Mal Fletcher comments
'While all deception requires secrecy, all secrecy is not meant to deceive,' wrote the Swedish-born philosopher and ethicist Sissela Bok.
In terms of global news stories, this year may be remembered as the year of the whistleblower.
The event that most dominated world headlines this year was probably the BP oil spill off the Florida coast.
As BP struggled to find a way to limit environmental damage, whistleblowers leaked internal documents suggesting that the company was not keeping accurate records of how its rigs were built. This would make diagnosing and solving specific rig problems much harder.
Meanwhile, another whistleblower accused BP of cheating when it tested equipment designed to prevent disastrous blowouts on its rigs. Whistleblowing wasn't at the centre of this story, but it certainly made its presence felt.
Whistleblowing was at the centre of a more recent story, which focused on accusations of impropriety at the heart of the 2018 football World Cup host selection process. England reportedly lost the right to host the cup because of media reports that had been fuelled by leaked documents and secret discussions with FIFA insiders.
Yet one story more than any other put whistleblowers on the map this year: the ongoing Wikileaks saga. In this instance, whistleblowing has moved from being the source of a story, to becoming the subject of the story.
The notion that employees should expose corrupt or unethical practices in business or government is no new thing. Had Watergate happened today, Deep Throat, aka William Mark Felt, Sr. would have instantly become a respected member of the whistleblowing fraternity.
In the 1980s, a few brave souls compromised their careers, reputations and safety to challenge the big tobacco companies. After this, 'whistleblower' became a term of respect and whistleblowers were often rightly lauded as moral crusaders.
These days, whistleblowing has become part and parcel of business life. Official figures published in March showed that the number of UK employees claiming to have been sacked or mistreated for exposing corrupt practices at work has increased tenfold over the past decade.
Whistleblowing has been growing in influence since the 1970s. Yet the Wikileaks story - and the activities of its founder Julian Assange - has turned whistleblowing into something akin to a career choice.
Wikileaks has provided an unprecedented platform for those who want to leak sensitive secrets and the publicity it has attracted has glamorised their work.
Some commentators argue that Julian Assange and his colleagues are champions of free speech. Others see them as defenders of press freedom. Still others claim that the Wikileaks crew are making a stand in support of the true culture of the internet and the world wide web.
There are good reasons to be wary of all three arguments.
A thoughtful piece and a refreshing contrast to some notions of freedom on the grounds of 'because we want to' or 'because we can', but:
1. To whom would you suggest Wikileaks held itself accountable?
2. How do they stop themselves being the story, when the essence of the story is the putative arrest of Assange?
3. The third point about increasing government control is well made, but haven't the major institutions (commercial and governmental) also won if Assange doesn't publish?