mmm offhand I think that if you are an employee you have an obligation to promote the interest of your employer or qut if you cannot. So I don't regard the Edwards employer as a whistleblower. I think that what he did to his wife was reprehensible but ... well, it rather depends on what statements he made about "family values" so just perhaps it might be legitimate news. The morality of it from the pont of view of the person who leaked is less clear.
A scientist working for a tobacco company might decide that the interest of the public outweighed his employers' but they took the job in the first place, what do they expect? Stilll.... I worked for a law firm that represented RJ Reynolds once and since the lawsuit is a done deal I guess the NDA no longer applies. I smoked when I took the job and was horrified by some of the substances that showed up in lab notes. Dozens of poisons and even some radioactive materials. It did help me to quit, though it took me a couple of years. I really think that it depends on the situation. Dana > But then we get to those areas that are a bit more grey. What > employees who take confidential information from their workplace > because of suspected wrong doing? And farther down that slippery > slope, what about, for instance, employees of John Edwards who sent > damning evidence of his extra-marital activities to the National > Enquirer? > > I would personally feel a moral obligation to publish evidence of the > wrong doing of a company I worked for, as in the case of scientists > who came forward to show the faked reports from tobacco companies. It > is certainly illegal to abscond with documents like that but what > about the greater good? One of the things I really dislike about the > Obama administration is their current zealous prosecution of federal > whistleblowers when the whistleblowing involves anything the admin has > deemed "national security". I understand their need to protect > national security, but all too often national security is just a > blatant attempt to hide things which would embarrass the government. > > I'm not sure what all the boundaries should be. But I do feel strongly > that taking sensitive information and distributing it isn't always > wrong. > > Judah > > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> We agree there. The stuff he found would not have been usable in >> court. Publishing the business letters might have been a legitimate >> free speech case, but that's not what he did. There's an invason of >> privacy there if you can use such a word for a politican who made her >> Down's syndrome son and teenaged daughter's sex life part of her >> campaign. >> >> >> >> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Scott Stroz <boyz...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Sure, as long as the evidence is acquired legally. >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:317304 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
