Whistleblowers Should Be Greater Protected

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

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

2014, p. 4). Australia is regarded to have developed a comprehensive legislation in the public sector (Wolfe. 2014, p. 25). Though the legislation is well developed, the law may be interpreted differently according to which State the matter is in regards. One of the protection legislation is the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (Cth) which comprehensive and clearly states the objects as to protect the public officials from any adverse (Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013, s 6). The current case of Jones v University of Canberra specifies that the “legislation is designed to encourage persons to come forward to report to report disclosable conduct they should be protected from reprisals of the kind contemplated by the Public Interest Disclosure Act” (Jones v University of Canberra, 2016, per Refshauge J, para 35). The legislation generally extends to protect the disclosure of wrongdoings reported in the media however, it imposes a restriction on the report involves wrongdoing in or by an intelligence agency. On the contrary, whistleblower protection law in the private sector is relatively weak. Part 9.4AAA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) provides protection in the private organisations. The Act extends to cover the officers and employee and when the

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

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).

Even the Whistleblower Protection Act was about government workers who planned to release information due to the fact that it's a corrupt idea to hold secret must go through a process with the government to work out the problem which probably wouldn't draw anyone to not illegally sell information. The IG for Department of Justice Michael Horowitz claimed that all whistleblowers want to do is release information that they will think help the country to know. So far, the this has been the case, and many supporters have come out to say that the revealed secret holds use at how the government was being corrupt for holding on to

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.

In recent history, one extremely controversial case of whistleblowing has been the government leaks caused by Edward Snowden, in which he exposed secret documents from the National Security Agency (NSA), for the entire world to see. The information he released revealed that the communication records of millions of Americans have been kept, whether or not these people had been involved with any suspicious activity (Greenwald). Snowden felt he was justified in releasing the documents, under his belief that collecting private information about innocent citizens is malpractice and that it violates the ideals of democracy (Snowden). This particular example of whistleblowing has been largely disputed among all types of people, from leaders of countries, to CEOs and workers at technology companies, to everyday Americans wondering just how much information the government has filed on them. This enormous controversy can be best understood by recognizing the two principle factors that have lead to dispute.

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

Since the beginning of organized leadership, there have been people who secrets kept from the general public and people who leak said secrets. Sometimes these leaks come at a great cost to those who kept it and other times the cost is to those who leaked it. Whatever the case maybe, whistleblowers have been, and will continue to be a part of U.S. history and the history of any other country with confidential or top secret information they do not want their citizens to know. Some may see whistleblowing as a good thing, while others may see it as treason and this is where the question of ethics comes in. One big whistleblower that walks the thin line of ethics and right or wrong was Edward Snowden.

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

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.

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.

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.