Whistleblowing In The Informant

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 today’s society, there are many things that make it hard for white collar crimes to be exposed. One of the main problem portrayed within this movie was how easily the media was able to manipulate exactly what people were allowed to see. Secondly, white collar crimes can be hard to prove because many times major corporations will hire external help to go out and find information that could ruin the whistleblowers reputation. By doing this the whistleblowers credibility can be jeopardized making it easier for the corporation to continue to be seen as a reputable organization (The Insider).

Edward Snowden is a whistleblower from the 21st century. Snowden was a man who had outstanding IT skills and eventually landed a job at the NSA. He gained access to numerous files that showed the crimes the NSA was committing against its own people and against other countries as well. They were spying on people’s privacy and claimed that it was for the national security that would benefit all people. Snowden said that he could not let this

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.

After reading the article, "Why Edward Snowden is a Hero," by John Cassidy, it brings a new

Snowden is now seen as either a traitor or a hero by many. As a result of what snowden did, some persons see his actions as being unethical because of the fact that he may have violated a secrecy agreement but it can also show that the law was unjust and unconstitutional. In addition, the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, also did not find Edward’s rationale to be very convincing. He stated, “He broke the law. He caused harm to our national security and I think that he has to be held accountable for his actions.”

4). Edward Snowden to many is considered a whistle blower which is a person who informs people of organization or people doing illicit acts. One of the many results that Edwards Snowden acts caused some country’s to lose trust in the United States and are cautious of the United States spying on them.

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,”

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).

The Informant Storyline and context We are introduced to the character Mark Whitarce who is an important character in the movie because he is the informant. Mark and coworkers were involved in a serious matter of price fixing of lysine meaning that the company he works for Archer-Daniels- Midland (ADM) and its competitors from a lot of places would set up meetings to fix prices together, which is an illegal act.

Edward Snowden is an infrastructure analysis for the NSA. Snowden disclosed classified information to the general public and confidential government mass surveillance programs to the press. He was announced as the NSA’s public whistleblower. His views for these actions are based upon the underlining truths of both Burke and Mill’s theories. He believed that giving the minorities a voice in what their superiors are doing is the right thing to do. As Snowden stated in his interview “The public is owed an explanation of the motivations behind the people who make these disclosures that are outside of the democratic power.” (Kevin M. Gallagher) It is with his great power that they had to make a decision. Knowing he did not like the fact that the public does not know what he is capable of doing, does he tell everyone openly and possibly put himself at risk? Or does he keep everything still to himself and not worry about the following consequences or what could happen to him.

The topic that I find interesting from the movie is that Snowden wanted didn’t want himself to get in the way of what he wanted said. He wanted to eliminate his own biased from the presentation of the material. This would could people from not paying attention to the important stuff and instead

The government, specifically the NSA and Obama Administration have been embarrassed by the leaks. Their aim is to bring Snowden back to the US for prosecution and have him be the next target under the Espionage Act for whistleblowers. Under the Obama Administration there have been double the amount of people prosecuted under the act than any other previous administration in history since the enacting. (Greenberg, 2014) It seems that Snowden has seen an unfairness and gross abuse of power and has felt compelled to bring these things to light for the public interest, and for the global stage. The need for change from such actions, the employment of fear to strip the public’s rights and privacies, and the use of mining centers to take all our data to whatever government end has all been shown. They (the government) is not particularly happy with the revealed truths behind their hidden programs. The fact they label it under the Espionage Act as to say Snowden has aided our enemies in breaching national security is, to the open minded and intelligent, a cowardly move, since our “enemies” already have known

An argument can be made that whistle blowing should only be warranted when there is a group or a majority that feels something should be brought to the attention of an outside authority if deemed so. As discussed in the study the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) determined that since his actions were not a concerted effort among him and his colleagues, the

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.