If google was actually futzing about with the auctions like that, we’d probably find out eventually.
[0] https://newrepublic.com/article/147619/pinkertons-still-neve... [1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/juliareinstein/security...
Pinkerton sub-contracted this person.
Conversely, a corporate whistleblower at the level we're discussing is in for a payday from media/book deals, etc.
That being said, someone that is in that situation, if the stakes are high enough, might be dissuaded just knowing that such things happen.
Would you (reader) want to bet your life against a conference room full of people with $1M+ worth of stock options you're about to negatively impact? Where a bad outcome for you only requires their silence?
There are many people in the world who value morals over money. There are a few who value morals over lots of money. But that's not a bet I'd take.
But the higher access you get, higher the penalties of sharing company secrets go.
Snowdens come into the picture every once in a while, but most average programmer Joes wouldn’t risk being internationally manhunted for whistleblowing questionable business practices.
So I do not think your argument is valid.