When we think of the most famous whistleblowers, many of us immediately remember Edward Snowden, the whistleblower who, in 2013, at only 29 years old, leaked classified information about the US government. Edward Snowden became almost instantly famous, but his image is now controversial: he is considered both a traitor and a hero, as many whistleblowers often are.
Edward Snowden’s celebrity has led to various publications, documentaries and even films that seem to explain his extremely complex story. But beyond these aspects, we can learn a lot about whistleblowing and how it manifests itself on a daily basis by looking closely at Edward Snowden’s story.
Before sharing his information with journalists, Edward Snowden recorded several internal reports drawing attention to his concerns. But these internal reports were ignored.
This is often the case – whistleblowers seeking a resolution to a problem they have raised, meaning whistleblowers who don’t just want to damage the image of a company or institution through unchecked and unverified disclosures in the press, often choose internal reporting as their first option. But to the extent that this is ignored, trivialised or covered up, whistleblowers understand that the only remaining option is public disclosure, with all the risks that this entails.
One can only imagine what would have happened if Edward Snowden’s warning had not been ignored – perhaps it would have prompted more quickly drastic changes in the various ways the US government operates, or perhaps this thought remains naive and public disclosure was necessary to implement major changes.
Edward Snowden has been charged with criminal offences, had his passport revoked, was stranded for 40 days in an airport and now, after a long period of political asylum, has become a citizen of the Russian Federation. He has developed a whole series of actions that he takes every day in order to further protect himself from potential attacks or reprisals, including covering his face and laptop whenever he enters his password.
The conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the risk of retaliation is real, and this creates the need to protect whistleblowers. The more serious the reported or disclosed breach is, the greater the risk of retaliation. This direct link between the seriousness of a breach and the risk of retaliation needs to be recognised by whistleblowers and the companies concerned, as the penalties for retaliation are financially and reputational.
In relation to this issue, the following should be remembered: firstly, Law 361/2022 on the protection of whistleblowers in the public interest (Whistleblowing Law) applies to any act that contravenes the object or purpose of a law. The practice that will form in connection with the new Whistleblowing Act will indicate to us in the meantime what actions were intended by the legislator in using the above phrase. Until then, however, we must also bear in mind that employees often perceive rather some immorality, some aspect that simply does not seem right to them, or that they consider to be unethical or immoral – not everyone can recognize a violation of the law, but most people can recognize an immoral action.
Many actions that can be considered immoral or unethical are also a violation of the law, because the link between the two concepts is, and always has been, of the social action-legislative reaction type. In this respect, it remains for the person responsible for handling integrity warnings to look beyond the unethical nature of a given action, in order to be able to verify to what extent this unethicality also constitutes a breach of the law or not.
Edward Snowden did not wish to remain anonymous. Given the celebrity he now enjoys, you’d think that might have been the reason. But we believe there are other potential explanations: by choosing to reveal his name, he was able to protect himself in practice, using all the means at his disposal. From a certain point of view, we could even say that the celebrity he now enjoys is an additional safeguard against potential reprisals. The principle behind this is simple: it is generally easier for us to protect what we know than what we do not know.