Writing 04
According to Roger Boisjoly, "[whistleblowing] destroyed [his] career, [his] life, everything else." What good, then, is whistleblowing?
In today's ever growing world of technology where systems become more and more complicated and more integrated into our everyday lives, the room for error, disaster, and misuse of power grows too. Whether it is technical failure or unethical behavior, whistleblowers have played in integral part in alerting the public to the wrongdoings of engineers and the leadership bodies that govern them.
I think the less ambiguous, more clear-cut "acceptable whistleblowing" is when it relates to "engineering disasters." If an organization cuts corners in ways that lead to some sort of serious malfunction resulting in significant damage, I believe those involved have a moral obligation to come forward with any knowledge they have. This is important for two reasons: to hold those responsible accountable and to best ensure a similar disaster doesn't happen again. In these matters, the biggest factor on the line are jobs. When people are in positions of power and in control of advanced technological systems, they answer first and foremost to safety, not their board or shareholders. As the saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility.
That being said, whistleblowing in these situations still must be done through the right channels. Government agencies exist to serve these purposes, and (at least ideally) know how to best handle situations of this nature. A rogue employee leaking to the media is not the most helpful way to solve issues of this sort.
A more morally and ethically ambiguous area of whistleblowing is when it comes to issues regarding secrecy and security. Whistleblowers like Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning fall under this category, and usually others like them are government employees. National security is perhaps THE biggest concern of the government, and with this, they simply must have secrets from the general public to protect their interests. The question, then, is when do these secrets go too far? What should and shouldn't the general public know?
In the case of Edward Snowden, to me at least, his decision seems obvious. He discovered that the NSA was running constant surveillance on basically every single US citizen without their knowledge, with access to texts, calls, emails, and even webcams. He was these practices as grossly unethical and felt a moral obligation to say something, to let the people know. I personally see Snowden as a hero. I see the information that he leaked as absolutely unacceptable for the government to keep secret, and I am glad the people know.
I find it hard to nail down some sort of general rule of thumb on this sort of whistleblowing, though. I can't simply say "well you can leak this TYPE of information but not this TYPE." The best I can really say is that "if you feel like the general public is being seriously wronged by certain information being withheld, then you should leak." I realize this statement is vastly broad and up for serious interpretation as to what a "serious wronging" would be, but I simply cannot make a blanket statement.
With whistleblowers, I think it is always going to be on a case by case basis.
In today's ever growing world of technology where systems become more and more complicated and more integrated into our everyday lives, the room for error, disaster, and misuse of power grows too. Whether it is technical failure or unethical behavior, whistleblowers have played in integral part in alerting the public to the wrongdoings of engineers and the leadership bodies that govern them.
I think the less ambiguous, more clear-cut "acceptable whistleblowing" is when it relates to "engineering disasters." If an organization cuts corners in ways that lead to some sort of serious malfunction resulting in significant damage, I believe those involved have a moral obligation to come forward with any knowledge they have. This is important for two reasons: to hold those responsible accountable and to best ensure a similar disaster doesn't happen again. In these matters, the biggest factor on the line are jobs. When people are in positions of power and in control of advanced technological systems, they answer first and foremost to safety, not their board or shareholders. As the saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility.
That being said, whistleblowing in these situations still must be done through the right channels. Government agencies exist to serve these purposes, and (at least ideally) know how to best handle situations of this nature. A rogue employee leaking to the media is not the most helpful way to solve issues of this sort.
A more morally and ethically ambiguous area of whistleblowing is when it comes to issues regarding secrecy and security. Whistleblowers like Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning fall under this category, and usually others like them are government employees. National security is perhaps THE biggest concern of the government, and with this, they simply must have secrets from the general public to protect their interests. The question, then, is when do these secrets go too far? What should and shouldn't the general public know?
In the case of Edward Snowden, to me at least, his decision seems obvious. He discovered that the NSA was running constant surveillance on basically every single US citizen without their knowledge, with access to texts, calls, emails, and even webcams. He was these practices as grossly unethical and felt a moral obligation to say something, to let the people know. I personally see Snowden as a hero. I see the information that he leaked as absolutely unacceptable for the government to keep secret, and I am glad the people know.
I find it hard to nail down some sort of general rule of thumb on this sort of whistleblowing, though. I can't simply say "well you can leak this TYPE of information but not this TYPE." The best I can really say is that "if you feel like the general public is being seriously wronged by certain information being withheld, then you should leak." I realize this statement is vastly broad and up for serious interpretation as to what a "serious wronging" would be, but I simply cannot make a blanket statement.
With whistleblowers, I think it is always going to be on a case by case basis.
Comments
Post a Comment