On Whistleblowers

From TSade

I read an article today that seemed to catch my attention. It was on “The Globe and Mail” and I found it from the Register in the UK. It actually was about a reporter who refused to divulge their sources and ended up in jail. In this case, it is dealing with unmasking a CIA operative and writing about it, regardless if it is true or not. Apparently it is, based on the amount of effort they are putting into it.

They managed to track down the “leak” to the executive branch (our dear president and his camp). However, since the source of the information was given in confidence, the article didn't name it. The entire case seems to be focusing on the fact that it came from the White House, therefore the reporter has to divulge the source, so it can be properly handled with. Judging from the media's attention on the Bush organization, it will probably be treason or that strange war criminal who deserves no rights.

This entire event reminds me of sitting down at Social Studies in junior high when my teacher explained why whistle-blowers were so important. The protection they gained from being anonymous gave them the courage to report injustices or dangers to the public. In other places, it is just to communicate things. How many times have you see “an official who did not wish to be named” in a newspaper article or on the news? It seems to happen a lot, there are thousands of people who communicate things, some for the greater good and some just for their own good, with the veil of secrecy and anonymity.

One point that came up when I was thinking about this is the need for that anonymity. There is always a general trend to get rid of things, just because a percentage of the time, someone gets hurt. In this case, it is the presumed CIA operative, Joe Wilson, and the executive branch itself. So, since those people got hurt, journalist shouldn't be able to protect their sources without getting incarcerated themselves. On the other hand, whistle-blowers were there to tell us when a toy was a potential choking hazard or had lead paint, or a CEO is still millions of dollars from their customer. Even more people could be hurt by not letting them have that protection. Very few people want to risk their job, their career, and maybe their family because they felt the need to go public and announce the faults. There are too many examples of employees being terminated because they publicly don't agree with their company or they have an interest that doesn't fit the corporate “image.” This site is a good example, I've been threatened with termination because I run a site that doesn't vilify children having sex. Just because I said it was possible, was too much against the company image. Not to mention, having the site in the first place with all that “icky stuff.”

Not everyone wants their life public. Sometimes the greater good needs a sheet in front of it, to give them the reason and the courage to actually speak up instead of crawling in the shadows, knowing that it is wrong, but not having the energy or hope to do something about it.

The fact that it came from the government could be another argument that I saw. If you protect commercial and private, but not government, whistle-blowers, this could be solved. There are actually a few things that bother me about that. One is that the government should be transparent. I strongly believe this with all my heart, because they are, in effect, controlling my lives. These are the people who make decisions for millions of people and I think they should have more paparazzi than actors and other famous people.

Secondly, is the distinction between government and Corporate America. I distinctly remember an article some years back when the Microsoft Xbox was just coming into public notice. In that article, one of the prototype Xbox's was delivered to the wrong address, a residential address. In a matter of hours, Microsoft managed to convince the local law enforcement that “terrible things” were going on and got a warrant to break into this person's house. They got the Xbox back, but there is no way a private person could ever get that kind of response from the judge and the police to make that possible. We also live in a society where most of our representatives appear to have a long list of price tags and sponsors, most of them appear to be Corporate America or a front for one. From that point of view, it is only a wisp of a hope that Corporate America would never use this connection to make a confidential source somehow “important to the government” and get around that theoretical protection.

One thing I got from my ethics and law class is that Corporate America, and just about any other large organization, would prefer everything to be as transparent as possible. They want to know who is insulting their company or airing their dirty laundry. They want to know who to sue, who to blame, who to destroy. The government is not much different, except on a far larger scale. When someone threatens the government, it is obvious they want to find the people responsible and, for all practical purposes, destroy them. If you want an example, look at the people who got arrested for 9/11 and their current location.

Another example could be seen as Dmitry Sklyarov (http://www.freesklyarov.org/). He was a programmer that found a flaw in Adobe's product and wrote an example to show its risks. Adobe had him arrested for breaking into their product, finding a flaw, and telling people about it. That one ended up better, but there are other cases of large companies not wanting flaws in their computer products being told to the general public. There was one instance where Microsoft was trying to shut down a pair of developers, for telling the CERT (Computer Emergency Response Team) about the flaw. The developers' response is “we told you months ago, and you still haven't fixed it.” Corporate America, actually any large organization, doesn't wants it flaws pointed out. They don't want to be hurt or attacked by anyone, including their own people. So, they respond in the methods they can: lawsuits, threats, and direct attacks.

There are government whistle-blowers that have helped people, or appear to have helped people in the long run. Deep Throat seemed to be one of the classic examples, ignoring the fact that they were unmasked recently and destroyed the built-up imaginations of the people involved. But, Deep Throat pointed out some very important things that resulted in the fall of a president and a new age of observation.

Another depressing part was part of the article: “Ms. Miller was taken into custody from the courtroom after the sentence was passed, and she will remain in jail until the grand jury finishes its investigation in late October or until she changes her mind and agrees to testify.” and “U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan said he was ordering the journalist incarcerated because he believed there is "still a realistic possibility that confinement might cause her to testify.” (theglobeandmail.com)

So, basically, they are going to jail her until she gives up on her morals, otherwise they'll get to her freedom when there isn't anything else important. I have a good idea that the “whenever we finish” could be months or even years after October, which is why it is a threat to force her to give up her sources. It also shows a government who is basically threatening its citizen for doing something they were allowed to do before. Journalist were given the right to protect their sources. Recently Apple Computers actually had a lawsuit trying to get online websites not to be considered a publisher, so they could find the person who “leaked” information about their new computer and sue them.

I use the term “destroy” because that is effectively what happens. Companies and the government have so much money, they are capable of destroying someone's life by holding them in the red tape of the justice system, forcing them to pour more and more money just to stay afloat. This financial drain is coupled with the emotional and physical efforts of dealing with it and you basically destroys someone's life. That is one reason why the RIAA is so successful with their negotiated settlements about file sharing, because the threat of them dragging someone to court, not to solve the problem but to kill them with time and effort and money, is something people are not willing to risk.

Risk is a big deal about whistle-blowers and also about confidential sources. The idea of getting rid of that protection, for everyone, scares me greatly. Limited it to one large section pretty much is the same as getting rid of it, there are always ways around a limitation. And, if everyone has to stand up to tell something, exposing themselves as target in the political, emotional, and financial target fields, there are going to be a lot more people shot for speaking for the greater good.

There was another quote from the article that I thought was very important: “This is a chilling conclusion to an utterly confounding case,” Times executive editor Bill Keller said outside federal court here after Ms. Miller was jailed on civil contempt charges. “Anybody who believes that the government and other powerful institutions should be closely and aggressively watched should feel a chill up their spine today (theglobeandmail.com)”.

Sadly, I completely and utterly agree.

The article I based this one is at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050707/COURT07/TPInternational/Americas

[edit] Update from July 13, 2005

I found a follow up for that article that gives a more accurate time line for those events. Of course, it pretty much shows that in this situations, the government, as the justice system, doesn't think that anonymous information should apply to the government. Or, they are treating it as treason. It will be interesting to see how the lawyers take this, mostly likely by making things more “critical to the government” to break through that barrier.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/07/13/MNGGTDN8GI1.DTL