Privacy Protections and Whistleblowing

Guidelines on a person’s privacy or documents collected during crime investigation by the police are protected by the Freedom of Information Act. The FOIA, exemption 7(C) postulates that law enforcement is required to withhold information that may harm the personal privacy of an individual while giving certain exemptions if the information were to be revealed (Halstuk & Chamberlin, 2006). The Supreme delivered a unanimous verdict on the matter, supporting the federal’s government argument that Favish failed to show adequate reasons for the disclosure. The victim’s parents sought disclosure of the documents since the family thought the government might have had a hand in the death of their loved ones. Appellate courts had ruled that the government ought to disclose the photographs to aid in the parents’ investigations. The court reversed the orders because Favish failed to show how the personal interests of the deceased were infringed upon by failure to disclose the photos.
The assertions of the Supreme are true and correct. Justice Kennedy tore into the Favish argument that on personal control of information was too narrow to argue in Favish case. However, an important case point involves the broad protection of survivor privacy under the exemption unlike previous thought under cultural traditions and the common law. The arguments in broader context imply that the court protected the family from unfrivolous claims in the public domain after some pictures of the deceased surfaced in the media (Hoefges, Halstuk & Chamberlin, 2003).

Furthermore, for the balance of privacy rights given in the Act, the requester ought to give accurate facts of the reasons for the request. The ruling further guided litigants on the definition of public figures, public places, specific interest for disclosure of documents and demonstrated that the release of information to one is the release to all (Halstuk, 2005).
Whistleblowing Actions
The United States has enacted various statutes supporting the protection of whistleblowers both in government and the private sector. Provisions guiding whistleblowing was protected through the 1978 Act on Civil Service Reform. The Merit Protection Board provided logistical protection for the whistleblowers in the nation. The board has shown that over the years employees have been unable to disclose damning information to their superior or law enforcement agencies through coercion or reprisal (Henningsen, Valde & Denbow, 2013). Whistleblowers are today at risk of losing their lives or citizenship, as was the case of Andrew Snowden. However, the subject has been of much public concern especially if the information released is of public harm. The subject has divided the public, in particular on the Snowden case.
Reasons for Increased Reprisals in Whistle Blowing
Retaliation claims against whistleblowing have been on the rise due to illusionary laws enacted by the state. The laws have weaknesses that are often used to defeat litigants in courts. New York courts awarded the leasing company in Julio C. Ortiz v. Penske Truck Leasing case, $90,000 in damages, illustrating that the victim failed actions of the company resulted in unsafe working conditions for both employees and customers. The case demonstrates the gaps in whistleblowing laws that are used by large corporations to defeat honest courses against injustice. Moreover, critics believe the state has implemented such legislation to ensnare victims into whistleblowing, leading to vicious and expensive court cases (Near & Miceli, 2008). Ombudsmen and anti-corruption czars have in the past failed to protect witnesses or prosecute case enough to sentence the perpetrators. Public debate on whistle-blowing has also reduced the net effect of the laws or protections described under various statutes. Retaliatory attacks have been meted on the victims by the public, defendants, and political leaders opposing the actions. Furthermore, whistleblowers have used sensitive information to trade it to enemies of the state, leading to further retaliation from both the public and the government agencies.
Reducing Reprisals of Whistle Blowing
Whistleblowing has significantly reduced uncouth behaviour by employing in private and public organizations. William Binney’s actions to lay bare the wasteful nature of the National Security Agency (NSA) on the Trailblazer project and its contraventions of the residents’ rights. Proponents have proposed a more open culture to cultivate easier ways to provide damning information of corruption of professional misdeeds to their superiors. Open cultures cultivate education on the confidence of the structures given, ensuring workers are confident of a fair trial. Furthermore, anonymous communication channels have substantially reduced retaliatory attacks since the whistleblowers are unknown. However, the trend has led to the production of overly sensitive matter such security policies and trade secrets. Giving rewards to whistleblowers would increase the number of people willing to provide damning information on mismanagement of resources or other misdeeds. Therefore, perpetrators are likely to be fearful of the person’s will to reveal the misdeeds done by the perpetrators. Regulators also need to actively promote activism for whistleblowing, through ethical and cultural roles underpinned in the society (Lee, Cayer & Lan, 2006). The worldwide population has been cognizant of the actions and sought to give asylum to whistleblowers. Andrew Snowden has been actively a resident in Russia, illustrating the importance of the international community in the fight. Conclusively, whistleblowing ought to be encouraged in the society.
References
Halstuk, M. E. (2005). When is an Invasion of Privacy Unwarranted under the FOIA-An
Analysis of the Supreme Court’s Sufficient Reason and Presumption of Legitimacy
Standards. U. Fla. JL & Pub. Pol’y, 16, 361.
Halstuk, M. E., & Chamberlin, B. F. (2006). The Freedom of Information Act 1966–2006: A
retrospective on the rise of privacy protection over the public interest in knowing what
the government’s up to. Communication law and policy, 11(4), 511-564.
Henningsen, M. L. M., Valde, K. S., & Denbow, J. (2013). Academic misconduct: A goals–
plans–action approach to peer confrontation and whistle-blowing. Communication
Education, 62(2), 148-168.
Hoefges, M., Halstuk, M. E., & Chamberlin, B. F. (2003). Privacy Rights versus FOIA
Disclosure Policy: The Uses and Effects Double Standard in Access to Personally-
Identifiable Information in Government Records. Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J., 12, 1.
Lee, H., Cayer, N. J., & Lan, G. Z. (2006). Changing federal government employee attitudes
since the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Review of Public Personnel Administration,
26(1), 21-51.
Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (2008). Wrongdoing, Whistle-Blowing, and Retaliation in the US
Government What Have Researchers Learned From the Merit Systems Protection Board
(MSPB) Survey Results?. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 28(3), 263-281.