When an NDA is broken...???

[Dedayog]

So just ready a story of a YouTuber that created an alias to leak NDA embargoed information...

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2022/09/20/gaming-insider-leaker-exposed-as-just-a-youtuber-breaking-embargoes-and-ndas/?sh=235d0aca4f3d

 

"There’s always one guy that makes everything harder for the rest of us, and today, that guy is Dan Allen, a YouTuber who recently exposed himself as an anonymous gaming industry leaker, The Real Insider.The Real Insider has been posting inside information about a lot of projects over time, most recently the contents of Ubisoft’s then-upcoming Ubisoft Forward showcase, but it turns out that was possible because it was simply Allen being given access by the companies themselves, and then promptly breaking the embargoes he was given by writing anonymously through his Real Insider account.Allen exposed himself by replying to a follower from the wrong account, his personal one, which led none other than Bloomberg’s Jason Schreier down a rabbit hole finding a whole bunch of suspicious times where Allen and The Real Insider has posted similar information or opinions."

 

Basically, I am curious how much this hurts his channel or is the short term pain okay for the long term gain of adding followers?  Can it be sustained?  Or will be fade off disgraced and lose all his followers?  I ask because it seems that millennials and gen Z seem to reward stupid, dangerous and unethical behavior.  That YT Paul guy for one only got more famous after his disgraceful shit in the Japanese forest for example.

 

Mostly just curious and welcome any thoughts.

[wanderingfool2]

In general it will all depend on how badly he broke NDA's (in the sense of contractual obligations).

 

Some NDA's can have quite the punitive damages, so if it comes out he is a leak he could be in a whole lot of hurt financially.  The other thing, you can guarantee that he will have harder times finding sponsors or getting products early.

[Neroon]

I checked a bit from his last video, where he apologies. Before seeing that, I figured he can keep it going, because leaking stuff can get you plenty of views, and loads don't give a crap. But after watching some of that, I'd say the guy is a goner. Either people will thinks he's an ass for doing all that, and don't want to watch him, or they see his apology (real or not) as weak. If he had been 'alpha' about it, he would at least draw in a crowd that doesn't care.

[Roswell]

4 hours ago, Dedayog said:

Basically, I am curious how much this hurts his channel

Least of his worries. Of more concern would be the civil litigation he’ll likely face.

 

Hell, if he was habitually doing this, criminal charges could come of it as well from a malicious intent/theft angle.

[LogicalDrm]

12 hours ago, Roswell said:

Least of his worries. Of more concern would be the civil litigation he’ll likely face.

 

Hell, if he was habitually doing this, criminal charges could come of it as well from a malicious intent/theft angle.

Or just not being able to work with any tech company at any form ever again.

 

And to criminal aspects, doubtful. Unless its literally NDA on business secrets. If it's just keeping some info on upcoming projects quiet until certain date, I fail to see malicious intent. Note that while NDA is in this context better known for early information on products about to be released, the term applies to any job or position where you handle sensitive information either of your employer or any of their clients. I have signed NDA for 3 of my last 4 jobs.

[Sauron]

17 hours ago, Dedayog said:

I ask because it seems that millennials and gen Z seem to reward stupid, dangerous and unethical behavior.

I'd say breaking an NDA is not the same level of unethical as filming a dead body. He's also doubtless going to face the consequences this entails now that it's out.

[Stahlmann]

I haven't seen an NDA myself yet. But i bet there can be severe consequences by breaking one. If the leak was intentional they can sue for money. If it was unintentional like the one that LTT had (i don't remember exactly what it was) then there can be no consequences. Breaking one can lead to huge amounts of financial damage.

[Roswell]

5 hours ago, LogicalDrm said:

Or just not being able to work with any tech company at any form ever again.

 

And to criminal aspects, doubtful. Unless its literally NDA on business secrets. If it's just keeping some info on upcoming projects quiet until certain date, I fail to see malicious intent. Note that while NDA is in this context better known for early information on products about to be released, the term applies to any job or position where you handle sensitive information either of your employer or any of their clients. I have signed NDA for 3 of my last 4 jobs.

The reason I mention criminality is because he did this more than once. If a DA can prove he premeditated the process, accepting the protected information for the purpose of redistribution, that would amount to theft of trade secrets for financial gain. I don’t know what specific charge it would be… I assume some type of fraud.

[Takumidesh]

30 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I'd say breaking an NDA is not the same level of unethical as filming a dead body. He's also doubtless going to face the consequences this entails now that it's out.

I actually don't know if I agree with this.
I think the ethical problems with breaking an NDA (outside of whistleblowing) is the fact that you are going back on your word so to speak. you abuse trust with another party when you break NDA for personal gain. The situation I think you are referring to, while ugly, does not actually invoke a violation of trust in my opinion, there is  no ethical expectation and there is no explicit agreement. Though of course your outlook on these situations probably varies based on your view of the dead, the afterlife, mourning, and respect.

[Sauron]

13 minutes ago, Takumidesh said:

I think the ethical problems with breaking an NDA (outside of whistleblowing) is the fact that you are going back on your word so to speak. you abuse trust with another party when you break NDA for personal gain.

ok... who cares? breaking the trust of a giant corporation isn't high on my indignation list. you shouldn't do it and it has consequences but morally it's meh. Ubisoft can defend itself just fine and nobody at Ubisoft is going to get more than mildly irritated over it. it's completely incomparable to using a person's suffering and death for personal gain while also violating their and their family's privacy.

16 minutes ago, Takumidesh said:

Though of course your outlook on these situations probably varies based on your view of the dead, the afterlife, mourning, and respect.

I'm only concerned with the suffering caused here. Imagine yourself seeing this done to someone you hold dear.

[Dedayog]

20 minutes ago, Sauron said:

ok... who cares? breaking the trust of a giant corporation isn't high on my indignation list. you shouldn't do it and it has consequences but morally it's meh. Ubisoft can defend itself just fine and nobody at Ubisoft is going to get more than mildly irritated over it. it's completely incomparable to using a person's suffering and death for personal gain while also violating their and their family's privacy.

I'm only concerned with the suffering caused here. Imagine yourself seeing this done to someone you hold dear.

Really?  Go with the concept.  Look how many Tik Toks for "challenges" there are that inconvenience others or take advantage of them. Paintballs?  Selfies in traffic?  Ikea challenge?  Look how many views people get for doing shitty stuff.  People LOVE to see that shit.  

 

Paul is just an example of doing something WRONG, and being rewarded for it with more followers, infamy, notoriety, etc.  Are you saying he WASN"T rewarded?   He wasn't better off after a small apology?  Yes, so if someone can make money and fame off another person's suffering and death, breaking an NDA for attention is definitely something people should do right?

 

You seem to think that signing a legally binding document, not to mention giving your word, isn't something to honor.  Morally meh is what you said?. Keeping your word is morally meh.  Interesting.  Or are you the type that weighs consequences only, doesn't care about what you said you'd do if you can't get in trouble for it really, then why not?

 

 

[Guest]

It ultimately depends on the lawyers for the company with which he broke a binding legal agreement with.

If the lawyers want he can be fined, marequired to remove the content, made to close the website, or any combination of the previous.

It all depends on what what revealed.

In any case, if he was an employee of the company or an employee of an associated company, he's no longer employed.

If he obtained the information by breaking into the system for the information, there are further legal consequences to be faced.

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, Dedayog said:

You seem to think that signing a legally binding document, not to mention giving your word, isn't something to honor.

I literally said that you shouldn't break an NDA. I also really don't care about "giving your word" to a megacorporation, if it's not black on white and legally binding they can screw off. In this case it probably was both of those things so yeah, it's something you shouldn't do.

1 minute ago, Dedayog said:

Morally meh is what you said?

Yes, things can be illegal and generally something to avoid but also morally not that bad. I place this in the same tier of morally wrong as loitering. Don't do it, but also I don't especially care if you do.

4 minutes ago, Dedayog said:

Or are you the type that weighs consequences only, doesn't care about what you said you'd do if you can't get in trouble for it really, then why not?

I care about consequences to myself and others - overall in this case I'd say the consequences are pretty minor for everyone involved. Still as I said it's not good and you shouldn't do it.

[IPD]

Impact to his livelihood is potentially catastrophic.  The NDA usually spells out the financial penalties that are tied with it.  That's step 1.  Then there's the fact that the aggrieved party can likely sue for even more if they can make a case for damage to the company's IP or bottom line, due to the conduct of this individual.  And then there's the fact that violating confidential/proprietary information will usually blacklist a person from the industry--or any other sectors in which similar privileged information is common.

 

The only possible exception to this is if the person in violation has powerful friends.  Ruling elite.  Political favoritism.  Protected class of intersectionalism.  That tends to mitigate what would otherwise be just repercussions for indiscriminate behavior.  And yes, the public at large has a rather short memory.

 

p.s.

Keep in mind that the legality of an NDA is often not tested until challenged in court.  For example, is it permissable to ban a person for working for another company in the tech sector for 20 years after the date of employment termination?  I doubt very much a clause like that would pass muster in a court of law. 

[Neroon]

NDA's are obviously very different from case to case, and depending on such case, they would have to show damages.

 

In my case I've been under NDA's for 15 years, breaking them can lead up to jail time depending on the severity.

[Kisai]

On 9/21/2022 at 1:33 PM, Dedayog said:

 

Basically, I am curious how much this hurts his channel or is the short term pain okay for the long term gain of adding followers?  Can it be sustained?  Or will be fade off disgraced and lose all his followers?  I ask because it seems that millennials and gen Z seem to reward stupid, dangerous and unethical behavior.  That YT Paul guy for one only got more famous after his disgraceful shit in the Japanese forest for example.

 

Mostly just curious and welcome any thoughts.

Well I can think of at least three immediate consequences.

a) he gets fired

b) he gets sued for damages by Ubisoft

c) nobody else will ever hire him.

 

When it comes to leaking things from present and past clients, you:

1) never do that in the first place

2) if it's whistleblowing (eg accusations of intentional wrong-doing by the company) you better be bloody right, and you drop that into the lap of a journalist who cares.

 

This guys mistake was trying to profit off it. He will no doubt lose the channel in the long run.