Vanguard Magazine

32 FEBRUARY/MARCH 2020 www.vanguardcanada.com CYBER Whistleblowing – the release of infor- mation on internal activities believed to be unethical or illegal by an insider to a particular group – is the appeal for out- side review and intervention by a govern- ing body or sometimes the public. Usu- ally that action comes with the breach of a confidentiality agreement or oath of public. While some agreements may be per- ceived as conditional or contradicting in the expectations of secrecy and ethics, others are plainly clear. At the highest level of sworn oaths, Canada's Security of Information Act binds those subject to it to permanent secrecy, particularly outside the walls of the organization. Even within those walls, that secrecy is only alleviated within certain governing processes and with certain individuals. Swearing to an oath of permanent se- crecy is a very conscious and personal de- cision. What it means is that in the face of malfeasance or serious criminal acts, one accepts there are only two options: to put faith in and engage the proper internal processes and never speak of it again … or to voluntarily leave and nev- er speak of it again. Having said that, it must also be believed that the principles of fairness and ethics are alive and well in that organization. In the absence of that, see option two. But what about those who breach pri- vacy, confidentiality or an oath for their own benefit, whether material, monetary, ideological, political, psychological or, for lack of a better term, premeditative? Entirely different motives than that of a whistleblower, many in federal secu- rity are still trying to wrap their heads around causality of insider threat actors. Although more complex, understanding any of these actors requires some basics in human psychology. Looking at any behaviour, intent is an important factor. Tied to the 'self,' in- tent is a distinctly separate mental process from motivation. Although formed on a motivation and acted on through mental activities, such as purposeful rationaliza- tion, forethought and planning, intent is what you are trying to effect as an out- come. Motivation, usually rooted in an ideal like a philosophy or belief, is a compas- sionate or emotional basis for intent – it is gas in the tank. One can have motivation without intent, which is basically a loosely strung belief that is idealized as the 'right way' but is never turned into a meaning- ful or overt action. Social media is a good case-in-point: People may post or tweet about their "ideals" and may have "intent" through those low-level social actions but lack the motivation to move it into real life social processes for actual effect. Which is prob- ably a good thing; social media is an elec- tronic psychologist. The long held, but often disputed, radicalization theory helps illustrates these dynamics; intent kicks in part way through, preceding decisions to act and what those actions are formed on. Mo- tivation is what brought you there in the first place – it's how you think things should be. Often self-actualizing, intent helps satisfy elements of power, control, agency and ego. Going back to the con- cept of self, motivation is an outward view and intent is inward. Only scratching the surface of what is a complex concept, a question falls out of the above musings: what is the Gov- ernment of Canada doing about whistle- blowers and insider threats? Well, there's been a fair amount of conversation on that due to recent events in federal se- curity and intelligence, renewing interest on this unique and difficult-to-predict threat. Under federal legislation, "whistle- blower protection" and provisions are spread across several pieces of legislation, subject to the purview of the depart- ment that it occurred in, such the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (PS- DPA), the Public Service of Ontario Act (PSOA) and the Securities Act. Similarly, informer privilege is well-embodied by federal justice, to some extent provincial statutes, and is reflected in the Canadian Criminal Code. Whistleblowers are (somewhat) wel- comed and are suggested to be important to the integrity of private institutions and, in some cases, public ones. The problem is, as with any label that provides a safe harbour, the term whistleblower is often misapplied and misused. Insider threat actors are entirely different and, rightfully so, the only protection afforded to them is what we call "a lawyer." In the earlier mentioned Vanguard ar- Whistleblowing – the release of information on internal activities believed to be unethical or illegal by an insider to a particu- lar group – is the appeal for outside review and intervention by a govern- ing body or sometimes the public. Usually that action comes with the breach of a confidentiality agreement or oath of public.

• Cover