Slashdot Mirror
Whistleblowers Enter the Post-Snowden Era
Presto Vivace (882157) writes GovExec Magazine reporting on the aftermath of Snowden's disclosures: '...At the Intelligence Community's Office of the Inspector General, [Dan Meyer, executive director for intelligence community whistleblowing and source protection] told Government Executive that a communitywide policy directive signed in March by the director of the Office of National Intelligence "is an affirmative statement that you have to blow the whistle" upon encountering wrongdoing, noting that in the past it was seen as an option. The new directive, he added, "shows firm support for the IC IG Whistleblowing program that actively promotes federal whistleblowing through lawful disclosures, which ultimately strengthens our nation's security." The key to the campaign of openness to whistleblowers, as distinct from criminal leakers and publicity seekers, Meyer stresses, is that it "must aid the agency mission. It is developmental and helps all stakeholders understand that we have rules in effect," he added. Meyer is expecting a bow wave of whistleblower retaliation cases (which can involve punishments ranging from demotion to pay cuts to required psychiatric evaluation) to come through his office directly or through a hotline in the coming months.'
Given the realities of the insider threat program and war on whistleblowers I can't say that I am optimistic about the new directive."
Given the realities of the insider threat program and war on whistleblowers I can't say that I am optimistic about the new directive."
There's your problem (or rather society's problem) right there: when the agency mission is sucking up as much information as possible, privacy of American citizens be damned, and then covering up for one another to reassure the American public, then that is something no one wants to aid, and the whole point of whistleblowing is to stop it.
That the NSA's mission is a megalomaniac "collect it all" approach has been clear for a long, long time now. Back in the early millennium I read James Bamford's Body of Secrets and followed keenly the European Parliament's ECHELON investigation (which was sadly obscured in the news by 9/11). Sadder than the fact that Snowden risks lifelong imprisonment is the fact that it took so long to get a Snowden in the first place after years of hints that something was wrong.
I see one of two outcomes from the flood of whistles about to be blown:
1. Nothing. TPTB essentially say "That's nice. We'll handle it" and business goes on as normal. Whistle blower becomes frustrated and stops blowing whistle.
2. Whistle blower disappears.
Either way, the problem is solved.
Meyer stresses, is that it "must aid the agency mission. It is developmental and helps all stakeholders understand that we have rules in effect," he added.
OK, so if the mission is secret and criminal that means that there still is no other option than to use foreign media to blow the whistle.
Since anything the top of the organization approves of will be considered to be the agencies mission that means that this can only be used to report activities within the organization that is against the will of those in command. That has never been a problem, telling the boss that a coworker is doing something he shouldn't have always been viable.
The only thing this is good for is that it serves as yet another excuse to claim that "He should have reported it the right way instead of going to foreign media and releasing the information in the wild!" when it is clearly still not a working option.
This is same kind of idiot managers who send out company-wide announcements that tell employees to trust the company and talk at length about the rewards of loyalty... 2 weeks after a massive layoff.
"actively promotes federal whistleblowing"? Who are they kidding? Would anyone intelligent enough to work in intelligence agency be so stupid to believe that? If anyone did, they just disqualified themselves of their job!
Still a lot of major criminality going on, this directive is just paint on a turd. The whole system is rotten to the core.
> Meyer stresses, is that it "must aid the agency mission. It is developmental and helps all stakeholders understand that we have rules in effect," he added
Aside from the poor editorial prose, here's what he really means:
"If you're a potential whistleblower, you must disclose to your immediate manager. It's the only way we'll ever know who all the people that work for us aren't really 'for' us, such that we might put them on projects 'more in keeping' with their principles and standards".
How on earth you can have a whisteblower hiding out in Russia (of all places!) in fear of the repercussions of his actions and say people should come forward is beyond me. At the very least, he should be in the US, on a (fair) public trial with known potential outcomes. Without that, no one is trustworthy.
Why do you guys keep bringing your constitution when you clearly don't have one. It's just a piece of paper that nobody high up cares about.
Hey, you got all your facts wrong.
First, we still do have the US Constitution. It's kept at the National Archives. To quote from their web site: "The National Archives Building is located between Seventh and Ninth Streets, NW, with entrances on Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues. Please Note: The Rotunda entrance, which includes the Exhibit Hall, is on Constitution Avenue." You can go there and see it in its display case.
Second, it's not a piece of paper; it was written on parchment.
Next time, try to get your facts right. ;-)
(How much of it is in effect any more isn't clear. We do pretty much know that all those parts that limit what the government can do are, uh, "inoperative" at the moment. Yeah, that's the word. But it's still useful for social-control purposes, so we keep it around.)
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Bullshit. I've done it. Policy was changed with appropriate congressional notification within about 3 days. Now, granted, what annoyed me was a technical violation of law that a few pilots were unaware of due to the Air Force screwing up the UAV manning, but the point is that in the spy world, IG complaints are taken seriously.
Snowden? Didn't take any of the steps he was told in his inbriefing to address concerns. None of them. Not a single fucking one. He's not a hero; he's a traitor. He should be tried and prosecuted.
It smells like a trap.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
How about this: Must support the Constitution. These people think they come before the Constitution.
The new directive, he added, "shows firm support for the IC IG Whistleblowing program that actively promotes federal whistleblowing through lawful disclosures, which will be ignored and will get you fired and maybe thrown in prison
FTFY
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Yes, if only this existed before Snowden, then people would have felt compelled to blow the whistle and the problem would have been taken care of before the whole Snowden incedent. Right?
Oh yeah, that's right. There were already people trying to blow the whistle on this stuff. PBS had a pretty good couple of episodes a few weeks back called United States of Secrets. They covered the whole background of these NSA programs. And they covered the story of someone who tried to blow the whistle on one of the programs. Want to know what happened from it? Let me just repost what I posted in another forum a few days ago:
As I recall from the frontline documentary, one of the guys involved in one of the illegal programs did go to someone in congress (someone on the intelligence oversight committee). When that representative tried to pursue the matter, she was met with mostly silence, mixed with a few "requests" to stop looking into the matter. The investigations she did manage to get started went nowhere. For the report that was generated, the NSA managed to get it classified, and nearly the entire thing was withheld. When someone eventually did leak details to the press, the representative (now retired) had her house raided by the FBI (multiple times), dragged before congress, and was under investigation for years.
Also, if I'm not getting my people mixed up, I believe the person that did go to her was also a suspect in the above mentioned leak. His home was also raided (along with 4 other guys who retired because they didn't want to be associated with the illegal program). The FBI took his computer and then said that he was screwed (something like a 30+ year sentence) because they found classified documents on his computer. He spent his entire retirement fund on his legal defense, then when he ran out of money had to take a public defender. When the specific "classified" documents that he supposedly had on his computer were revealed, his lawyer was eventually able to find those documents online. They were previously unclassified, and were changed to classified after the fact in order to manufacture the evidence against him. After this came to light, the Feds just quietly dropped their case against him.
That's what happens when you try to do things the "right" way.
So do you think that sort of thing is going to encourage people to come forward? And do you think the few that do are likely to have any actual results?
actively promotes federal whistleblowing through lawful disclosures (Emphasis Mine)
It's not about disclosing illegal activities. It's about disclosing activities that shouldn't be legal, or activities the public should be made aware of because their government is doing it behind their backs, even if legally. Yes, the ballot box is supposed to be the place to sort it out, but the ballot box presumes an informed citizenry. An informed citizenry presumes a system where whistle blowers are protected if they're actions are indeed in the public interest.
There can be no lawful disclosure if revealing legally classified documents is unlawful, even if the legal system facilitating the classification of those documents doesn't enjoy the broad support of the people. The correct term, that doesn't allow legal weaselling is "the public interest".
Neither Snowden nor Manning had to go public. They knew the whistle-blower system was broken. Why in Sam Hill didn't they just leak the information and keep their names out of it? Thoughts?
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
We know about these guys. How many others have access to classified information who are walking in, taking the goods, walking out and selling the stuff? The government didn't know about either of these guys. It's scary.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Why do you guys keep bringing your constitution when you clearly don't have one. It's just a piece of paper that nobody high up cares about.
First, we still do have the US Constitution. It's kept at the National Archives. Second, it's not a piece of paper; it was written on parchment.
The point the person to whom you responded meant President George W. Bush unequivocally stated the US Constitution is a "worthless piece of paper."
[ http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/14/171901/-Bush-on-the-Constitution-It-s-just-a-goddamned-piece-of-paper# ]
Can we give them actual whistles? Like the ones that hurt your ears if you're standing close.
...that lots of people still spell Whistleblower S-N-I-T-C-H.
When you blow the whistle, and your bosses say "shut up and do your job, because this is policy" what do you do?
Do you say "oh, gee, well, if it's policy that's OK"? Or, does someone eventually do what Snowden did?
This to me sounds more like a way to say "now that you've reported it, you can't tell anybody else about it, even if we utterly fail to change anything".
This sounds like a policy designed to assist in sweeping these type things under the rug.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
The key to the campaign of openness to whistleblowers, as distinct from criminal leakers and publicity seekers, Meyer stresses, is that it "must aid the agency mission. It is developmental and helps all stakeholders understand that we have rules in effect," he added.
So what happens when "what is best for the country" does not "aid the agency mission"?
In other words, what if the "agency mission" requires me or one of my co-workers to do something that is detrimental to the country? Any "internal" reporting will be seen as "what you are reporting is not a problem, no change is required" and any "external" whistle-blowing will probably still get you into Snodenesque trouble.
>"is an affirmative statement that you have to blow the whistle" upon encountering wrongdoing
its exactly what they told me repeatedly in my time in the army, and that if I comitted a war crime "following orders" would not save my ass. I was instructed on the chain of comman, and other support channels to report attrocities and the laws of war.
that said, the systems knows if they just feed the public a line, the public will eat it up.
if you ever met people who work in politics and government, you know how they feel that lying to the public is fine if its what what *they* perceive as the greater good, which generally tends to be their own personal superstitions and political agendas.
most also beleive that people are stupid and need to be managed, and they should do the managing. Therefor they don't tell your worth the time to explain things to.
When someone in the government says something, to me at least, its prove it, or its propaganda
Snowden DID use those channels, and the NSA ignored him:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
Not only that, but there were people speaking publicly about this for YEARS prior to Snowden and they were also ignored:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/... (warning, auto-start video)
The NSA tried to portray those people as crackpots until Snowden came along with proof. Remember, he didn't reveal anything new... he just provided details and corroborative evidence so the NSA could no longer ignore/deny it.
To this day, the NSA claims what they are doing is Legal. How on earth could Snowden have gotten anywhere without bringing this to the public's attention? It's going to take congressional action to even begin to limit what they are doing. There was no other way for that to happen than for him to go public. I'm not even sure if he went far enough.
AFAIK all the information released by Snowden is about official NSA programs that have been approved by legions of higher-ups. It is obviously a loser to go to one of those higher-ups to claim that such a program is illegal. Whistleblowing within the organization only makes sense when it involves actions by some rogue person(s) that goes against organization policy. Telling your boss that what he does is illegal, will just get you into trouble.
NHA
Watered down to the point of being meaningless.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
If you consider your superiors to have dishonored themselves, you have to blow the whistle in your department and in that way volunteer for Seppuku.
Whistleblowers will be slaughtered alive and locked up like they are currently, but now it is their duty to turn themselves in. The resulting spring cleaning will make sure that nobody with a conscience is left privy to the dark machinations.
Is the IG obligated to tell the people anything? Or is this an attempt for them to find out (and cover up) any wrongdoings before we find out?
"Mr S found out about a part of project X. We need to tighten security on that project before the wrong workers find out about the rest of project X. Also start monitoring all of Mr S's personal communications and arrest him if anything looks suspicious and save anything that we can use to attack him publicly and destroy his credibility if he tells a reporter that we are doing something illegal and didn't stop when it was pointed out."
Step 1. Identify all whistle blowers by encouraging their actions and promising to listen.
Step 2. Create database of possible future Snowdens
Step 3.
Step 4. Profit.
It means each employee is put in a lose-lose position. When wrongdoing is observed, either:
1) You blow the whistle using proper channels, which means you really piss off your superiors who retaliate against you in a whole host of horrible (but technically legal) ways, and even if you raise grievances for this you are in for a long, character-destroying, career-destroying, savings-destroying legal battle.
2) You keep quiet, which (by this directive) means you are complicit in the wrongdoing, and will be punished for this should someone else ever blow the whistle (or by your own conscience).
It is not very unlike the situation military personnel face. They are required to disobey any order that is illegal, negating the "just following orders" defense, and yet their commanders are empowered to shoot them on the spot for insubordination (and dead men tell no tales).
I'm the parent poster who had an IG complaint resolved legally. The IG, not the OGC is the correct approach if your supervision doesn't answer satisfactorily. By the way, only evidence that Snowden did anything was one email released by the NSA showing that he asked a question about a conflict between EO and law, and was told that the law wins.
He did not contact the IG. He did not contact the security manager. He did not contact his senator or representative. He is, at best, a publicity whore, but most likely a traitor, and it's becoming obvious that he's a well handled spy.
http://www.factcheck.org/2007/...
Il est dangereux d'avoir raison dans des choses où des hommes accrédités ont tort.
(It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong.)
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Note the quotes are from an inspector general, NOT people who are actually in charge of intelligence gathering. The latter, although admitting there has been huge violations of privacy, national security HAS BEEN SEVERELY DAMAGED BY SNOWDEN. Obviously there has to be balance, which is easier said than done, but it's obvious that people who fully support Snowden without acknowledging the risks to national security haven't a clue what it's takes to to keep them safe and to ensure that a political environment exists that ensures even the bone-headed supporters have rights and , yes, even to speak of which they haven't a clue about.
Then perhaps you should insist your government follow the damned thing to the letter like it's suppose to.
Then perhaps you should insist your government follow the damned thing to the letter like it's suppose to.
We're eagerly awaiting your detailed instructions on how we might do this.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
had best read up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otis_Pike (or more recently http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/feinstein-cia-searched-intelligence-committee-computers/2014/03/11/982cbc2c-a923-11e3-8599-ce7295b6851c_story.html)
FTFY...
"Meyer stresses, is that it "must aid the agency mission. It is developmental and helps all stakeholders understand that we have rules in effect,"
In other words, if it helps us suck up more data, and if you have disagreements with what we're doing, you'll be made to understand that you should suck it up.
mark
By reporting internally:
Really the only effective mechanism you have short of "doing a Snowden" is simply to quit and deny the government your value and knowledge. This is what I did when I was "coerced by classification to commit felonies". I still can't even tell anyone because the nature of the security clearances I had at the time and the one that was invoked would trump any whistleblower law in practice. So instead, I quit. I went to work for industries as far from military stuff as possible and refused to get involved in any military work. And it seems to have worked because I'm told much of the area I was involved in more or less stopped progressing after I and several others in similar situations all left. This is not flashy or quickly effective but you can avoid exile in Russia this way.