Whistleblower protection in the digital age - why “anonymous” is not enough.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When technology enters applications and processes with a long tradition of controversial societal debate, multi- faceted new ethical and legal questions arise. This paper focusses on the process of whistleblowing, an activity with large impacts on democracy and business. Computer science can, for the first time in history, provide for truly anonymous communication. We investigate this in relation to the values and rights of accountability, fairness and data protection, focusing on opportunities and limitations of the anonymity that can be provided computationally; possible consequences of outsourcing whistleblowing support; and challenges for the interpretation and use of some relevant laws. We conclude that to address these questions, whistleblowing and anonymous whistleblowing must rest on three pillars, forming a “triangle of whistleblowing protection and incentivisation” that combines anonymity in a formal and technical sense; whistleblower protection through laws; and other norms and practices including organisational error culture.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.047 | 0.127 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".