Beyond Panama Papers: whistleblowers and hackers

The Panama Papers scandal that unravelled a few weeks ago portrays a new wave of investigative journalism that seems to be flourishing as a consequence of the democratisation of new technologies and the Internet. This trend is closely linked to the figure of the whistle blower. The personage of the whistle blower is beginning to gain legitimacy and acceptance in today’s society as several scandals have wrecked our societal structure. Corruption has been exposed; privacy is being contested; and unethical behaviours can easily be tracked down. Journalism, as the profession we once knew, is radically adjusting to new tools and actors. Media need to be working hand in hand with hackers, whistle blowers and unknown sources. It seems that in the Internet era, journalists are no longer in charge of uncovering scoops but rather using their position as legitimate sources of information to process hacked data that is sent by anonymous informants. Yes, there exist indeed lots of great stories that have been revealed by journalists throughout history: this crucial journalistic endeavour needs to keep going on. Journalists remain the major connection between what is happening in the world and society: delivering these events in a coherent and objective way should be their foremost mission. Nonetheless, journalists must conform to the current circumstances and the emergence of new figures such as informers and hackers: they are the ones holding the truly valuable information.

A few years back, a whistle blower was regarded as a traitor; a betrayer whose aim was to inflict pain to others rather than contribute to the well being of society. Now its role and thus society’s perception towards this figure have shifted into another direction. Julian Assange pulled the trigger of the debate with Wikileaks. This man turned the Internet into a scrutiny tool of powerful organizations and governments. No longer were journalists the sole ones in charge of researching, investigating and uncovering stories about governmental misbehaviours – common watchdog practices - but these actions were somewhat taken over by normal people with a good dose of investigative and computer skills. Assange proved that in this new technological phase where most data is stored online, it becomes easier to trespass security barriers and gather useful and relevant information from the 2.0 databases: and so comes along the whistle blower as a key actor to contribute to the task. Edward Snowden became the standard-bearer for whistle blowers in 2013. As a former NSA’s employee (National Security Agency, USA), Snowden quitted his job and flew the country in order to safely denounce the secret mass surveillance program the U.S government was carrying out worldwide. This situation was by all means illegal. Snowden felt it was his duty to reveal American Government unethical practices so that citizens would be aware of what the U.S was doing to them without their acknowledgment or consent.

 In my opinion, the key question on both Wikileaks and Snowden cases is not whether U.S government practices were legitimate or not; whether they had good reasons for conducting a mass espionage plan on individuals, entities or governments: but rather if it was considered illegal for us citizens, to expose unlawful and dishonest activities from anyone by hacking the Internet. Where are the limits to privacy in a 2.0 era? Who should be monitoring this?

When the ones who we expect to be protecting the people, our own governments which we have voted, are in fact acting against us against the system, then there is legitimacy in challenging their status quo: even if this defiance is done by illegal means. Now stop. Let’s imagine for one second that this panorama develops the other way round. What if governments were instead the ones using illegal methods to uncover unethical behaviours about its citizens? Would we then react the same way we are doing right now against them? These reflections indeed prove that this is a thorny issue worth discussing in a longer debate. Does the end justify the means? 

The Panama Papers were sent to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) who went over the 2.6 terabytes of information for over a year. The database sent to them by an anonymous source contained 11.5m emails, passport scans, contracts, share registers and recorded conversations. The hacker contacted the consortium over encrypted messenger. This type of secure encrypted messaging technology has developed thanks to the rise of the Internet. Even if previously there existed instruments for journalists to acquire anonymous tips and information coming from whistle blowers, new platforms such as this one have enabled safer connections between citizens and the media. They have propitiated anonymous sources to take a step into getting in touch with journalists who can then become the legal and legitimate face of the leak. Media enjoy – at least in democratic countries – a special status that grants immunity for the sake of society’s ‘right to know’. As mentioned above, journalists’ new job is to give voice to whistle blowers and hackers, as well as protect them. Giving sense to a bunch of data is an important and tough duty that only professional journalists are able to do: finding the right approach, discerning several angles, disentangle confusing puzzles of facts and figures as well as cracking relevant information are some of the many responsibilities that these professionals are in charge of doing. And society should be giving them huge credit for it. Journalism should remain the ‘voice of the voiceless’ as Al Jazeera preaches in their core statutes. This thrilling profession is also considered a vocation for many reporters who continue to give new meanings to the word ‘journalism’; meanings that help maintain the Fifth Estate as an essential actor for society.

M.