to ssh into a remote machine. The most taxing program that I use is firefox. The browser consumes more CPU cycles and memory than all other programs taken together.

The short story: I do not need a laptop that costs 1600+ USD, just for its nebulous, unproven claims of privacy, when I am perfectly happy with one that costs 250+ USD.

</comment><comment><USER38> Eh, looks like your common unbranded OEM laptop ale PCSpec at about 50% premium price.

Also a "privacy" oriented laptop with Boot Guard disabled? hah? With how prevalent UEFI malware appears to be why would any one want to disable pretty much the only security measure against it?

Boot Guard allows you to perform block level or cryptographic verification of the BIOS and firmware.

And while a CPU fused to boot unsigned bios sounds nice and nifty virtually ever motherboard out there supports unlocking the signature validation using a hard or a soft jumper any how.

Disabling that is like disabling the file system integrity access checks on an encrypted hard drive it can only lead to a disaster....

</comment><comment><USER39> Definitely on board with the idea. But as others pointed out a bit on the expensive side. However, if more companies got into the mix the prices would come down. Someone has to get the ball rolling (hats off to Purism for doing that).

</comment><comment><USER40> This sounds more about using free software than actually solving privacy issue based on "code is free" concept.

</comment><comment><USER41> So what Linux distro is the OS based on ?

<comment><USER42> Ubuntu

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trisquel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trisquel)

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> To me the most compelling feature of the laptop is the hardware switches to toggle the camera, microphone, bluetooth, and wifi.

Even libre firmware can't guarantee my system won't be compromised and updated with malicious firmware.

<comment><USER44> I love hardware switches but it's a bit of an expensive tinfoil hat (especially when comms are going to be via a compromised network in any case)

<comment><USER43> Is it unreasonable to want to ensure your conversation isn't being recorded while you're not even using the device? There's hardly anywhere in my house where a software controlled microphone can't hear and that bothers me.

<comment><USER44> Not at all unreasonable, just that this solution seems expensive and ineffective most of the time the device is in use.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> They are a bit pricy, but the real issue here is the battery life. I believe most people would like to have more than 4-6 hours on their 15" laptop.

</comment><comment><USER46> I think there's plenty of room for some *NIX laptops below OSX pricepoint - just not sure it's this one

</comment><comment> andrey-g What's the hardware inside these? Is it all custom made from the ground up?

</comment><comment><USER47> get the 13" up to spec with the 15" (32GB, USB3+, etc.) + coreboot, and I'll think really hard about it... :)

</comment><comment><USER48> They really wrote their own OS for this?

</comment><comment><USER49> Well, that was fast.

</comment><comment><USER20> Very interesting hardware; I particularly like the hardware killswitches for the sensors (microphone and camera) and radios (WiFI & Bluetooth). It looks attractive, too, which actually matters.

But there's no way I'd ever give money to someone who has hired the execrable Jacob Applebaum. No way.

<comment><USER15> If I may ask, why are you so negative about Jacob Appelbaum?

<comment><USER20> His association with Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, particularly his release of purported national security to foreign persons and media.

The company is free to associate itself with him, and I'm free not to purchase their otherwise-quite-interesting product.</comment></comment></comment>


GoDaddy shares soar 31% in first day of trading - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-godaddy-ipo-20150401-story.html

<comment><USER2> To celebrate, get 31% off new .com registrations with coupon LOLNASDAQ</comment>