Ethics in the Information Age                     Discussion project                 Whistleblowing

 Look at the five criteria for whistle-blowing on p. 468 (print version) in section 9.6.4, and reproduced below.   Notice that DeGeorge says that when the first 3 are satisfied it is OK to blow the whistle, and when all 5 are satisfied one has an obligation (duty) to blow the whistle.

1. How would these criteria apply to the case of the Twitter whistleblower case, described in the following articles:
   

   https://www.engadget.com/twitter-still-hasnt-addressed-egregious-whistleblower-claims-161554874.html

   https://www.kolide.com/blog/the-twitter-whistleblower-story-is-worse-than-you-think

   https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/09/13/twitter-whistleblower-peiter-zatko-testifies/

   Suggested procedure: assign one of these articles to each group member; each member read your assigned article; report back to the group about the facts(or alleged facts) that you discovered that are relevant to applying the critiera for whistleblowing to this case.
   
   
2. Discuss whether or not you think these are reasonable and appropriate criteria.
3. If Brian Martin and Robert Jackall are right about the nature of most corporate cultures, does this change your assessment of the criteria?
4. Consider whether you personally would be willing to do what these guidelines require.  (And, if not, why not.)

DeGeorge’s criteria (as boiled down by Quinn, slightly revised by me);

1.  Do you believe the problem may result in “serious and considerable harm to the public”?
2.  Have you told your manager (immediate supervisor) your concerns about the potential harm?
3.  Have you tried every possible channel within your organization to resolve the problem?
4.  Do you have access to documented evidence that would persuade a neutral outsider that your view is correct?
5.  Are you reasonably sure that, if you do bring this matter to public attention (or to the attention of the relevant authorities), something will be done to prevent the anticipated harm?