Whistleblowing has the inherent power to influence political decisions that would otherwise have continued in their original hidden course. The government is often forced to share their proceedings to the general public after they are exposed by whistleblowers. Whistleblowing becomes a forced call to action or could even be described as a catalyst for reform through the exposure of vague policies and lack of oversight.
One of the most well-known cases of whistleblowing in the US is when Snowden made the precarious decision of revealing the NSA’s nationwide surveillance over every single American citizen. Snowden’s trust in the journalists to deliver the information to the public was critical in preventing deniability by government officials. After the overwhelming backlash from the people, the government had to immediately change their focal point to addressing the concerns of its citizens. Reforms began to be drafted, highlighting greater transparency and the act of collecting cell phone records without tangible evidence. A crackdown on other government organizations was believed to be necessary to avoid another public scene and future whistleblowers. Even though there were attempts to provide protection to whistleblowers like Snowden, in 2014, the government chose not to move forward with these movements, but rather focused on the people at large. “In June 2014…the House proposed a USA Freedom bill that would offer privacy protection, and passed by a vote of 293 to 123…” (Jeffreys-Jones). In this same month, Representative Rush D. Holt had proposed a plan to allocate 2 million dollars from the intelligence management budget to protecting whistleblowers and was met with hefty opposition.
Cases regarding mass surveillance perpetrated by the US government became the forefront of news stations. One case in particular, ACLU vs Clapper, which brought the question of whether government surveillance was constitutional, could not be tried fairly because the court needed proof of surveillance specifically upon oneself. “... but as surveillance practices were kept tightly under wraps, such proof was impossible to obtain” (Jeffreys-Jones). This evidence was well hidden by government organizations like the NSA, so it was particularly difficult to obtain any evidence. In the end, the Congressional Research Service concluded that they could not reach a verdict because of the lack of specific proof.
Citations:
Jeffreys-Jones, Rhodri. We Know All about You : The Story of Surveillance in Britain and America, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.library.unlv.edu/lib/unlv/detail.action?docID=4816070.
Image Source: Wix Media
Commenti