[rurban]

Good, because then you can verify your claims in court. Which Amazon will not be able to counter. So they will fear the light. Like their friends, secret services doing their illegal things, but they are protected by "National Security" claims, Amazon not.

[croes]

That's why I think the claims are not completely bogus otherwise Amamzon would have sued immediately.

[rurban]

Of course they are not bogus.

[MrDresden]

So you would rather that whistleblowers would only be given attention by media outlets if they are publicly outed alongside the revelations that they usually bring?

Tell me, how well did that go for Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning?

[ctvo]

Edward Snowden wasn’t a whistleblower. He stole US intelligence material as a contractor, leaked it to the press and fled the country to avoid facing criminal charges.

The whistleblowing process is not break the law then claim whistleblower protection. You report wrongdoing to a specific, independent body and are offered protection against retribution.

A better example of the system is the whistleblower on Trump’s first impeachment, who is still protected under law and still can’t have their identity revealed publicly.

Edit: To clarify, this only applies to the federal government. I only bring it up since you named two individuals who were associated with the federal government. With Amazon and other private companies, leaking to the press is effective and encouraged.

[lupire]

Doing something in an illegal way doesn't mean you didn't do the thing. Especially when the thing is exposing illegal activity by the body empowered to enforce law.

[croes]

There is a difference in whistleblowing the wrondoing of a person or company and the wrongdoing of the government. In Snowdens case who would have been the independent body and who could have offered protection inside the USA?