If that were the case, doing it right would be hiring someone external at a reasonable rate to demonstrate and ensure impartiality, given the gravity of the subject claims. Even if the good intentions were there, the optics are all wrong (particularly the fee), which is what will matter to the jury. Throwing him under the bus while paying him to investigate the driving habits of the bus is a pretty interesting smell.
You seem incredibly biased. Do you have a dog in this battle? Would you mind revealing your real name and employer, please? Or do you need to stay anonymous? Your relationship with the facts has a familiar ring to it. Kellyanne?
Maybe I'm missing a joke here but he or she is right. "we have no reason to believe any of this is true but we will investigate it to be sure" is more than we expect most companies to do.
That being said I doubt any of us honestly believe those words from Uber.
You must be missing something. I think you missed the part about paying the guy AND his lawyer an enormous pile of money, then continuing to employ the guy who reported it, and who they're now calling an untrustworthy lying extortionist.
Those words just don't ring true no matter who they came from, and Uber's recent pay-off of a hacker who breached their customer data follows the exact same pattern.
Go back and read the article carefully, please. I'll repeat thisisit's pointed questions for you to address after you've gotten your head around the facts:
>I am sorry but do you mean companies should pay off a whistle-blower rather than say -
>a. litigate, if the claims are baseless
>b. In case the claim has substance to try and rectify the issue along with responsible disclosure?
After getting your head around all that, do you really think the guy who said "The fact that two qualified employees, a lawyer and a security constant, getting a similar sum should hint that it is common." sounds unbiased?
I just wanted to outline that investigating baseless claims if perfectly normal. How could they even be qualified of baseless fore sure if they were not investigated?
The payout is a different matter, that we both agree doesn't contribute to their defense.
It seems more plausible (though of course I'm not claiming this is the case) that they paid him to help root out and destroy the evidence for claims they knew were well-founded before someone else raised them.
