It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Think Tank: How do we protect whistleblowers?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 09:31 PM
You know how they have those signs that are for safe places to drop off unwanted babies? Maybe we should have places set up to drop off secret information anonymously. If the whistleblower truly has no hidden agenda behind his secret sharing then he/she shouldn't mind staying anonymous. Then the info can be given to a panel of experts to make sure the info is legit and should be far as who is on this panel...and how they are chosen...I haven't got that far....So yeah Info drop off points...just for those who have to share...

edit on 8/18/13 by shells4u because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 10:12 PM
reply to post by shells4u

Decent idea, I like it. I'm sure the government would put up their ubiquitous traffic cameras covering every site, but we can find a way around that, I suppose.

I wonder about the anonymous aspect of this. I don't know anything about WBs, but isn't he going to have to explain how he had access to the material, where it came from, etc.? We've seen internet fakes of documents, and false allegations; how do we keep that from happening with an anonymous pile of data found in the bottom of a bin?

posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 10:21 PM

how do we keep that from happening with an anonymous pile of data found in the bottom of a bin?
reply to post by charles1952

Maybe they can set up some sort of debriefing like session w/whistleblower and then when all the ducks are in a row the info can be released but the public doesn't need to know who the person is, just that the info was deemed factual...

posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 10:31 PM
For us to put up signs in all our windows as solidarity and to let the A-Holes know what we think of them is wonderful!

I'm going to do this.

Artists should actually create these and put them up for download and make them perfect sizes for printers to create signs for cars and windows, even TSHIRTS.

Show support.

Even my aunt on the phone was talking about the leaders here, and she said, they don't care about humans at all, they don't care if we all died except for a few to work for them. We're just collateral to them and all they want is power. They don't even think about things, they just say whatever they think will give them power without any thought or attachment to us, to the words, etc.

posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 05:19 PM
This is just random thinking, not an official ATS grayeagle Think Tank position.

The WBs have to know where to go, or who to contact, in some secure manner. Follow up contacts have to be arranged, equally securely.

Whether the contact point is local, national, or international, there must be a way to securely transmit the information to a Center for review and evaluation.

The Center could be people spread around the country, or gathered in one place. There are problems with both. If they're spread, there will be more communications, increasing the chance of intercept. If they're centralized (by that I mean meeting together) the meeting might be harder to hide, and each individual would know the identity of the rest. (Masks?) (CCTV conferencing within the building with faces erased?)

The Center makes their decision and securely notifies the WB for next steps. That might be appearing before a Congressional committee, an agency IG, or fleeing the country. In any event, the Center has to arrange for security for the WB, maybe chartered plane, travel plans, maybe a full false identity. If they go full false identity, they'd need to have some source for the documents outside of normal channels. They'd also have to have arrangements for a foreign country to take him, and some way of getting him there.

If it's a state problem, or a problem with a business, maybe the Department of Justice could arrange for protection in some cases. But the Center would have to make the call of what is safe.

That's the barest, bare bones skeleton of what I've taken from this so far. Anybody want to add their corrections and comments?

posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 09:11 PM
reply to post by charles1952

I think that is a pretty good summation Charles of the salient points and concerns so far. I think the transfer of information and the protection of the WB will require some significant security measures, way beyond my skill set. If there are lawyers, IT security folks etc who can way in on this please do.

posted on Aug, 21 2013 @ 10:59 AM
Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years sends a very clear message to WBs. The enhanced ability of the NSA to intercept all forms of communication makes remaining anonymous almost impossible. The direction we are headed almost surely makes accountability for crimes impossible. To all of you out there reading this, is our awareness powerful enough to to stop this madness? Can a few people utilizing legal options release the flood gate of complacency? A deep part of me wants to believe right will overcome might but the evidence seems to indicate the opposite. We have become morally and ethically bankrupt as a country. I have become an independent because I see no party genuinely pursuing either. But who do independents vote for, the lesser of two evils? I started this thread with hopes that a global perspective might produce some possibilities. It is a complex issue for sure and requires the world community to get on board. I will rest my case for the moment. This sentence is in such stark contrast to what has not happened to those who lied to us, who authorized torture and murder of innocent women and children. Has the loss of liberty become just collateral damage?
edit on 06/02/2011 by grayeagle because: correct typo

posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 10:49 PM
What if every non-disclosure statement was legally required to contain wording that the agreement is nullified if illegal behavior is discovered thus protecting the WB from litigation or imprisonment? This would be an international (as much as possible) and national requirement. No one could be forced to sign a non-disclosure unless it contained the exception. There could not be any non-disclosure agreements without the required statement. What do you all think?
edit on 06/02/2011 by grayeagle because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 05:13 PM
reply to post by grayeagle

Dear grayeagle,

My apologies for being away so long. I've given a little thought to the question "What if the WB broke the law?"

It made me wonder what we are protecting whistleblowers from? It's clear we don't want them killed off, or unaccountably kidnapped. "Disappeared," is the word, I think. But do we want to protect them against all legal action? I'm not sure that we do, and if we proposed such a plan, how would we get lawmakers to accept it?

My thought is that our goal should be to keep him physically safe until all his information has been presented, but then what? If the WB has committed a crime, do we just let him go? Do we send him to a special court? If he gets jail, how is he to be protected there.

I'm afraid I was concentrating on getting the information out, and keeping him alive to testify, without thinking much about it after that.

With respect,

posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 09:10 PM
reply to post by charles1952

Those are all valid issues. I am thinking if we insure that any nondisclosure agreement was required to contain the statement that it is nullified if their is illegal activity exposed. Whatever additional legal issues would have to be dealt with by the court. But once submitted to the international court it would be harder for the WB to just suddenly disappear. Once the story is out any effort to shut the person up would be of little value.

posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 10:01 AM
It is eerily quiet on this thread since I posted about changing non-disclosure agreements with mandatory wording that nullifies the agreement if illegal activities are discovered. To clarify, only the reporting of the illegal activities would be released from the non-disclosure agreement. Any other information would be still covered by the agreement. Now could someone please respond!

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in