Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

You were wrong in saying I was making misleading and / or false statements about Snowden's lack of protection and you're wrong in your belief that the law you cited offers protection to whistleblowers.

The Whistleblower Protection Act - which is what I was originally talking about - has two seperate features. The first is to provide a well-defined pathway for reporting abuses to Congress. The second is to provide protection from retaliation against those who use this path.

The point I made is that this Act covers Federal employees only, and not private contractors.

What you referred to was a different law, written specifically for NatSec agencies. Like the Whistleblower Protection Act, it delineates a clear path for reporting abuse to Congress. And unlike the more general Act, it opens this path to private contractors as well as direct employees of the government. However—and this is critical—it does NOT provide the shield against retaliation that the Whistleblower Protection Act provides. In other words, if you're a private contractor (i.e. unprotected) and you use it to speak truth to power, you'd better be prepared to run.

So like I said, as a private security contractor, Snowden doesn't enjoy meaningful protections in the event that he blows a whistle. All he's got is a path for doing so that he may use at his own (very considerable) risk.

Again, as noted, not a single complaint has reached Congress via this channel. Not one. That should give you an idea as to how important the protections that Snowden doesn't enjoy really are.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: