Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
9. Characterizing as "hate?" I totally DISAGREE.
Sat Aug 20, 2016, 02:03 PM
Aug 2016

We have a huge privacy problem. People have died and investments of literally billions toward causes important, sometimes critical, to our own wellbeing have been compromised or largely ruined by "whistleblowers." Not all are noble or wise by a long shot. Some are ignorant, naive, arrogant, disgruntled resentful.

Every single day without fail cyberattacks attempt to take down various parts of the interconnected systems we depend on to live. Many of these are trials of weapons in development to be deployed for real in future, others real attempts.

That's only one kind of attack being fended off, but people should know that a cyberattack that took down our entire grid coast to coast, difficult but far from impossible, would kill an estimated 90% of our population within the first year. That's according to a study presented to Congress.

There are many smaller attacks that are constantly defended against, such as elections tampering, derailing trains, technology theft, and on and on.

President Obama started prosecuting these things, not because he "hates" whistleblowers (outrageous suggestion) or because he plans on making himself a dictator, but because our wellbeing and in some cases our lives literally depend on lax security being tightened.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

It does seem hypocritical bluedye33139 Aug 2016 #1
We need a whistleblowing process/platform that enables real reform. Period. cali Aug 2016 #2
What would the proper way for Sterling to have alerted the press to the Iranian nuclear operation? bluedye33139 Aug 2016 #3
I didn't say to the press. cali Aug 2016 #4
I'm sorry, I was following your link to the Sterling case, which arguably isn't a reason to bluedye33139 Aug 2016 #5
I totally agree! cpamomfromtexas Aug 2016 #6
thanks. cali Aug 2016 #7
people who murder indiscriminately using drones are not concerned about this guy nt msongs Aug 2016 #8
Characterizing as "hate?" I totally DISAGREE. Hortensis Aug 2016 #9
Fear! Fear! Fear! Fear! Fear! Fear! wildbilln864 Aug 2016 #10
Wasn't trying to trigger your fight or flight response. Hortensis Aug 2016 #11
you are mistaken. I am not running. wildbilln864 Aug 2016 #12
Who said they haven't also performed positive and Hortensis Aug 2016 #13
ok. n/t wildbilln864 Aug 2016 #14
Excellent post and documentation. The point needs to be made that AikidoSoul Aug 2016 #15
Kick and rec -- NT AikidoSoul Aug 2016 #16
If the jury was right, Sterling is no "whistle-blower." The jury found that he leaked details struggle4progress Aug 2016 #17
I just served on a jury for this even though I had recommended it. Ron Obvious Aug 2016 #18
perhaps they thought that would make you a perfect whistleblower nashville_brook Aug 2016 #19
Self righteous assholes who call themselves whistle blowers... uponit7771 Aug 2016 #20
BIG kick and rec Arazi Aug 2016 #21
The gullibility of some to fall for a professional liar is disturbing. msanthrope Aug 2016 #22
Agree with you! bobGandolf Aug 2016 #23
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The hate for whistleblowe...»Reply #9