(Coming from thebrowser.com newsletter where this was curated)
The opsec and entropy points sound right to me. One thing I'll add - microwaves are Faraday cages. If you're really anxious about security you can put all your devices in a microwave while talking to your lawyer/therapist/journalist. (Speakers, headphones, mice etc. can turn into mics too)
On a topic this serious it's worth interviewing people who've blown the whistle, and the lawyers who've represented them - you can't figure the enforcement reality ex-ante first-principles style, some real stories would make this document more robust. A couple hours of consultation would make a big difference and I'm sure you can get it funded.
In particular, it sounds weird to me to believe lawyers risk jail, for therapists to be untrustworthy (you don't need to tell them the details in any case), or to think Russia is safe (I really don't think you want the attention of Russian authorities. I met a journalist whose colleague was kidnapped by the FSB once. Your case will be dramatically complicated by adding a rogue state into the mix.) I am not a lawyer, I am entirely guessing here, but please consider talking to one (especially if you believe whistleblowers can't safely talk to lawyers, doing it for them is a public service).
And one thing you might find is that psychology is a major hurdle. I filed an SEC whistleblower complaint once (different story, the government encourages cooperation) and the biggest barrier for me was processing the grief of seeing people I trusted commit a crime, so that I could feel safe taking such a drastic feeling step.
And: is the implication that it's an unconfirmed open secret the AI labs are doing really bad stuff? Has it gotten to that yet? I must say I am deeply skeptical about the AI lab whistleblower types so far - Kokotajlo and Aschenbrenner give me bad vibes, and both have made some very bad predictions.
(Not endorsing breaking any laws, not legal advice, etc. etc. I basically don't think you should blow the whistle in this way, and I'm not a huge fan of the famous whistleblowers personally, they were reckless and put lives at risk.)
(Coming from thebrowser.com newsletter where this was curated)
The opsec and entropy points sound right to me. One thing I'll add - microwaves are Faraday cages. If you're really anxious about security you can put all your devices in a microwave while talking to your lawyer/therapist/journalist. (Speakers, headphones, mice etc. can turn into mics too)
On a topic this serious it's worth interviewing people who've blown the whistle, and the lawyers who've represented them - you can't figure the enforcement reality ex-ante first-principles style, some real stories would make this document more robust. A couple hours of consultation would make a big difference and I'm sure you can get it funded.
And: is the implication that it's an unconfirmed open secret the AI labs are doing really bad stuff? Has it gotten to that yet? I must say I am deeply skeptical about the AI lab whistleblower types so far - Kokotajlo and Aschenbrenner give me bad vibes, and both have made some very bad predictions.
(Not endorsing breaking any laws, not legal advice, etc. etc. I basically don't think you should blow the whistle in this way, and I'm not a huge fan of the famous whistleblowers personally, they were reckless and put lives at risk.)