- Who decided to threaten the whistleblower and why?
- Who approved such an idiotic idea?
- Who determined his home address?
- Who flew the drone, timed to capture photos of the whistleblower while on his way to/from his home?
- Who took the drone photography, printed out the images, and wrote a threatening note?
- Who then took all that and physically posted it on his door?
That’s a very involved process, with substantial risk, with no realistic upside. None of the incentives are aligned with the behavior. It simply doesn’t make sense.
Applying Occam’s razor, it seems a lot more likely to be fabricated — that’s a scenario in which incentives actually align with the behavior.
In practice, that shouldn’t make a difference to the investigation; given the physical evidence, they should investigate in great detail the origin of the threat — regardless of whether it’s a hoax or real.
I'm not sure what you're referring to; that article says he leaked internal information to a competitor.
That's not ethically excusable, but it's worlds apart from the kind of very real-world felonies involved in this kind of intimidation.
This kind of intimidation would be an incredible and extremely stupid escalation that carries the potential for decades in federal prison, and for what? DOGE has the ruling party and the full force of the executive branch backing their actions. They have no need whatsoever to engage in behavior so ridiculous and counterproductive.
To be clear, this would have required stalking the whistleblower at and around his home, in person. It would have required creating significant physical evidence that could trivially lead back to the perpetrator. There will be cell phone location records, security camera footage, printer microdots, camera lens/sensor fingerprints.
It just doesn’t pass the smell test.
- Who decided to threaten the whistleblower and why?
- Who approved such an idiotic idea?
- Who determined his home address?
- Who flew the drone, timed to capture photos of the whistleblower while on his way to/from his home?
- Who took the drone photography, printed out the images, and wrote a threatening note?
- Who then took all that and physically posted it on his door?
That’s a very involved process, with substantial risk, with no realistic upside. None of the incentives are aligned with the behavior. It simply doesn’t make sense.
Applying Occam’s razor, it seems a lot more likely to be fabricated — that’s a scenario in which incentives actually align with the behavior.
In practice, that shouldn’t make a difference to the investigation; given the physical evidence, they should investigate in great detail the origin of the threat — regardless of whether it’s a hoax or real.
You don't think Big Balls can order a drone on amazon? He was already fired once for intimidating rival companies online https://newrepublic.com/post/191325/elon-musk-doge-teen-cori...
I'm not sure what you're referring to; that article says he leaked internal information to a competitor.
That's not ethically excusable, but it's worlds apart from the kind of very real-world felonies involved in this kind of intimidation.
This kind of intimidation would be an incredible and extremely stupid escalation that carries the potential for decades in federal prison, and for what? DOGE has the ruling party and the full force of the executive branch backing their actions. They have no need whatsoever to engage in behavior so ridiculous and counterproductive.
To be clear, this would have required stalking the whistleblower at and around his home, in person. It would have required creating significant physical evidence that could trivially lead back to the perpetrator. There will be cell phone location records, security camera footage, printer microdots, camera lens/sensor fingerprints.