Slashdot Mirror


Where Whistleblowers End Up Working

HughPickens.com writes Jana Kasperkevic writes at The Guardian that it's not every day that you get to buy an iPhone from an ex-NSA officer. Yet Thomas Drake, former senior executive at National Security Agency, is well known in the national security circles for leaking information about the NSA's Trailblazer project to Baltimore Sun. In 2010, the government dropped all 10 felony charges against him and he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge for unauthorized use of a computer and lost his livelihood. "You have to mortgage your house, you have to empty your bank account. I went from making well over $150,000 a year to a quarter of that," says Drake. "The cost alone, financially — never mind the personal cost — is approaching million dollars in terms of lost income, expenses and other costs I incurred."

John Kiriakou became the first former government official to confirm the use of waterboarding against al-Qaida suspects in 2009. "I have applied for every job I can think of – everything from grocery stores to Toys R Us to Starbucks. You name it, I've applied there. Haven't gotten even an email or a call back," says Kiriakou. According to Kasperkevic, this is what most whistleblowers can expect. The potential threat of prosecution, the mounting legal bills and the lack of future job opportunities all contribute to a hesitation among many to rock the boat. "Obama and his attorney general, Eric Holder, declared a war on whistleblowers virtually as soon as they assumed office," says Kiriakou. "Washington has always needed an "ism" to fight against, an idea against which it could rally its citizens like lemmings. First, it was anarchism, then socialism, then communism. Now, it's terrorism. Any whistleblower who goes public in the name of protecting human rights or civil liberties is accused of helping the terrorists."

48 of 224 comments (clear)

  1. Nothing new by Luckyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a very effective method at discouraging effective and functional resistance against status quo.

    Similar procedures were used against key people behind Occupy movement according to similar reports.

    1. Re:Nothing new by RabidReindeer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The phrase "Freedom isn't Free" doesn't just apply on the battlefield.

    2. Re:Nothing new by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Except that they are specifically giving up their freedom. For the right cause. So this isn't about "cost of freedom", but "doing the right thing costing people their freedom" as in modern West, being poor is effectively a crime that limits your freedom greatly.

    3. Re:Nothing new by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      Right, and dying also limits your personal freedom. Your freedom, does come at the expense of those who are willing to personally sacrifice to varying to degrees to keep it.

    4. Re:Nothing new by silfen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's a very effective method at discouraging effective and functional resistance against status quo.

      Relying on whistleblowers to "resist the status quo" is a stupid political strategy. The power of the NSA and CIA need to be limited, civil liberties and constitutionality need to be restored, by the people we vote for. But as long as sheep keep reelecting politicians who blatantly violate their campaign promises of transparency, accountability, constitutionality, and restoration of civil liberties, nothing is going to change.

      Similar procedures were used against key people behind Occupy movement according to similar reports.

      You make it sound like a conspiracy. But there are millions of private employers; they just individually look at these people and decide that hiring them isn't worth the risk and hassle.

    5. Re:Nothing new by Immerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When is the last time the US military fought a battle for freedom? Hint: corporate profits != freedom.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    6. Re:Nothing new by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      See, that's the beauty of the Western system, as compared to for example Russia. There, if private companies dump dissidents, it's "oh noes government's fault".
      But in the land of the free? That's just private corporations exercising their freedom!

      The only actual difference? Slightly greater plausible deniability that works on people like you. Apparently. Because you see, there's no "conspiracy". There's simply the system that is set to encourage not employing those who resist status quo. Conspiracy implies secrecy, and there's there little secrecy about this issue, as you yourself point out.

    7. Re:Nothing new by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      That's what wikileaks effectively did. They ended up cut off from entire worldwide payment and banking system almost entirely.

    8. Re:Nothing new by silfen · · Score: 2

      See, that's the beauty of the Western system, as compared to for example Russia. There, if private companies dump dissidents, it's "oh noes government's fault". But in the land of the free? That's just private corporations exercising their freedom!

      Private companies didn't "dump" these people. Private companies have nothing to do with these people, their choices, their legal troubles. Individual businesses simply decide individually that hiring these people isn't worth their trouble.

      And a big part of that calculation is likely that if they hired a government whistleblower, they would likely face repercussions from the government. The whistleblowers are likely on various government watchlists, listed in government databases as criminals or arrestees, and have government investigations and legal proceedings pending against them.

      Russia is exactly what that is like, and attitudes like yours are what is responsible for that. Take it from someone who has heard it first hand: you could have been a propagandist for one of the East Bloc regimes, twisting even entirely government-created problems into the fault of businesses and individual liberty.

    9. Re:Nothing new by MrKaos · · Score: 2

      Just because soldiers suffer for my freedom doesn't mean I want whistleblowers to suffer also.

      Soldiers protect us from foreign enemies, Whistleblowers protect us from domestic enemies. They are both heros however, the attacks and wounds they suffer differ.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  2. Transparency by msk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How's that transparent government working out?

    1. Re:Transparency by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      Like hot air, it's so transparent that you can't figure out what is it doing.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Transparency by wickedsteve · · Score: 5, Funny

      Campaign Obama: promises change - President Obama: changes promise

    3. Re:Transparency by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

      "Transparency" and "openness" are just a politician's way of saying "I need you to vote for me, but the second I'm in office I'm going to be just as much a shitheel as the last guy."

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    4. Re:Transparency by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Something happens between the election and the inauguration that changes a president's entire ethos.

      Makes you wonder what happens when they brief the incoming president on The Big Secret Stuff. Do you think they find out "holy shit there really are terrorists and/or aliens everywhere we're barely keeping at bay," or do you think a man with no name just hands the president a picture of JFK's head getting blown off from the perspective of the grassy knoll and says "here's your new talking points?"

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    5. Re:Transparency by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Funny

      Campaign Obama: promises change - President Obama: changes promise

      He has altered the deal. Pray he does not alter it any further.

    6. Re:Transparency by meta-monkey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, there it is.

      The powers behind the MIC, the weapons manufacturers, are billionaire sociopaths. These people care only about their own money and power and will start wars on false pretenses resulting in terrible death and destruction, kids with their limbs blown off, dead soldiers, starvation, panic, whatever, just to make more money selling bombs. Do you think they would have any qualms about threatening a president? Do you really think they're going to let their plans depend on something as silly as the votes of the American people?

      To be honest, it's not all awful. Every four years, America holds a popularity contest based on nice haircuts and whether you'd like to have a beer with the participants. The charismatic liar most popular with a plurality of the disinterested, uninformed American people is then given a button that, should he press it, the world will end.

      The only thing scarier than the idea that the president isn't given the button is the idea that somebody gives it to him.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  3. Exact Opposite of the Obama Campaign Message by nucrash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If I remember correctly, before and after entering office, Obama vowed to improve government transparency and protecting whistle blowers. While in sections, such as with ARRA, government transparency was increased, the remainder of the government was obscured further.

     

    --
    Place something witty here
    1. Re:Exact Opposite of the Obama Campaign Message by KermodeBear · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, he promised us the most transparent government ever. It's not his fault though, it's all those hard drives, you know, they just... Gosh, they keep crashing. Whoops.

      --
      Love sees no species.
    2. Re:Exact Opposite of the Obama Campaign Message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      And whistleblowers were persecuted more harshly than ever:
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-van-buren/silencing-whistleblowers_b_4895847.html
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/26/obama-whistleblower-website_n_3658815.html
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-ditz/obama-insider-threat_b_3588818.html

      And this is a joke:
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/07/obama-whistleblowers_n_5564965.html

      It encourages whistleblowers to voice their concerns through channels instead of leaks.
      Well duh! Of course these people tried that, the whole thing is that channels only want to keep the reality of how shitty things are hidden.
      That's why they are force to leak information..
      This is why we need something like WikiLeaks, so information can be leaked anonymously. That will make it much harder for 'channels' to keep things hidden.

    3. Re:Exact Opposite of the Obama Campaign Message by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2, Informative

      Obama vowed to improve government transparency and protecting whistle blowers.

      Obama has also prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other Administrations combined. Last count I saw was seven by Obama, three by all previous Presidents.

      Yes, I know that Obama isn't the one issuing the orders to prosecute. But he IS the one who can issue the order to stop prosecuting them....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:Exact Opposite of the Obama Campaign Message by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      What do mean? Obama's government is incredibly transparent! You can't see anything at all!

  4. Obama declared a war on whistleblowers? by mean+pun · · Score: 2

    "Obama and his attorney general, Eric Holder, declared a war on whistleblowers virtually as soon as they assumed office," says Kiriakou.

    Obama is certainly not any better than his predecessors, but I have to wonder if he is any worse. Valery Plame was on G. W. Bush's watch, for example.

    1. Re:Obama declared a war on whistleblowers? by hsmith · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Obama Admin has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all former administrations combined AFAIK. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/obama-whistleblower-prosecutions-press_n_3091137.html

    2. Re: Obama declared a war on whistleblowers? by jmac_the_man · · Score: 2
      Obama hasn't gone after anyone who didn't leak national security secrets That's an incredibly misleading "fact." Executive Branch employees have retaliated against whistleblowers in the VA scandal, the Fast and Furious scandal, and the Benghazi scandal, to name a few.

      Obama's whistleblower protection initiatives don't seem to be doing the job.

  5. the new by Connie_Lingus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    yeah...i feel for this guy. i can relate.

    in this day and age, pretty much anything you do that could potentially show that you are not a good little robot that sits up and says "more, please" when corporations and law enforcement slap you around goes on your record and eliminates you from enjoying that sort of upper middle-class life. how wonderful for the law-n-order types...no so much for independant souls.

    it's happening all around us in real time...the Goodell story, Ray Rice...hashtag mobs become judge and jury for a few days and completely destroy lives.

      now I get it...in this case it's different but corporate HR departments are just hashtag mobs of 1.

    --
    never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
  6. Future wars by Rei · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well...

    egrep ".*ism$" /usr/share/dict/words | perl -MList::Util=shuffle -e 'print shuffle();' | tail -n 10 ... tells me that the next ten things that the US is going to wage war against are:

    Factionalism
    Occidentalism
    Aerotropism
    Briticism
    Rebaptism
    Establishmentarianism.
    Freemasonism
    Achronism
    Henotheism
    Selenotropism

    I look forward to the War on Henotheism. Make up your minds, there's either one god or there's multiple! If you don't pick between the existence of one god or multiple, then the Henotheists win!

    (Side note: Slashdot, stop playing content critic with your "Filter error: That's an awful long string of letters there")

    --
    Fox: "I think we should call it... your grave!" Cast: "Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!"
  7. They are doing it wrong ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Manning tried to impress an actual hacker and the hacker dude didn't want any part of it.

    Snowden grabbed the goods and and made headlines across the planet.

    Why in Sam Hill do whistle blowers have to step into the spotlight with their incriminating evidence?

    There are lots of ways to drop that crap off and be quiet about it.

    The system is training for that, you know. It's the next logical step.

    Want to expose a wrongdoing?

    Wear the cloak of AC.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:They are doing it wrong ... by king+neckbeard · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Two problems with that are that if nobody is behind a leak, it's far easier to dispel, and the government may be able to find you anyway.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    2. Re:They are doing it wrong ... by wisnoskij · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except the government is still going out figure out who it was. You just get to decide if you are the random unknown civilian who has a car crash during his morning commute or the famous whistle-blower barricaded in an embassy.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    3. Re:They are doing it wrong ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Snowden could have also anonymously died shortly afterwards. Take for example:
      Journalist Gary Webb - was working on stories about the CIA and Columbian drug cartels when he suddenly decided to shoot himself in the head with a shotgun... and then shoot himself in the head again just to make sure.
      Karen Silkwood - was blowing the while on something related to health issues at a nuclear processing facility. She was driving to a reporter with documents when she decided to take sleeping pills and drive into a tree. The dented back of the car (someone clearly forced her off the road), and the missing documents she was previously seen with are just one of life's little mysteries.

      You think a smart guy like Snowden, working in an agency whose unofficial internal motto is "we put warheads on foreheads", is not going to see/hear things and take precautions? Remember - he carefully sorted what he released. That doesn't mean that Greenwald knows what he knows. I think Snowden was right to be worried about his life.

  8. Re:Obligatory quote/s by Thanshin · · Score: 4, Funny

    Good job, pat yourselves on the back and suck each other's cocks.

    I don't believe they are talking about that particular use of Whistleblowers.

  9. No one EVER thanks a whistleblower by NotDrWho · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It may be a moral good, even a moral necessity to do it. But you're *never* rewarded for it, even under the best of circumstances (all these bullshit whistleblower bounty programs are just for show). And at worst, you'll end up in prison or dead.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  10. Re:Don't Need Them by Rei · · Score: 5, Funny

    As a whistle blower myself, I found that the trick is to do diaphragm exercises. Lots of people focus too much on the muscles in the mouth, but the real airflow comes from the lungs. Also, get yourself a real competition-grade whistle, not a cheap piece of Chinese-made junk. I personally am fond of the late Soviet militiary whistles - not only do they have a distinctive sound, but the titanium pea is extremely efficient at transforming air pressure to sound with little resistance.

    --
    Fox: "I think we should call it... your grave!" Cast: "Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!"
  11. Obama promised to encourage whistleblowers by Squidlips · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And we lapped it up....

  12. more info on Kiriakou by nimbius · · Score: 5, Informative

    Kiriakou was sentenced to 30 months in prison after he pled guilty to a felony. in america its important to distinguish misdemeanors and felonies as most employers dont care about the former. Misdemeanors are traffic citations or DUI first offense and many are willing to overlook them in white-collar professions. a felony however is a different matter. Felonies in the US ban you in many states from public assistance like food stamps or government housing assistance. a felony can get you apartment application rejected, you car insurance increased, your credit rating destroyed, and will (despite what you were convicted of) destroy your life forever. If you want to buy a home, most homeowners associations will categorically deny the sale if you have a prior felony conviction. Felons cant hold politcal office, and are often subject to very strict mandatory parole terms imposed after their sentence for up to a year or more. Whats worse is most prisons also require you to pay restitution for their "services" and while a misdemeanor is often expungeable from your criminal record, a felony is not. Prior felony convictions in many states cannot be served at bars, and may be forbidden from owning a firearm. Kiriakou isnt being punished for "helping the terrorists." Hes just learning what its like to live in americas untouchable caste, a scarlet letter that affects more than 5 million americans currently.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:more info on Kiriakou by Rich0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Amazing. Not only do we prevent them from working, we also prevent them from collecting food stamps so that they are further incentivised to resort to theft. Then if they get caught we put them in prison where they get the free food, clothing, and shelter we didn't want to give them before they resorted to theft.

  13. Nor was she prosecuted by glennrrr · · Score: 4, Informative

    Or for that matter inconvenienced in any particular way. And Richard Armitage, the person who outed her as a former field operative wasn't punished that I'm aware.

  14. Look what happened with Snowden by korbulon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They got caught with their dicks in the cookie jar, and still (still!) they blame the kid who called them out for it.

    Don't fool yourself with ideologies and policy statements and fancy speeches. It's all Bullshit. Democrats = Republicans = Cunts. Power likes to suck itself off and *hates* it when someone gets in the way. Somehow we all know this, but sometimes we need to see it to really believe it. Did many of those who voted for Obama really think the government under his administration would not only be caught spying on US citizens, but that he himself would actively defend it, and that he would use his underlings to spend more effort on the Snowden witchhunt and character assassination than looking into the NSA overreach wrongdoing? It's disgusting behavior, but not wholly unexpected for any reasonably diligent student of political history.

    The only people worse than those trying to acquire power are those trying to retain it.

  15. Re:Can someone explain? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

    How is it logical that he loses his job and now he can't get any job?

    Quite logical, really. These days, HR will do a background check on *anybody* they hire. All you need is an Internet connection, after all. When the whistleblowing comes up, the HR guy decides, "He's a trouble-maker. I've got dozens of other resumes. I'll pick somebody who's not a trouble-maker."

  16. Re:Obligatory quote/s by Luckyo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Man killed with polonium wasn't a dissident, but what US would have called a "terrorist" if operations he undertook against Russia were undertaken against it instead. That is active spy recruitment, channelling finance of military assistance to various separatist and anti-establishment groups in Russia and so on. If you call him a dissident, you'll have who reclassify a whole lot of people US calls terrorists today into "dissidents".

    US has an active assassination program running RIGHT NOW killing people like him every week or so. So you should have been awake for a long time now.

  17. write a book about their experience by nikkipolya · · Score: 3, Insightful

    By being a whistleblower they have displayed to the world that they have a lot of risk taking abilities. Now that they have appeared on slashdot, they should consider writing a book about their experiences. The hesitation, the resistance they faced at their work-place, then the moment... They can then sell the rights to their story to movie studios too!! That's the way forward to high risk takers such as whistleblowers. Make it all or loose it all!! They can then go around delivering lectures about their experiences, their book. Go independent, I mean!!

  18. Start a web site? by HalAtWork · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Start a web site that can serve as a talent pool for people like this. Many people would consider them american heroes, and if they had more visibility, maybe they would get hired faster. If they show up on a background check, the employers would be more likely to know why and give them a pass.

  19. Re:Obligatory quote/s by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

    As it happens, Russia is crafting whistleblower protections right now:

    Hahahaha!
    Stop it, you're killing me!
    All too funny.

    Russia hardly even tries any more to pretend that their media isn't a bunch of scripted reports with paid actors or that they're remotely a free, fair democracy. Heck, in the last election, Chechnya had 99.59% turnout with 99.82% voting for the "Butcher of Grozny". Some precincts were apparently so eager to vote for him that they had 107% turnout. Really impressive on Putin's part! ;) It's amazing that they can still find useful idiots like you to defend them.

    --
    Fox: "I think we should call it... your grave!" Cast: "Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!"
  20. If WBs reveal crime, opposition to WBs promotes it by RandCraw · · Score: 2

    If we were serious about ending criminal acts in the US government, we would:

    1) create a fully independent office inside the government to investigate and prosecute wrongdoers, with powers no less than congress' Special Prosecutor (i.e. equal to the presidency)

    2) offer whistleblowers generous retirement benefits for life (to escape retribution)

    3) give them blanket immunity from prosecution

    4) prosecute the gov't wrongdoers all the way up the chain of command, *starting* at top executive levels

    But the US government does the opposite. That's the very definition of racketeering and organized crime.

  21. Re:Obligatory quote/s by ultranova · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Governments should be afraid of their people.

    It is. That's why it spies on them.

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  22. Re:Obligatory quote/s by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just amazing, such an incredible two-faced attitude toward whistleblowers. Alexander Litvinenko was about as clear cut example of a whistleblower as you can get. He was an FSB officer who leaked the reports that the FSB had ordered the assassination of Boris Berezovsky. He was was arrested for his leaks, but acquitted - but the government continued going after him after his acquittal, so he fled to the UK and was granted asylum. In the UK, out of reach of the Russian government, he continued writing books and giving interviews leaking more information, including claims of the Russian government's involvement in the murder of journalist Anna Politkovskaya and the Russian apartment bombings that both solidified public resolve for Russia to re-invade Chechnya and helped bring Putin to power.

    And he was killed for that. By polonium. Traced straight back to a nuclear power plant in Russia via a British Airwaves jet from Moscow.

    Now, let's just say that Litvinenko was just speculating wildly or BSing about everything he said about Russia. That doesn't change the fact that for whatever reason, he was asssinated by polonium traced straight back to nuclear power plant in Russia via a British Airwaves jet from Moscow.

    But to you, a guy writing negative things about Putin makes him terrorist recruiter and that was justified? Seriously?

    --
    Fox: "I think we should call it... your grave!" Cast: "Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!"
  23. Re:Can someone explain? by istartedi · · Score: 2

    It's like having a PhD and a felony conviction, all rolled into one.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?