3 ms·

It's definitely ironic to suggest a whistleblower goes through the approved process of the entity against which he's blowing the whistle. I'd say that really t

It's definitely ironic to suggest a whistleblower goes through the approved process of the entity against which he's blowing the whistle. I'd say that really this just shows the limitations of the concept of whistleblower laws- essentially they're just a feel good concept that lets people blow the whistle against entities the people in power want them too (like the silly Facebook thing). I don't really have an opinion about Snowden, but I'd say good or bad, if you're really planning on exposing "the system" you can't really expect any protection, and I think it's impossible to build in that kind of protection. An simple and maybe flawed example would be vigilante justice. Someone can decide to kill someone extra judicially. They may be "right" in some way, but there is never going to be an allowance for it.

schoen 4y ago
There are meaningful benefits from the existing whistleblower laws; they're just focused on a very different set of problems and concerns. The existing whistleblower laws handle cases where a small number of people are, in fact, not following the official rules. This might be sexual harassment or embezzlement or something, or someone otherwise using government resources for personal aggrandizement. They don't really handle cases where a government entity has deliberately chosen (more or less following proper procedures or more or with the acquiescence or support of its leadership) to do something that some people think is bad. What someone might (perhaps dismissively) term a political objection to the entity's decisions or actions.