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."

Comments

Some thing are not worth aiding

[CRCulver]

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.

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.

Re:Some thing are not worth aiding

[LordLimecat]

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.

Thats what the ballot box is for. The agency mission is generally an open thing.

We need whistleblowers to expose hidden wrongdoing, not to try to change policy.

Re:Some thing are not worth aiding

[CRCulver]

Thats what the ballot box is for. The agency mission is generally an open thing. We need whistleblowers to expose hidden wrongdoing, not to try to change policy.

My whole point is that there is a gap between the purported mission that voters can direct, and the real mission which, as we have seen, is kept hidden from the public until whistleblowers speak out. The NSA's public mission is reassuringly worded fluff, voters could have known nothing about the agency's insistence on ready access to all American internal telecommunications until Snowden spoke out.

Re:Some thing are not worth aiding

[malignant_minded]

But if you must blow the whistle as soon as you encounter wrongdoing won't that mean everyone is slowly introduced to the fold therefore weeding out the potential of any real serious whistleblowing?

Re:Some thing are not worth aiding

[jbmartin6]

And when is abolishing the NSA going to be on the ballot? Last hundred elections all I saw was a choice between Kang and Kodos

Re:Some thing are not worth aiding

[CrimsonAvenger]

openness to whistleblowers, as distinct from criminal leakers and publicity seekers

So, how do you distinguish between "whistleblowers" and "criminal leakers" and "publicity seekers" BEFORE you make the decision to blow the whistle?

If you guess wrong, you become one more statistic in the Obama Administration's policy of prosecuting whistleblowers (twice as many prosecutions as ALL other Administrations combined so far).

I'm willing to bet, however, that the basic rule will be "if it embarrasses the other Party more than the Administration, it's "whistleblowing", but if it embarrasses the Administration it's "criminal leakers" or "publicity seekers"...

Re:Some thing are not worth aiding

[kilfarsnar]

The fact that it's legal doesn't make it right. A lot of people would be shocked at what's legal.

Re:Some thing are not worth aiding

[Captain Hook]

Do you stand to gain, directly or indirectly, any benefit either personally, professionally, or politically, by whatever is being whistle blown on?

That is an extremely wide difinition.

Anyone whistle blowing is doing it because they want something changed, whether that is an improved working environment or a social/political change. That means they are indirectly benefitting and therefore by your definition no whistleblower is a whistleblower.

Re:Some thing are not worth aiding

[vux984]

If you guess wrong, you become one more statistic in the Obama Administration's policy of prosecuting whistleblowers (twice as many prosecutions as ALL other Administrations combined so far).

I've read that stat, and don't dispute the truth of it; but I question whether it lacks context. Perhaps there are simply a lot more whistleblowers due to the degree the government has gone so far off he rails? Perhaps there is a peer, where once people started coming forwards, a lot more of them felt emboldened to come forward. (The way rape victims tend to be more inclined to come forward when they know other victims are coming forward.)

Maybe the ratio at which this administration is prosecuting whistleblowers is no higher than previous administrations, there are just so many more of them so the absolute numbers are higher.

Anyone know?

What's the worse that can happen?

[cdrudge]

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.

Re:What's the worse that can happen?

[Gothmolly]

Exactly. Or both outcomes happen.

Re:What's the worse that can happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a third option... the world changes in a positive direction because the right people respond.

Re:What's the worse that can happen?

[NotDrWho]

Anyone stupid enough to believe this "we respect whistleblowers" horseshit had best read up on Thomas Drake.

Idiotic Management

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Bullshit Translator

[coofercat]

> 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.

Re:Sorry

[jc42]

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.)

Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Bullshit

[jelIomizer]

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.

If the government is doing something blatantly unconstitutional, as the NSA was, then the people need to know about it. Risking it all being swept under the rug by trying to go to the 'proper channels' is foolish for exactly that reason. The people should be the first to know what the evil scumbags in the government are doing.

I don't know who he unjustifiably betrayed, but it wasn't me, and it wasn't the ideals that this country is supposed to aspire to.

Re:Bullshit

[BVis]

He'd have had a great deal more credibility (and thus have a greater impact) had he gone through proper channels first and gotten no satisfaction. He'd be able to say "I tried to do this the right way, hoping that the system would correct itself, but it didn't, so I decided that the people should know about this by other means."

Re:Bullshit

[CRCulver]

He'd have had a great deal more credibility (and thus have a greater impact) had he gone through proper channels first and gotten no satisfaction.

Snowden has always claimed -- and the US government has recently admitted - that he did first approach his superiors, and only when his unease was brushed aside did he decide to release his information to journalists.

Re:Bullshit

[BVis]

If you bothered to read my other response to the first person who corrected me, you'd see that this comment was unnecessary. Please satisfy your desire to be right on the internet somewhere else.

Re:Bullshit

[Straif]

Not quite or even partially true. Snowden CLAIMS he approached his superiors multiple times but the only released document was about a technical question about the legal power of executive orders.

He essentially asked if executive orders outweighed actual signed laws and the answer given him that while they have the weight of a law, if they conflict with a law then EO's are effectively void.

Of course you can claim that this was the only document released by the NSA because it proves Snowden is lying about his attempts to properly handle what he saw as a violation of the constitution, but if there were other documents don't you think Snowden would have presented them to prove his case. Or is a man who managed to copy millions of classified document not able to copy HIS OWN EMAILS from his account prior to leaving?

Re:Bullshit

[Straif]

1) I'm not American so their internal spying did not violate my non-existent constitutional rights.
2) I don't have much of an issue with his disclosures about their internal spying programs since I happen to believe they are violations of the constitution.
3) It's his disclosure of external spying I disagree with. All countries spy on each other; that's nothing new or unexpected but his disclosure of specifics placed him clearly outside of the concerned citizen category into the traitor camp.
4) This part of this thread is about his supposed attempts to do the right thing before going public so discussing those actions is hardly irrelevant.
5) Discussion Snowden's specific (in)actions is important in that it can highlight the difficulties with whistle blowing in the various levels of government.

Re:Bullshit

[BVis]

For the same reason you feel the need to pile on someone who's admitted his mistake.

Re:Bullshit

[NoKaOi]

Because the important thing is to focus on whether Snowden followed proper procedure. Forget about what he exposed, all those gross violations of the constitution are completely irrelevant if he didn't follow procedure when exposing them.

Must aid the agency mission?

[fredrated]

How about this: Must support the Constitution. These people think they come before the Constitution.

Slight correction

[NotDrWho]

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

If only this existed before Snowden

[LordKronos]

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?

Re:If only this existed before Snowden

[bughunter]

Not only this, but two successive White House administrations went to extraordinary lengths to put domestic wiretapping in place in secrecy and keep it in place, without approval or oversight from Congress, much less public opinion.

When seeking authorization for domestic wiretapping in 2004 using convoluted legalese and twisted definitions, Bush White House lawyers Andrew Card and Alberto Gonzales couldn't get approval from the acting Attorney General, James Comey, who cited a DOJ opinion that the program lacked oversight and doubt that the Executive branch had the authority to issue such an order. He later stated (I'm paraphrasing) if the American people learned of the extent of this program they'd be appalled. And so Card and Gonzales visited John Ashcroft in the hospital to go over Comey's head, knowing he was in intensive care, under heavy sedation. Comey managed to arrive in time to make his side of the argument and delay the approval. (Cite)

We're talking about John Ashcroft here, USA Patriot Act cheerleader. Even he wouldn't approve it. And now we know why.

But it was only a delay. The Bush-Cheney White House went ahead and implemented the program. There's no public information on whether or when the Ashcroft DOJ approved this, only that some oversight was added (ineffective as it was in retrospect), and by 2005 Ashcroft had been replaced by Gonzales as Attorney General, the very guy who tried to go over Comey's head. It's quite apparent now that the NSA had carte blanche from then on.

And the succeeding Administration comes in with a record of avoiding any sort of investigation or oversight of the program, granting immunity to civilian corporate participants, and goes on to aggressively prosecute ethically-motivated whistleblowers to the degree of fabricating evidence to incarcerate them.

In this kind of environment, do you think a new "you must report" order is going to improve the constitutionality of this kind of spying?

All it's going to do is weed out anyone who's not fully on board with the program, or has any ethical qualms about it, and permit even more crackdown on people who try to effect change, legally and by the books, from the inside.

Keep your nose clean, citizen.

Missing the point as usual

[sirlark]

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".

How many clever Snowdens and Manninga are there?

[CaptainDork]

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.

And when they ignore you?

[gstoddart]

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.

Snowden used those channels

[Charliemopps]

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.

Not at all

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

Voltaire got it right, 260 years ago

[idontgno]

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.)