Whistle-Blowers Face a Lonely and Risky Road

This article features Government Accountability Project’s Senior Counsel and Director of Education, Dana Gold and was originally published here.

Nearly a year after Facebook whistle-blower Frances Haugen testified to the Senate about her employer’s alleged failures, one of cybersecurity’s most prominent figures was doing the same.

On Tuesday, lawmakers questioned former Twitter Inc. security chief Peiter Zatko about what he says is its inability to stave off hackers and fight foreign-influence campaigns, among other concerns.

Documented grievances like Zatko’s and Haugen’s can give rise to prominent congressional hearings, put tech giants in the hot seat and even garner a very public shout-out from the president of the United States. 

But despite the fame, and the chance to make a difference, choosing to be a whistle-blower can also be a lonely, risky road, experts say—even in the best of circumstances. 

“Mudge,” as Zatko is known in the security community, spent hours Tuesday describing a company with outdated software, broad employee access to personal user data and ineffective enforcement from federal regulators. Zatko said he was told that at least one Chinese intelligence agent was on Twitter’s payroll.

Twitter denies Zatko’s claims, calling him a disgruntled former employee who was fired for poor performance. 

The costs for Zatko are already apparent. On Tuesday, The New Yorker reported that his former colleagues were asked to spill his secrets in exchange for cash. Indeed, most whistle-blowers aren’t even high-profile figures appearing before Congress—but rank-and-file workers who feel they could be easily maligned.

“Do I become the person who is seen as the problem, and then have my career trajectory eliminated at this company? Or do I just keep my head down?” said Alexis Ronickher, an attorney with Katz Banks Kumin who’s representing Zatko with the nonprofit group Whistleblower Aid. “Many people are not in a position to waylay their career, so the folks who are willing to do so take on a lot of risk for themselves.”

A bevy of reasons stops workers—whether in Silicon Valley or Washington—from speaking up. They may be afraid of litigation, ruining their reputations, losing security clearances or facing jail time.

People primarily stay silent in the face of misconduct because they worry someone will retaliate against them or they feel speaking up won’t make a difference, said Dana Gold, senior counsel at the Government Accountability Project. “It’s a fear of futility.”

Non-disclosure agreements—ubiquitous in the private sector—have also made it less likely that individuals will speak out. But those agreements are meant to protect proprietary information and not egregious or illegal conduct, experts said.

Whistle-blowers in the public sector also face an uphill climb. Personally, I’ve spoken with government employees who want to disclose “secrets” they felt exposed wrongdoing at the taxpayer’s expense. It’s unclear if federal workers fare better than their private-sector counterparts when it comes to protections, but government whistle-blower complaints have been rising in recent years. (Coincidentally, the Biden administration on Tuesday said it supported expanded whistle-blower protections for the federal workforce.) 

“Whistle-blowers are enforcement mechanisms. That’s why they’re protected,” Gold says. “They’re the best defense against wrongdoing because they’re in the best position to witness it. They’re also the most likely to suffer retaliation.”