Whistleblowers: Are They Heroes or Traitors? Essay

Whistle blowing does take courage. There is the risk of being bullied or harassed as a result, but anyone who whistle blows has the right to protection from the person they have raised concerns about. If you suffer as a result of a whistle blowing incident the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 offers legal protection.

In addition, whistleblowers should be portrayed as being good in order for society to begin seeing them in a positive way. Furthermore, the government should make this type of crimes a public matter. Allowing the public to be able to see all charges and outcome regarding these cases could bring out other wrongdoings in other organizations. The government should also impose greater punishment such as jail time for these types of crimes rather than imposing fines that they are able to

For many whistleblowers, fear of persecution and retaliation has prevented them from speaking out against improper behaviors at their institutions. Because of the dangers that whistleblowers are exposed to, many companies have become proactive in promoting and protecting whistleblowing. As a case and point, we need to look no further than the banking giant, Barclays.

It has become extremely easy to transmit information almost instantly without any possible way to censor it quickly enough to keep it out of the public eye. Edward Snowden is an extreme in many examples of people using technology to civilly disobey. Whistleblowers however have created a serious new issue as to whether or not their actions go beyond civil disobedience into the realm of treason. People like Chelsea Manning, who released hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents illegally, could be seen fairly easily as a traitor rather than someone trying to do the right thing. The real question with whistleblowers is whether or not they have gone beyond disobeying the law to posing a clear and present danger to the American people. In the case of Edward Snowden, most would say no. In the case of Chelsea Manning, the results are fairly

Review “Just pucker and blow: An analysis of corporate whistleblowers” in Chapter 2. Please respond to the following:

A whistleblower is a person who raises a concern about a wrongdoing in their workplace or within the NHS or social care setting. If a person wishes to raise their concerns they should obtain a

What is the explanation of the standard view on whistleblowing presented by Sissela Bok and reported by Robert Larmer in his article?

The various forms of retribution that whistle-blowers endure at the hands of employers both financially and psychologically for attempting to correct mismanagement, fraud, and dishonesty are often too much for the whistle-blower to bear. Careers are in jeopardy because individuals with strong ethics decide to pursue law suits against their employers. One example is where the US Forest Service employees found their careers ruined by either demotions or loss of jobs when caught speaking out in favor of the environment or sound science, or when

Whistleblowers in the United States are individuals who expose organizations in illicit or dishonest activities. There are generally two views people have concerning whistleblowers: They are either considered snitches (performing acts of espionage) or they are considered martyrs (acting as a type of vigilante informing the public of wrongdoing). There have been many controversial cases in the past decade over informants such as Edward Snowden (exposing NSA data collection of citizens), Bradley Manning (responsible for leaking Iraqi military secrets), and Thomas Drake (NSA personnel leaking counterterrorism information and misconduct), some labeling them as traitors and others labeling them as saints. Some state that they weren’t

Hayley, I absolutely agree with you. Each individual must make his or her own decision as to whether the disturbing unethical offense is worth the personal cost (Reece 2014, pg 111). When I was personal faced with trying to decide to whistle blow or keep quiet and do nothing at all; I had to tell. I tried to just keep my head down and be silent but, the silence was literally making me sick. I couldn’t eat, I couldn’t sleep, and what I knew was constantly on my mind, I felt like I couldn’t function properly. The reason I was unable to function was because not being honest was not in my charter. I made the decision to be the whistleblower, and yes I did receive some back lash but for me that was better than the silence. Every individual is different,

Critics of Edward Snowden label him a traitor and a coward. They condemn him for irreparably harming government security operations and setting of a worldwide chain of events that weakened the American position on the world stage. While America now has blight on its records due to the leaks, the topic that should be addressed is should the whistle-blower, the man who uncovered and exposed the questionable and wrong activities, be blamed or should those who allowed the illegal and immoral activities be held accountable for what they started. Edward Snowden had the justification and conviction to do the correct thing and present the incriminating evidence straight to the public. When one takes in consideration everything that Snowden has lost because of his decision, there was little gain for him to make the immoral activities public. Snowden’s crime is breaching the trust of his government contract to expose egregious monitoring by the government on the American public. In an interview conducted by the Washington Post, Snowden speaks out about his goal in releasing the files: “All I wanted was for the public to be able to have a say in how they are governed,”

Are government whistleblowers acting in the public interest, or do they endanger the public by exposing classified information? Just as government transparency has waned in recent years, there have been several instances of very public national intelligence whistle-blowing. Large scale leaks such as those published by The Guardian and WikiLeaks have prompted debate on issues of government secrecy, as well as the balance between security and liberty. High profile whistleblowers like Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, and Edward Snowden have, at great personal risk, leaked classified information to the public in the interest of transparency. Leaked media and documents range from embarrassing, to potentially dangerous. Heightened levels of

Jackson and Raftos (1997) referred to whistle blowing as an avenue of last resort. Employees find themselves in these situations when the authorities at their organisations have failed to take actions on reported issues affecting that organisation. Wimot (2000) likened whistleblowing to a spectrum. At one end of this spectrum whistleblowing would only cause minimal pain and scars on the stakeholders and organisation while on the other end is the worst scenario where the whistleblowing effects are turbulent and often experienced to be negative to all those involved (ibid).

Companies in today’s society are often required to abide by an abundant amount of rules and regulations imposed upon them which stem from government and law enforcement authority. In analyzing the Case of “The Reluctant Security Guard” we will examine the decision making process which led to David Tuff effectively ‘whistle blowing’ for what he felt was the right thing to do.

Whistleblowers perform in many careers and are found at all levels of an organization: scientists and secretaries, lawyers and paralegals, managers and staff, security personnel and computer specialists, etc. They are as varied in age, ethnic background, education, profession, sex, and income as the population at large.