Closed circuit: true information
Campaign for protection for Edward Snowden
Iñaki Iriarte examines the role of whistleblowing in the release of private information.
We are living in an age of fraud, but we are also, as it happens, living in a time where whistleblowing has gained an unprecedented legal and social stature. Where unparalleled surveillance and intrusion into every single aspect of our lives occurs daily, there also exist radical publishers like WikiLeaks, able to make private information available to the public, and individuals such as Edward Snowden willing to risk everything to blow the “whistle”. Under this predicament, where do we draw the line between the release of true, but sensitive, or potentially damaging, information? With the plethora of new tools to publicise information, what is the responsibility of whistleblowers, artists, and investigators?
Few argue that making information private is entirely unnecessary. There exist legitimate reasons for keeping certain information away from the public. The British public today do not expect the government to advertise the movement of troops in the field, nor the identity of its undercover agents. Admittedly, even the most transparent democracy or ruling power must keep some information concealed. Likewise, there may be appropriate moments for the use of legal documents that control information such as Non Disclosure Agreements (NDAs). Their original use to protect intellectual property and trade secrets is perfectly legitimate. We would not, for example, expect the recipe of Coca Cola to be released.
However, while the government, individuals, and legal entities may choose the right to privacy, their right to secrecy expires.
“There exists no logical argument for the existence of documents such as NDAs,” notes Zelda Perkins, the former assistant to Harvey Weinstein who broke her NDA to disclose Weinstein’s abuse. The weaponisation of NDAs over the last decade, used to keep secrets and even enable serious harmful behaviour, is unjustifiable. While Weinstein’s high profile case demonstrates how NDAs have been used to cover up serial abuse, they may also be applied at a more individual level. For instance, they have been used to silence maternity discrimination and workplace bullying.
Moreover, “fraud is not a trade secret,” laments Mary Inman, a whistleblower attorney for Constantine Cannon. In the case of the US blood testing company, Theranos, a restraining order was forced on Tyler Shultz, an employee, when he communicated with the Wall Street Journal over the company's fraudulent behaviour. The firm was not capable of testing all the blood samples it had promised, had no plan for delivering a working product, and was giving patients inaccurate blood test results. So where should the line be drawn? When does managing risk become more important than protecting people’s wellbeing? Too often, companies draw the line closer to silencing people who they are concerned might say something harmful, rather than the public’s need to know.
The same is true for governments. In the context of war, governments keep information secret to protect missions; another reason, however, is to cover abuse. A video released by WikiLeaks in the War Logs entitled “Collateral Murder”, showing the indiscriminate killing of a dozen people and two Reuters journalists by a US Apache Helicopter in Iraq, is a potent reminder of this.
There also exist cases of excessive secrecy. In the George. W Bush Jr era, people scared of the decisions they were making, or unsure of how they would play out in the long run, would frequently classify information. In this case, classification maintains individuals’ political security. Indeed, to achieve a promotion you need a narrative that stands firm. Many people engaged in “illegal” or “illicit” acts, who have later been promoted, stamp down on the release of information to protect their position.
In this climate then, what is the role of the whistleblower? As Edward Snowden argues in his book, Permanent Record, the whistleblower, seeing their life inside an institution as incompatible with the principles developed in society, and to which the institution should be accountable, they disclose information to bring public pressure to bear. “I used to work for the government,” Snowden begins, “but now I work for the public.” Most whistleblowers do not see their actions as heroic, but rather as fulfilling their “job” or “duty”. Snowden for instance, viewed mass surveillance programmes as a great contravention of the constitution of the United States, by which states guarantee “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”, and the principles of the “basic values of any free society”. He now lives in exile in Russia.
Clearly, these unwarranted mass surveillance programmes violate such oaths. So why didn't others blow the whistle? Snowden notes that many of his colleagues were fully aware of the programmes, the senior employees more so. His example begs many questions. When did the truth become a threat? Isn't it “we” who weren't doing our jobs? And have we forgotten that government is not society?
Pi Opinion content does not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial team, Pi Media society, Students’ Union UCL or University College London. We aim to publish opinions from across the student body — if you read anything you would like to respond to, get in touch via email.