Introduction
A whistle-blower is an individual who takes the required initiative in providing information to the government or law enforcement bodies about businesses or organizations involved in alleged illegal actions. These actions are considered to be a form of prosocial behavior by some scientists (Lavena, 2014). To safeguard the interests of the country and citizens and to encourage employees to reveal unethical and illegal activities, the US government passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX in 2002).
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act provides a means for employees to report against their employers about retaliatory actions taken against them for the disclosure of their illegal or inappropriate activities. Recent years have seen increasing instances of whistle-blowing whereby many employees have come forth in disclosing questionable activities carried out by their employers. However, there are cases in which the present government has adopted exploitative measures by prosecuting whistle-blowers under different sections of the Espionage Act with the result that the majority of what is revealed by whistle-blowers is mostly not made known to the public at large.
In this regard, the whistle-blowing incident involving Edward Snowden has led to heated debates across the world ever since Snowden divulged pertinent information about the alleged malpractices adopted by the National Security Agency. Such malpractices were adopted in gross violation of the legal code of conduct that organizations are required to follow in respecting citizen rights and privacy.
Main Body
From the disclosures made by Edward Snowden in 2013, the world learned about the extent to which the National Security Agency (NSA) had delved into the personal and official lives of millions of people in the US as well as other parts of the world. It became known that the NSA was constantly involved in collecting personal information about people from their emails, phone call records, and their friends, relatives, and acquaintances.
People realized that the NSA had grossly exceeded its mandate and misused its authority. The immediate result of the whistle-blowing incident was a declaration by the judiciary that the NSA had violated the Constitution. President Obama appointed a Panel to inquire into the issue and it made a strong indictment against the NSA for having invaded the privacy of people. Recommendations were made to revamp the entire functioning of the agency’s operations.
It is clear that in terms of the impact of Snowden’s revelations, the Obama administration had no alternative but to introduce important changes in the practices followed by the NSA. While working as a contractor with the NSA, Snowden had become extremely disappointed with its overzealousness in seeking maximum information about people by using all possible means. In frustration, he made the information available to the media, which in turn published all details for the public to read.
However, the American government was quick to react in framing charges of espionage against Snowden. But Snowden fled to Russia before the government could arrest him and continues to live there under the protection of the Russian government. Many believe that Snowden exposed a great deal of valuable information and should not be charged for espionage. He may have acted illegally in disclosing classified information but excellent service has been done to American citizens in making them aware of the NSA’s illegal activities.
Snowden has been charged with violating provisions of the Espionage Act by clandestinely passing on confidential information to unauthorized entities. He has also been charged with stealing government property. If all these charges are proved against Snowden he can be imprisoned for life, which is why Snowden is on the run and has taken refuge in Russia.
At the same time, it is argued by the US government that protection under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is not available to Snowden because the provisions apply only to employees and not to contractors (Edward Snowden, Whistle-Blower, 2014).
It is quite apparent that Snowden’s actions have led to a strong debate about the practices adopted by the NSA in collecting information about citizens’ activities. However, discussions so far have not focused much on the implications of whistle-blowing incidents involving intelligence agencies.
It was to check illegal practices adopted in the corporate world that the US government passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002. Although the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) provides for checking regulatory practices, the public at large associated it with protecting employees of publicly listed companies so that they are not discriminated against for reporting violations made by their employers. It is now widely held that all major businesses have adopted procedures in ensuring that SOX is implemented in the true spirit.
However, many believe that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act mainly refers to publicly listed companies so that shareholders are protected from fraudulent activities. Analysts hold that government employees are not covered under the Act’s provisions. It becomes apparent from the revelations made by Snowden that he was fully justified in reporting NSA’s actions. It is known through his interviews that he had made repeated attempts by informing his manager but was always told to remain quiet (OrgChanger, 2014).
Any law-abiding citizen would conclude under such circumstances that people’s interests and privacy must be safeguarded. Given that security of privacy had become a mere formality in the absence of any effective system that assured checking and balancing, Snowden did what any responsible citizen ought to have done under similar circumstances.
According to Oswald (2014), whistle-blower laws are in place to provide protection as well as rewards to people who provide the government with information about illegal and dangerous activities. Some analysts have argued that the definition of whistle-blower as given in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act does not apply to Snowden because the activities of the National Security Agency cannot be covered under the Act.
However, the crucial issue to consider in this regard is that Snowden initially used internal communication channels in reporting his apprehensions to his manager. Government directives so far have not been clear regarding the coverage of contractors under provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (Day, 2014). This is perhaps why Snowden has chosen to flee and seek asylum in Russia. However, Oswald (2014) has rightly pointed out in this regard that “this question has not been litigated specifically as to PPD 19.
The closest analogous decision appears to be the case of Lawson v. FMR LLC, 12-3, 2014 WL 813701 (U.S. Mar. 4, 2014). In Lawson, the Supreme Court decided that the whistle-blower retaliation protections in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 apply not only to publicly traded companies registered with the SEC but also to contractors and subcontractors of those companies” (Oswald, 2014, p.1). It can be said for sure that contractors in government undertakings do enjoy the protection and cannot be treated as being without any remedies.
It is known through several perspectives that Snowden passes the legal tests that are required for an individual to be considered as a whistle-blower. He has exposed illegal practices of the highest order that were being followed by a high-profile investigation agency (Clayton, 2014). There is no legal process that allows the NSA to indulge in surveillance of communication between citizens whose credibility is established beyond any doubt (Edwards & Angell, 2014).
The law provides that whistle-blowers disclosing classified information have to move through a governmental channel but Snowden went public in sharing such classified information, which means he will have to defend himself on this account. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act does provide that confidential information having a bearing on national security cannot be provided to people that are not authorized to receive it. The Washington Post and The Guardian were certainly not authorized to receive such information from a government contractor.
But it is also argued that there is no clear-cut evidence of Snowden indulging in an illegal act because the divulged documents pertained to surveillance activities that were given approval by Congress and hence open for review by different committees. There are legal issues in specifying the people whom Snowden could have reported to about the issues he wished to divulge, but there is no doubt that he falls within the legal definition of a whistle-blower. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act specifically defines that people can seek protection under its provisions by reporting to law enforcement agencies, supervisors, or Congress (Romano, 2005).
Snowden had reported to his manager but did not get the required response from him. It is in this context that the law provides for the protection of whistle-blowers by way of providing for their testimony before federal regulatory proceedings. Snowden’s biggest advantage is that he is now considered to be a hero because he came out in the open instead of leaking the information through clandestine means.
List of References
Clayton, M. (2013). Edward Snowden: Whistle-blowing protections most likely won’t help.The Christian Science Monitor. Web.
Day, J. (2014). United States: U.S. Supreme Court Extends Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Protections To Employees Of Private Contractors. Web.
Edward Snowden, Whistle-Blower. (2014). The New York Times. Web.
Edwards & Angell. (2014). Sarbanes-oxley: “whistleblower” provisions. Web.
Lavena, C. F. (2014). Whistle-Blowing Individual and Organizational Determinants of the Decision to Report Wrongdoing in the Federal Government. American Review of Public Administration. Web.
OrgChanger. (2014). SOX for Snowden. Web.
Oswald, R. S. (2014). Whistleblowers in the Intelligence Community. Web.
Romano, R. (2005). The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Making of Quack Corporate Governance. The Yale Law Journal, 114(7), 1521-1611.