The need for a technically safe environment to protect the identities of anonymous whistle blowers
Estimates of the scale of corruption in South Africa vary considerably, but it is safe to say that it runs into billions of Rand every year.The reporting of suspicious incidents or situations by the public is one of the prime components in the process of detecting, preventing and prosecuting corrupt activities. Without such reporting, law enforcement becomes more difficult with the result that many white collar crimes go undetected.
Reporting suspicious incidents is mostly facilitated through the use of "Crime Lines". These are typically 0800 telephone numbers that can be dialled by whistle blowers to report their suspicions. SMS tip offs are also available as a means of assisting public spirited individuals to alert the authorities.
Protecting the identity of the whistle blower can be of paramount importance. To report an incident which exposes another individual can be seriously dangerous to the person doing the reporting and cases are documented where such whistle blowers have lost their lives, including in South Africa.
Many whistle blowers choose to reveal their identities. This usually occurs in relatively minor cases. The risk to the whistle blower correlates strongly to the seriousness of the case. Anonymity is less likely to be required in reporting a corrupt traffic official. Anonymity is often required where the stakes are high; those cases where the perpetrators will spare no effort or expense in identifying and "dealing with" any whistle blower. These cases could include monitoring Crime Lines and/or websites by way of electronic eavesdropping.
Investigations by law enforcement agencies are strongly facilitated when the identity of the whistle blower is known and this is always preferred. Arguments are often made that whistle blowers are protected by the law and should, therefore, have no fear to reveal their identity. The Protected Disclosures Act, 26 of 2000 was designed specifically to provide such protection. Yet, despite the legal protection, cases are still reported where whistle blowers did not enjoy the protection promised. In press reports in 2011, a case is described where a municipal manager was dismissed and her house burnt down when she initiated an investigation into fraud. The reports claim that, although her dismissal had been ruled unfair in court, her employers still refused to reinstate her. It is not difficult to imagine how unpleasant her working life might have become even if she were reinstated.
In another incident the media reported a case in 2007 where the medical superintendent of a hospital in the Eastern Cape was dismissed when "speaking out against [the hospital's] handling of the Frere Hospital maternity saga".
It is clear that, whilst identified whistle blowing is undoubtedly the preferred way, there is a strong case to be made for anonymous whistle blowing, especially in serious cases of corruption. One cannot deny the fact that an anonymous whistle blower is a far more useful citizen to those who choose to keep a fearful silence in the face of the corrosive effects of corruption and other crimes.
Reporting by telephone provides very little in terms of anonymity. Most companies and institutions keep logs of telephone calls being made from their telephone extensions and if someone is suspected to have reported an incident, such logs can be accessed to reveal the origin of a call. Even calls made from home, from a cellular phone or from a public telephone carry unacceptably high risks. The technology exists to monitor phone calls.
The ideal is to create a channel for whistle blowing which guarantees anonymity. It is doubtful if the ideal of a 100% guarantee will ever be achieved, simply because of the very nature of technology. Technology advances at a rapid rate and newer technology is always available not only to legitimate users, but also to those wanting to exploit it for selfish or illegitimate purposes. This makes the 100% guarantee of anonymity a practical impossibility.
It is still, however, meaningful to try and get as close as possible to the 100% guarantee so that, when the prospective whistle blower considers the options to blow or not to blow the whistle, an outcome in favour of blowing the whistle is achieved. It is anticipated that such a safe environment will encourage prospective whistle blowers to deliver their messages and/or evidence to law enforcement authorities.
In approaching the '100% guarantee', it should not be necessary to rely on the whistle blower's skill in the use of technology. For instance, it is impractical and even dangerous to expect of the whistle blower to follow an arduous and time-consuming process to rid the message and attachments of all embedded identifying data. There are simply too many unacceptable risks in such a scenario and something more robust and more reliable must be found.
Citizens against Corruption has a proposed solution which involves a simple, user-friendly process whereby the whistle blower goes with his soft-copy evidence to an internet café, accesses a website and sends an anonymous message with, or without attachments. The only technical skill required is to be able to access a well-publicised website for whistleblowers.
The website automatically takes care of getting rid of all identifying data so that, when the message is received by the addressee, even the addressee has no idea of the identity of the originator. Should the addressee be forced through a court order to reveal the identity of the originator, there would simply not be any data to comply with the order. The intention is to make such data available to law enforcement agencies to investigate the claims and the evidence.
Citizens against Corruption is confident that its design has eliminated any technical means of intercepting messages ('eavesdropping') and attachments by criminal elements wishing to trace the identity of the whistle blower. The technology in mind has been tested over many years by the best technical minds in governments and others and has successfully survived all attempts to 'break' it. Moreover, putting the design into practice is completely legal. It is better than the traditional brown envelope containing a message clipped from the newspapers in the way known to Sherlock Holmes.
The proposal has reached the stage where it is ready to be tested. For that purpose Citizens against Corruption has embarked on a campaign for the development of a Proof of Concept. If this is successful there is the prospect of a safe but anonymous whistle blowing mechanism being made available to the public.
South Africa needs every possible mechanism available utilised to its maximum to curb the growth of corrupt activities. In this respect whistle blowing plays a very important role. Whistle blowing is in the hands of people of integrity, who observe corrupt deeds, to report them to the relevant authorities. Such reporting carries huge risks, including loss of life, damage to property and/or dismissal or victimisation in the workplace.
Whistle blowers deserve to be protected. Such protection must be rooted in the legal framework but it needs to be complemented by technologically tested mechanisms that allow whistle blowers to remain anonymous if they so choose. Citizens against Corruption believes, with well founded confidence, that it has developed such a mechanism.
Johan van Loggerenberg
Founding member and Director of Citizens Against Corruption
(a non-profit, civil society organisation)
and Faculty Member at the University of Pretoria (Department of Informatics).
He can be contacted at johan.vl@citizensagainstcorruption.org.za
