Whistleblowers Should Be Greater Protected

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

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

There are countless times in history when individuals have stood up for what is right against those committing wrongdoings. Standing up against your country’s wrongdoings; however, is the ultimate form of morality. In the span of this nation, there are few individuals with enough courage to report illegal and unconstitutional acts committed by the government. These individuals are known as whistle blowers. In 2004, a US Justice Office attorney by the name of Thomas Tamm took action by making an anonymous call to the New York Times about illegal government activity. Tamm’s call took a lot of guts and let US citizens know that their privacy will always be protected by those who do what is right.

The concept of a whistleblower is that of a person who decides to report unethical or illegal actions of or within their place of employment. From the text, an extension of the previous definition goes on to say, “They may be working for private companies, nonprofit organizations, or for the government. They may disclose information inside or outside their organizations—to supervisors, regulators, or to the media.” (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012, p.47) Based on the definition, anyone of us can be a whistleblower. It doesn’t seem that the information disclosed is limited in anyway. Although, some of the information may not be protected

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).

Many people don't know what a whistleblower is, but a whistleblower is someone that has knowledge of confidential information. The “NSA” the National Security Agency releases information to the public because they know that it would benefit the people. Most of the information is confidential or can be a violation of company policy/rules, law, regulation, or threat to public interest/national security, as well as fraud, and corruption. There are two people that have impacted the world with their braveness of releasing information to the public knowing that it would put their lives in danger their names are Edward Snowden and Daniel Ellsberg. They both were faced with charges after doing illegal conduct. I would never be capable of doing such things knowing that the outcome can be really bad such as a life sentence. I wouldn’t be able to live with the idea of having a lot of knowledge and wanting to work with such institution. I’ll be talking about two

Whistle-blowers, as the stereotype enforces, are driven by a desire to cause maximum damage through negative headlines. They are illustrated to be fueled by their own agenda or ego and to have no desire in going through the typical outlets of expression. In reality, however, it is almost always the opposite that is true. Executives or individuals in positions of authority may often have a chance to prevent whistle-blowing becoming publicly damaging, yet often down the opportunity due to the detrimental consequences it may have on them politically or economically.

According to John R. Boatright (2012, pp.76), “A definition of whistle-blowing also needs to take into account to whom the whistle is blown. In both internal and external whistle-blowing, the information must be revealed in ways that can reasonably be expected to bring about a desired change.” Regarding to Edward Snowden who leaked the classified documents, his desire change is to let the public decides, whether the US National Security Agency’s mass surveillance programs and policies are right or wrong. Regarding to Cooper, Terry L. (2012) “The behaviour of whistle-blowers is of great interest to those seeking to improve the performance of both public and private organizations.” In my opinion, Snowden did the right thing. He acted ethically by revealing this information. Therefore, the public could make an informed

A person who uncovered any kind of details or facts that is unlawful, illicit, criminal, dishonest or incorrect within any corporation is known as whistleblower. A whistleblower has two options to bring information or accusation to surface by internally or externally. Internally, a whistleblower can lead his/her statement to awareness of other people within the accused corporation. Externally, a whistle-blower can also contact a third party outside of the corporation such as media.

Whistleblowers are typically just normal American citizens that find out maybe something they shouldn’t. An example is after the 911 attacks, a employ of the NSA was trying to prove a theory he had about the attacks. But instead he found out that the NSA was going against the right of privacy. The NSA was tapping into phone conversations and listening to people's phone calls. So the employee, Thomas Drake, started telling a news reporter of his findings after his boss dismissed his findings. The government was going to far and invading citizens privacies. They knew it was wrong too yet they still did it. But that's not the only case. Many people have found out things and gave it out because citizens have a right to know. There is now laws that protect whistleblowers against corporations so that

In 2013, Edward Snowden, former technical contractor for the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA), released thousands of confidential documents to The Guardian. Now considered the biggest government information leak in history, these documents contained classified information regarding widespread government wiretappings, including the wiretapping of more than 35 world leaders and allies (“Right of Privacy Timeline”). With so many people involved and the rising Computer Age, the topic of whistle-blowing has become more relevant than ever before. Whistle-blowing has become a heavily disputed topic in America, with critics and supporters debating the ethics and consequences of whistling while one works.

Some of the key characteristics of the whistleblower are the ability to cause dissent, breach loyalty and withstand accusation. Dissent is important because it is one way of ensuring that large bureaucracies operate under a legal, efficient and ethical manner. However, blowing the whistle puts one’s loyalty against the public’s loyalty that may bring shame to the person exposed (Gao, 2011). Accusations result from disloyalty created against the public, and this is neglect and abuse of public interest.

One of the major reasons why whistleblowing is no longer applicable is the fact that it does not fairly cover enough number of people. Taking into consideration the case of Edward Snowden who was a contractor of the National Security Agency and revealed a huge amount of information of the different surveillance programs of the government to the press. He presented the extensive phone and internet surveillance of the American intelligence for an estimated of tens of millions Americans (National Security n.p.). In Snowden’s case, the public is focusing on the whistleblower rather than the massive information he revealed. There are two opposing opinions about the case of Snowden wherein one side considers him as a hero while the other considers him as a traitor. For this reason, the supporters of Snowden argue that the Whistleblowing Act does not fairly evaluate the case of each individual since Snowden was charged as a criminal who violates Espionage Act of 1917 and a theft of the government

Whistleblowing is becoming more popular as the world becomes more obsessed with secrecy. Some people advocate secrecy and some believe that secrets can’t keep us safe. At least, this is what Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden thought. The public is obsessed with the idea of knowing what the government is hiding from us and internet connectivity, the growth of the Intelligence Community, and the encouragement of the public perpetuates this. Two major leaks of classified information happened in 2010 and 2013 by Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden and caused lots of debate in their wake. How should the U.S. government deal with whistleblowers and is there a specific way they can be dealt with. In the cases of Manning and Snowden, the U.S.

Legislative protection in Malaysia of whistleblowers is not an entirely new concept. Legislation mandating personnel to disclose the existence of offences involving fraud or dishonesty, and the attendant legal protections, already exist in certain sectors.