Whistleblower3

• Whistleblower3 3 Feb 2023 15:32 UTC

  −11 points

  0 ∶ 5

  in reply to: froggyturtle’s comment on: Two po­ten­tial cases of Effec­tive Ven­tures break­ing the law

  We appreciate the reply!

  Why do you feel you deserve a defense from someone involved in these scenarios or at EV?

  We don’t ask for a defence! We think that if the laws have been broken, then it’s important that the EA community and its critics are aware of this.

  There are also perfectly reasonable explanations for these situations that don’t involve illegal activity.

  Also in good faith: could you describe an example reasonable explanation? We might have misinterpreted the relevant laws, but it seems unambiguous that the first case is against the law as described unless the ‘adequate legal authority’ clause applies—and if it does, then it seems unambiguously not against the law. Similarly, if the GDPR functions as the quoted text implies (and if Cremer’s account was accurate, which isn’t a given), it seems unambiguous that this manner of storing data contravenes it.

• Whistleblower3 3 Feb 2023 15:13 UTC

  2 points

  2 ∶ 4

  in reply to: Richard Y Chappell’s comment on: Two po­ten­tial cases of Effec­tive Ven­tures break­ing the law

  This seems like an incredible attitude.

  There are many laws we would contest, but the job of organizational leaders include awareness of the laws pertaining to their activities and staying on the right side of them. If those laws are bad, then campaigning to change them is reasonable—ignoring them is not.

  Furthermore it’s far from clear there’s anything wrong with these laws, let alone that they’re ‘idoitic’. They exist to prevent all manner of scams, tax frauds and ways for self-serving ways for charity trustees to benefit at taxpayers’ expense. One of the lessons from FTXgate (actively promoted by MacAskill) was supposed to be that EA organisations that consider themselves above the law for the greater good are extremely dangerous.

• Whistleblower3 3 Feb 2023 13:32 UTC

  −6 points

  2 ∶ 16

  on: Reg­u­la­tory in­quiry into Effec­tive Ven­tures Foun­da­tion UK

  This seems like an appropriate place to ask, given that the claim in question is currently being hidden by what looks like a campaign of downvotes:

  Do you agree that EVF have broken the law with regards to 1) conflict of interest/​benefit to trustees and/​or b) retaining detailed information on people in the EA community without their knowledge or consent?

• Whistleblower3 3 Feb 2023 13:27 UTC

  −11 points

  5 ∶ 12

  on: Two po­ten­tial cases of Effec­tive Ven­tures break­ing the law

  The fact that this is being strongly downvoted without comment is disturbing. If the legal claim were wrong, and Effective Ventures had done the due diligence to know they were wrong, it would be trivial for one of the staff to say so. As it is, this looks worryingly like a concerted effort to hide this post.

  If you are a downvoter who sincerely thinks the post is wrong or in bad faith but don’t feel motivated to explain why, please consider at least identifying yourself to falsify this paranoid take (yes, we recognise the irony of asking this).

• Whistleblower3 3 Feb 2023 13:03 UTC

  −1 points

  4 ∶ 6

  in reply to: Will Bradshaw’s comment on: Two po­ten­tial cases of Effec­tive Ven­tures break­ing the law

  In an ideal world we would have, but hiring a professional would take more money than we have, and speaking to a volunteer would run the risk of doxxing us.

  We think the relative downside of posting this speculatively. If it turns out our suspicions are wrong, then it will be easy for someone with a legal background to explain why, and this post will be relegated to a graveyard where it would then deserve to be.

  If it turns out that our suspicions are founded, then we believe this is important to highlight, in the context of all the recent discussion about Effective Ventures’s past activities.

• Whistleblower3 3 Feb 2023 12:30 UTC

  −2 points

  4 ∶ 4

  in reply to: lc’s comment on: Two po­ten­tial cases of Effec­tive Ven­tures break­ing the law

  In any other context I would expect a reply this aggressively unhelpful to be heavily downvoted.

  Are you saying

  a) one or both of these activities was not illegal? (if so, why are they not?)

  b) one or both was illegal, but it doesn’t matter because it was in the service of effective altruism?

  c) something else? (what?)

Two po­ten­tial cases of Effec­tive Ven­tures break­ing the law