UMP : pourquoi la saga Copé-Fillon a tout d'un bon feuilleton

Publié le 29/11/2012 | 12:43 , mis à jour le 29/11/2012 | 13:07

Pendant plus de dix jours, la guerre Copé-Fillon a fait la une de tous les journaux.

(FRANCETV INFO)

3

CHAOS A L'UMP – Plus de dix jours après le début de la crise ouverte à l'UMP, la saga commence à s'essouffler, mais bien des questions restent en suspens. Jean-François finira-t-il par lâcher du lest et accepter un nouveau vote ? François ira-t-il devant les tribunaux pour faire invalider l'élection de son rival ? En coulisses, Nicolas parviendra-t-il à réconcilier les frères ennemis ?
Si ce feuilleton fait l'ouverture des journaux et éclipse le reste de l'actualité depuis plusieurs jours, c'est peut-être parce que ses protagonistes ont justement pensé à y mettre tous les éléments d'une captivante série télévisée ! Décryptage.

Une entrée en matière tonitruante

Tout a commencé sur une double surprise au soir du vote des militants, dimanche 18 novembre. Alors que les sondages attribuent une popularité triomphale à François Fillon auprès de l'ensemble des sympathisants UMP, les adhérents du parti font part d'un tout autre avis. Les scores sont si serrés qu'il faut attendre 4 heures du matin pour que la commission électorale se déclare incapable de proclamer un résultat dans l'immédiat.
En découle la deuxième surprise : sans attendre cette proclamation, Jean-François Copé décide de convoquer à la hâte un point presse pour annoncer lui-même sa victoire avec un millier de voix d'avance. Dans le quart d'heure qui suit, François Fillon contre-attaque et revendique à son tour la présidence de l'UMP grâce à un écart de 224 voix. Dans un message qui ressemble à une déclaration de guerre, l'ancien Premier ministre prévient qu'il "ne laissera pas voler la victoire aux militants". Retransmises en temps réel par les chaînes d'information en continu et par les sites d'actualité, les hostilités sont officiellement ouvertes. Mais qui sera le vainqueur de cet ubuesque affrontement entre les deux prétendants ?

Une famille qui se déchire en public

Pour voir la fin de cette intrigue inattendue, il va falloir être patient. Et se passionner pour un véritable lavage de linge sale en famille, comme le ferait tout fan de "soap opera" digne de ce nom. François Fillon restreint ses prises de parole directes à quelques points presse, et préfère envoyer ses lieutenants au front. Mot d'ordre : dénoncer, en vrac, "une fracture morale", "un vol", "un putsch médiatique", et même "une mafia".
Comme pendant la campagne, Jean-François Copé préfère monter lui-même au front. France 2, BFMTV, Europe 1, RTL, conférence de presse quasi quotidiennes... Il occupe la scène médiatique, et laisse à ses lieutenants le service après-vente. Son message : "Le comportement de François Fillon, c'est l'histoire d'un mauvais perdant, qui vient donner des leçons de morale sans jamais se les appliquer à lui-même." Et le président proclamé et ses proches de dénoncer "des bourrages d'urnes", et "les turpites délibérées de l'entourage zélé" de François Fillon.

Les deux candidats à la présidence de l'UMP, Jean-François Copé et François Fillon, le 18 novembre 2012 à Paris.

(AFP / MONTAGE FTVI)

Au sein de la famille UMP, il y a désormais deux entités distinctes, qui n'hésitent pas à s'opposer devant les caméras. La saga tourne à plein et atteint son paroxysme lorsque le même soir, Jean-François Copé et François Fillon se défient par JT interposés. C'est la déchirure définitive, devant plus de 12 millions de téléspectateurs médusés.

A chaque jour sa nouvelle intrigue et sa surenchère

Au-delà des noms d'oiseaux, il y a cette surenchère permanente dans l'affrontement des deux camps. A chaque soir son "cliffhanger" : que se passera-t-il demain ? Jusqu'où oseront-ils aller ? A chaque fois que le bras de fer semble trouver un gagnant, celui qui est à la limite de la rupture parvient à renverser la balance.
Copé se déclare vainqueur ? Fillon aussi ! La commission électorale confirme la victoire de Copé ? Fillon récuse les résultats ! Copé dénonce "des allégations qui sortent de nulle part" ? Fillon menace de saisir la justice ! Copé saisit la commission nationale des recours pour sceller sa victoire ? Fillon la juge illégitime et claque la porte ! Juppé propose de jouer les médiateurs ? Copé refuse ! Sarkozy demande que les militants soient consultés pour savoir s'ils veulent un nouveau vote ? Fillon crée un groupe parlementaire dissident à l'Assemblée, et Copé refuse de mettre en place une direction collégiale, comme le réclame son rival !
Pour les médias, ces rebondissements à répétition sont du pain bénit. Les acteurs de la série sont aussi les auteurs de leur propre scénario, et rien ne semble ralentir le rythme effréné de la saga. Que demander de mieux ?

Un dénouement inspiré par la série "Lost" ?

Reste qu'au bout de douze jours de psychodrame, les spectateurs semblent se lasser de ce feuilleton tragi-comique. Depuis mercredi midi, sur les sites d'actualité et dans les chaînes d'info en continu, on constate un essouflement. Sur les réseaux sociaux, le désintéressement se traduit par des commentaires de moins en moins nombreux. Sur Twitter, l'UMP a disparu des sujets les plus commentés.
Car à mesure que la situation s'enlise, le feuilleton tourne en rond. Ce qu'a résumé Xavier Bertrand dans un coup de colère poussé mercredi matin sur Europe 1 : "Moi, j'en ai marre de ce foutoir !" Alors comment le soap opera va-t-il prendre fin ? Visiblement en eau de boudin. Alors que chaque clan s'arc-boute sur ses positions, Jean-François Copé et son entourage ont assuré que le sujet était clos, que pour eux, la page était tournée. François Fillon semble avoir perdu son combat. Tout ça pour ça.

The Knowledge Revolution Is Not About Big Data, It's About Well-Connected Little Data

Designer Austin Yang's fanciful iTypewriter

Most often, tech companies are rewarded for giving their customers what they want. But there is a circularity to this notion that bears consideration. Users of apps, for instance, now mostly want what they have been trained to want by… app makers. There’s something wrong with this picture.
Let’s start again. You know how they say we use the new technology as a better version of the one that came before? Think “horseless carriage.” But then, at a certain point, humans realize what the new thing can uniquely do (i.e. drive 90 miles per hour for many hours straight) that the older one could not. We are now at that point with digital technology, but few of us have realized it.
But before we get to the utopian spiel—or the dread singularity—let’s also remember that what the new thing can uniquely do, done to excess, can be ruinous. Think all those cars driving at 90 mph. So, it’s not just that we need to discover what digital technology can uniquely do, we also have to see what it has been doing and decide if some sort of correction is in order.
This is a leading question. I think there is a correction to be made, and I am not alone in that notion.
So, let’s step back for a moment and see, on a global level, what we have been doing with all of this digital capacity. In simple terms, we have been storing and accessing information on a massive scale. Increasingly, our businesses are dependent on manipulating data streams to create value. And consumers have been trained to consume larger and larger quantities of that manipulated data. And even though the smartphone in many people’s hands is, in historical terms, an incredibly powerful computer that is capable of writing to the internet as well as reading from it, the flow remains highly asymmetrical.
On a certain level, the public has been treating the internet like a super-sized repository of the media they already know. We access text, pictures, audio, video and interactive graphics from this massive storehouse as if we were pulling books off a shelf or turning on the TV. Even if we are contributing to this global library through blogging, or podcasting or uploading music, video or Instagramed photos, we are just filling in boxes that others have made for us.
The internet is all of these things, but it is also (more importantly) the relationships between all of these things. And it is from the “glue” of these relationships that our collective knowledge emerges. Right now, for the most part, we only have the adhesives provided to us by the tech companies that have built these architectures in silicon. In order to really make your own individual connections, you need to write some code. If we rely, solely, on the code of others, we will unknowingly be manipulated by it.
This is the overriding theme that has run through my week, but it has been building for a while. A month ago, I first interviewed Lars Hård, the CTO of San Francisco “knowledge design tools” company, Expertmaker. I was intrigued by his concept of “desktop AI,” of a “Photoshop for knowledge.” But, I didn’t really understand what was involved. So I spent a month thinking about what it might be, until I was able to meet with Hård in person this week and have a demo of the software in action.
I am writing up my conversations with Hård in a separate post, but interacting with his software brought a number of things into focus for me in a way that I hope are somewhat unique. And, as the ideas moved through the boson field of contemporary culture, they attracted the mass of like-minded thoughts. Somewhat magically, two books (and their writers), popped up just as I needed them, Mind Amplifiers by Howard Rheingold and Program, or Be Programmed by Douglas Rushkoff.
Check back soon for posts about those books and my correspondence with their authors, but the point of both books is that most people are not engaging with the tools that already exist to create value from their own knowledge. Expertmaker is just this sort of tool.
On a fundamental level, our use of the web has become too much about things and not enough about the interactions between them. Useful here is a basic distinction in physics (thank you, Wikipedia) between fermions and bosons: “Fermions are sometimes said to be the constituents of matter, while bosons are said to be the particles that transmit interactions (force carriers), or the constituents of radiation.” Social media is potentially valuable because it is about interactions, about how things radiate. But here is where the “big data” of social media is of questionable use.

Samuel Arbesman, writing in the Boston Globe this morning, takes on this fallacy in his essay, “Big data, Mind the gaps.” “Big Data might be deep,” he writes,”but it’s not wide.” We know a lot about narrow slices of reality. We turn out to know a lot, for instance, about certain species of dinosaurs, he points out, not be cause they are the most important or exceptional, but because their fossils have been easy to collect.
When it comes to the commercial web, this problem is compounded. The data that is being collected is both what is easy to collect and also what web companies consider worth collecting. Not only do consumers have almost no say in what is done with their data, but they also have little say in what kinds of data are collected.
So where do we get the full width of human experience? From humans, of course. And this is where what I am referring to as the “knowledge revolution” comes in. From Howard Rheingold writing about “convivial technologies” to Douglas Rushkoff advocating for programming literacy to Lars Hård building knowledge design tools, it is the same impulse. To take advantage of the technology we already have, we should stop being so obsessed with (and intimidated by) “big data,” and start from where we are (to paraphrase Buddhist writer Pema Chodron), with our own “little data.”
As an interesting comparison, Google assumes that there is something we need to know that it can provide us with, whereas Expertmaker assumes that we know something that it can help us understand better. But even Google is a perfect example of a “mind amplifier,” and of something we can program. We may not realize it, but we are writing code all day as we google. When you type words into a Google search field, you are constructing a search query of Google’s database. The excellant Google Guide (not affiliated with Google) has pulled together everything you need to know (in exhaustive detail) about using search queries effectively, whether you are a novice or advanced user. The point is that even in asking you can encapsulate a lot of what you already know in the structure of you query through the use of operators or the advanced search form. On the other end of the query, we apply what Rheingold calls “crap detection” to sort out the results into the most useful information.
But this is all about how we interact with the knowledge of others. The starting point for the knowledge revolution is what each of us uniquely knows. If you imagining “big data,” as Arbesman does, as “a series of deep wells, each one plumbing the depths of certain topics,” our own “little data” are the settlements of local knowledge that dot the landscape between the huge well sites. Tools like Expertmaker will help us with what Rheingold refers to as “metacognition,” our awareness of our own thought. As I saw in my demo of the software, using Expertmaker requires, first of all, an openness to your own thinking. You can build a model of what you know by entering examples from your personal experience and categorizing them according to parameters that you think may be important distinctions between those examples. Once you’ve done some amount of this (less than you might think) you can use various visualization and correlation tools to see the impact of what you have done and see if you agree with yourself.
So, conviviality starts at home, it starts with you. To make use of your knowledge you have to begin to have a conversation with yourself about what you know and how you know what you know. Epistemology sounds complicated, in the abstract, but what digital technology has enabled are platforms through which we can build mental models and play with them. Once engaged, this playfulness can extend to what other people know. It is when we begin to map what we know into what others know (or vice versa) that truly powerful and revolutionary things can start to happen. But we only get there by, on some level, writing our own code.
I used that same phrase last week, to refer to the pop musician Gotye, and the connection between what I am trying to describe here and music is strong. For whatever reason, musicians are the individual artists that the public is most familiar with. What artists do, and what each of us have to do more of, is to develop a practice, a method of working, that encapsulates who they are and what they know. What makes artistis artists, is that they can’t not do this. Hip hop and electronic music are contemporary forms most relevant to what is going on with technology because they make this process very explicit. Artists working in these forms make extensive use of sampling, both of the music of others (exclusively, in the case of a purist like Girl Talk’s Gregg Gillis) and (notably in Gotye’s case) of the sounds of physical instruments, abstracted from their source. These samples are really like analogs to the kind of knowledge models I’m talking about. And the way musicians manipulate these samples, the way they create relationships between them, and turn them into something that (at least to their ears) sounds good is the way that they participate in the world of music and in the larger cultural landscape. Their music is the way they encapsulate who they are and what they know in the world. We can all do our own version of that, with what we know.
Just as each technology emerges in relation to what preceded it, each technology also poses a social challenge. As with writing and printing and broadcasting, the challenge with digital media is to resist the totalitarian impulse. New technologies mostly start off as closed systems, because they can evolve more rapidly that way (think cell walls.) But once a technology becomes universally available the dynamic shifts, and open standards allow the growth to be consolidated with other, often competing, technologies. The big tech companies that have gotten us here, have done so pursuing their own interests. And that commercial motivation has succeeded in spreading computers, mobile devices and the web to almost every corner of the earth. But the fact is that if all hardware development stopped today, it would be enough. It’s cool, but we don’t really need the next iPhone. The battles of the titanic tech companies are just about market share, they’re not really about what we humans need. But in the absence of humans making those needs clear through making stuff with all of this available digital technology, battle away they will.
And as musicians and other artists show, there are many ways to be a maker, not just through writing JavaScript (though that’s a good start). Open source projects require the writing of code, sure, but also developing documentation and training methods, managing and researching communities of users, testing the quality of existing code and designing the interfaces and interactions of user experience. The more you are conversant with what you know, the easier it is to develop your own projects and find your niche in the projects of others.
There are many ways to begin, whether by learning to recognize the code around you through Mozilla’s Webmaker tools, to program through CodeAcademy, to launch a startup through General Assembly or to model your own knowledge through Expertmaker. The important thing is to start. The big story about the knowledge revolution is not the big data of big companies, but the little data of individuals.

Cyberguerre: comment les Américains ont piraté l'Élysée

Par Charles Haquet et Emmanuel Paquette (L'Express), publié le 20 Novembre 2012 à 15:31

EXCLUSIF. En mai, l'équipe de Nicolas Sarkozy a été victime d'une opération d'espionnage informatique hypersophistiquée. Les sources de L'Express concordent : le coup vient de... l'ami américain. Révélations sur une attaque qui s'inscrit dans une bataille planétaire.

CYBERGUERRE - Les intrus qui se sont introduits dans les réseaux informatiques de l'Elysée en mai dernier ont subtilisé des notes secrètes et des plans stratégiques à partir des ordinateurs de proches conseillers de Nicolas Sarkozy.
REUTERS/Philippe Wojazer

La réaction de l'ambassade des Etats-Unis à Paris

Nous réfutons catégoriquement les allégations de sources non-identifiées, parues dans un article de l'Express, selon lesquelles le gouvernement des Etats-Unis d'Amérique aurait participé à une cyberattaque contre le gouvernement français. La France est l'un de nos meilleurs alliés. Notre coopération est remarquable dans les domaines du renseignement, du maintien de l'ordre et de la cyberdéfense. Elle n'a jamais été aussi bonne et demeure essentielle pour mener à bien notre lutte commune contre la menace extrémiste. Mitchell Moss, porte-parole de l'ambassade des Etats-Unis à Paris

C'est l'un des hold-up les plus audacieux réalisés contre l'Etat français. En mai dernier, quelques jours avant le second tour de l'élection présidentielle, des pirates ont réussi à s'introduire dans les réseaux informatiques de l'Elysée. Révélée par le quotidien régional Le Télégramme, cette intrusion avait alors été soigneusement étouffée par le Château. Une omerta qui, jusqu'à présent, n'avait pas été brisée. Aucune information n'avait filtré sur la nature des agresseurs, ou même sur le préjudice subi. Pourtant, l'affaire est grave, d'autant qu'elle constituerait une cyberattaque sans précédent entre pays alliés.

Retrouvez notre dossier complet en kiosque

L'Express peut révéler que les intrus ont non seulement réussi à pénétrer au coeur même du pouvoir politique français, mais qu'ils ont pu fouiller les ordinateurs des proches conseillers de Nicolas Sarkozy. Des notes secrètes ont été récupérées sur des disques durs, mais aussi des plans stratégiques. Du vrai travail de pro, digne du dernier James Bond, Skyfall. Et, comme souvent dans ce type d'attaque, une négligence humaine est à l'origine de la catastrophe.

L'ordinateur du secrétaire général de l'Elysée pillé

REUTERS/Larry Downing

"La cybermenace est l'un des plus sérieux défis auxquels nous soyons confrontés en tant que nation" Barack Obama, président des Etats-Unis, mai 2009.

Tout a commencé sur Facebook. Les assaillants ont d'abord identifié, sur le réseau social, le profil de personnes travaillant au palais présidentiel. Se faisant passer pour des amis, ils les ont ensuite invitées, par un message électronique, à se connecter sur l'intranet du Château. Sauf que ce lien menait à une fausse page Web - une réplique de celle de l'Elysée. Les victimes n'y ont vu que du feu ; et lorsque est apparu, à l'écran, un message leur demandant leur identifiant et leur mot de passe, elles les ont donnés en toute bonne foi. Une technique bien connue des hackers, qui leur a permis de récupérer les clefs numériques pour s'inviter en toute quiétude dans le saint des saints.
Une fois à l'intérieur, les pirates ont installé un logiciel espion qui s'est propagé d'un ordinateur à l'autre. Très élaboré, ce "ver" n'a infecté que quelques machines. Et pas n'importe lesquelles : celles des conseillers les plus influents du gouvernement... et du secrétaire général, Xavier Musca. Nicolas Sarkozy y a, lui, échappé. Et pour cause, il ne possédait pas de PC. Malheureusement pour les assaillants, le code malveillant a laissé des empreintes. "Telles des marionnettes actionnées par des fils invisibles, les machines infectées communiquent avec leur maître pour prendre leurs ordres, décrypte un expert, Olivier Caleff, responsable sécurité du Cert-Devoteam, une société de sécurité informatique. Lorsque l'on essaie de remonter ces fils sur Internet, on arrive souvent sur des serveurs situés à l'étranger."

REUTERS/Neil Hall

"Nous consacrerons un budget de plus d'un demi-milliard de livres [626 millions d'euros] à la cybersécurité" David Cameron, Premier ministre britannique, octobre 2010.

C'est ce travail de fourmi qu'ont mené les enquêteurs français. Le degré de sophistication de l'attaque était tel que les suspects se limitaient, d'emblée, à une poignée de pays. Pour preuve, le cyberpompier de l'Etat, l'Agence nationale de la sécurité des systèmes d'information (Anssi), a mis plusieurs jours pour restaurer le réseau de l'Elysée. Difficile de trouver l'origine de l'offensive. Souvent, les assaillants brouillent les pistes en passant par des pays tiers. Autant de rebonds, sur des serveurs situés sur les cinq continents, qui rendent ce fil d'Ariane très compliqué à suivre, même pour les "cyberdétectives" de l'Etat mobilisés pour l'occasion. Mais, selon les informations recueillies par L'Express auprès de plusieurs sources, leurs conclusions, fondées sur un faisceau de présomptions, convergent vers le plus vieil allié de la France : les Etats-Unis.

Le virus porte la marque de son auteur

Le code malveillant utilisé affiche, en effet, les mêmes fonctionnalités qu'un ver informatique extrêmement puissant, baptisé Flame, identifié à la fin du mois de mai par une grande société russe d'antivirus, Kaspersky. "Très perfectionné, il peut collecter les fichiers présents sur une ma-chine, réaliser des captures d'écran et même activer le microphone d'un PC pour enregistrer les conversations, expli-que Vitaly Kamluk, spécialiste du sujet chez cet éditeur. Sa conception a demandé beaucoup d'argent et des moyens humains que seul un grand pays est en mesure de mobiliser." Ou même deux : selon la presse anglo-saxonne, le ver aurait été créé par une équipe américano-israélienne, car il devait viser initialement des pays du Moyen-Orient (Iran, Egypte). Autre élément à charge : tel un peintre reconnaissable à son trait, un virus porte les marques du savoir-faire de son auteur. Janet Napolitano, secrétaire d'Etat à la Sécurité intérieure de l'administration Obama, n'a ni confirmé ni démenti nos informations.

REUTERS/Thomas Peter

"Les attaques cybernétiques sont aussi dangereuses que la guerre conventionnelle" Angela Merkel, chancelière allemande, avril 2011.

Contactés à ce sujet, ni l'Anssi ni l'Elysée n'ont souhaité faire de commentaires. Reste une question. Pourquoi un allié de la France lancerait-il une telle opération ? "Vous pouvez être en très bons termes avec un "pays ami" et vouloir, en même temps, vous assurer de son soutien indéfectible, surtout dans une période de transition politique", note un proche du dossier, sous le couvert de l'anonymat. Sans compter que l'Elysée joue un rôle clef dans la signature de grands contrats avec des pays étrangers, notamment au Moyen-Orient. "C'était encore plus vrai à l'époque de Nicolas Sarkozy", rappelle Nicolas Arpagian, directeur scientifique du cycle sécurité numérique à l'Institut national des hautes études de la sécurité et de la justice.

HoneyMap réalisé par Honeynet Project
Un instantané des cyberattaques en cours...

Quitte à être espionné, sans doute vaut-il mieux l'être par un allié... "Nous avons de grands partenaires avec lesquels nous collaborons et entretenons des relations de confiance, et d'autres avec qui nous ne partageons pas les mêmes valeurs", rappelle le contre-amiral Arnaud Coustillière, responsable du volet militaire de la cyberdéfense française. Il n'empêche, l'attitude de l'administration Obama suscite de nombreuses interrogations.

Vers des attaques "pires que le 11 Septembre" ?

Dans une version du livre blanc sur la défense, actuellement en cours de rédaction, des auteurs ont soulevé les ambiguïtés de Washington. "Face à la difficulté d'utiliser les voies de droit, [les Etats-Unis] ont recours de plus en plus à l'action clandestine, ce qui peut poser une question de contrôle démocratique."
Ironie du sort, le Congrès américain vient, le 14 novembre, de publier un rapport accablant sur l'"acteur le plus menaçant du cyberespace", à savoir... la Chine. Leon Panetta, secrétaire d'Etat à la Défense, a même déclaré récemment que, par leur puissance numérique, "certains pays" seraient, d'ores et déjà, capables de provoquer un "cyber-Pearl Harbor" : "Ce serait pire que le 11 Septembre ! Des assaillants pourraient faire dérailler un train de voyageurs ou un convoi de produits chimiques dangereux. Ou, encore, contaminer les systèmes d'eau des grandes villes ou éteindre une grande partie du réseau électrique." Le tout en se cachant derrière des écrans d'ordinateurs situés à des milliers de kilomètres...

Dans le monde virtuel, tous les coups sont permis

Leon Panetta sait de quoi il parle. L'Oncle Sam a déjà utilisé ces moyens. C'était en 2010, lors de l'opération "Jeux olympiques", lancée conjointement avec Israël contre l'Iran. Leur logiciel Stuxnet aurait endommagé un grand nombre des centrifugeuses utilisées par Téhéran pour enrichir de l'uranium. Spectaculaire, cette opération ne doit pas faire oublier que d'autres nations oeuvrent dans l'ombre. Dans le plus grand secret, de nombreux pays, démocratiques ou non, fourbissent leurs armes numériques. Des forces secrètes se constituent, des mercenaires vendent leurs services aux plus offrants. Sans foi ni loi. La Toile n'est pas un champ de bataille comme les autres. Oubliez les codes de l'honneur, les conventions internationales ou les alliances. Tous les coups sont permis. Et mieux vaut avoir les moyens de se battre. Dans le cyberespace, personne ne vous entendra crier.
Pour s'en convaincre, il suffit de se rendre au quartier général de l'Otan, à Bruxelles. Tou-tes les nuits, vers 1 heure, c'est le même rituel, explique l'un des responsables européens de la sécurité au sein de l'organisation. "Sur une carte, à l'écran, on voit des dizaines de lumières s'allumer en Chine, explique-t-il. Ce sont les hackers qui, le matin, lancent des attaques lorsqu'ils arrivent au boulot. Et, le soir, elles s'éteignent quand ils rentrent chez eux." Même constat d'un proche de la NSA, l'agence de renseignement des Etats-Unis : "Parfois, nous enregistrons une baisse sensible des tentatives d'intrusion sur nos sites, témoigne-t-il. Invariablement, cela correspond à des jours fériés en Chine." Mais l'image d'une "superagence" où des armées de pirates travailleraient en batterie pour ravir les secrets de l'Occident ne reflète pas la réalité. Selon ce même agent, "leur capacité offensive est beaucoup moins centralisée qu'on pourrait l'imaginer. De nombreuses régions ont mis en place leur propre dispositif, qui dépend du bureau politique local. Et il n'est pas rare que ces factions se combattent entre elles."

Coût d'une attaque : quelques centaines de milliers d'euros

Un hacker, qui souhaite rester anonyme, pense, lui aussi, que l'on surestime un peu le "cyberpéril jaune". "J'ai eu l'occasion de voir travailler les Chinois, ce ne sont pas les plus affûtés, dit-il. Leurs techniques sont assez rudimentaires par rapport à celles des Américains ou des Israéliens..."

REUTERS/Minoru Iwasaki/Pool

"Les questions de sécurité alimentaire, d'énergie et de cybersécurité deviennent plus aiguës" Hu Jintao, secrétaire général du Parti communiste chinois, novembre 2012.

A chaque pays sa spécificité. En Russie, le dispositif d'attaque est opaque. De nombreux spécialistes occidentaux du renseignement soupçonnent l'existence d'une relation triangulaire entre l'Etat, la mafia et certaines sociétés de conseil informatique qui seraient le bras armé du Kremlin. "Avez-vous déjà vu, en Russie, un hacker avoir des problèmes avec la police ? questionne Garry Kasparov, ancien champion du monde d'échecs, aujourd'hui l'un des opposants au président Poutine. Non, parce que l'on sait qui se trouve aux manettes, dans l'ombre..."
Contrairement à ce que l'on pourrait croire, les Européens ne sont pas en reste. La France, c'est une surprise, dispose d'une force de frappe numérique. Mais on trouve aussi, sur l'échiquier mondial, des Etats moins avancés sur le plan technique, tels l'Iran et la Corée du Nord. Nul besoin, en effet, d'investir dans des infrastructures coûteuses. Il suffit d'un ordinateur, d'un accès à Internet et de quelques centaines de milliers d'euros pour monter une attaque. Car sur la Toile, comme dans la vraie guerre, on trouve toutes sortes d'armes sur le marché. Il suffit de frapper aux bonnes portes. Au lieu d'une kalachnikov, on repartira avec un logiciel malveillant (malware, dans le jargon) qui permettra de prendre le contrôle d'un système ennemi. La première motivation : "Faire du business !"
"C'est un enjeu de domination. En maîtrisant l'information, on contrôle tout", résume Jonathan Brossard. Ce hacker français renommé intervient aujourd'hui dans des groupes internationaux.
Son job consiste à s'introduire dans les systèmes informatiques pour en révéler les failles - et trouver des parades. Pour lui, les risques d'un cyberconflit existent, mais ils masquent une autre motivation, bien plus puissante : "Faire du business ! Etre capable de griller un réseau électrique, c'est bien, mais le véritable enjeu, c'est surtout de gagner des parts de marché." Connaître, dans le détail, la proposition d'un concurrent, lors d'un gros appel d'offres, donne un avantage décisif. Pour l'avoir négligé, certaines sociétés ont péri. Des pirates - chinois semble-t-il - ont pillé les secrets du géant canadien des télécoms Nortel pendant près de dix ans, au point de l'acculer à la faillite. De tels exemples abondent.
Et la France n'est, malheureusement, pas épargnée. Les grandes entreprises du CAC 40 compteraient même parmi les plus vulnérables d'Europe. Sur ce nouveau champ de bataille invisible, on ne compte pas les morts, mais les points de PIB perdus. Et, derrière, sans doute des emplois par milliers.

Batailles de virus

STUXNET
Découverte : juin 2010.
Cible : ce logiciel a détruit des milliers de centrifugeuses nucléaires, en Iran.
Origine supposée : opération "Jeux olympiques", menée par les Etats-Unis et Israël.
DUQU
Découverte : septembre 2011.
Cible : lié à Stuxnet, ce ver informatique a servi à espionner le programme nucléaire iranien.
Origine supposée : Etats-Unis et Israël.
MAHDI
Découverte : février 2012.
Cible : capable d'enregistrer les frappes sur un clavier et les photos et textes d'un ordinateur, Mahdi a été retrouvé en Iran, en Afghanistan et en Israël.
Origine supposée : inconnue.
WIPER
Découverte : avril 2012.Cible : ce virus fait disparaître les données des disques durs des ordinateurs infectés. Il a touché des compagnies pétrolières iraniennes.
Origine supposée : inconnue.
FLAME
Découverte : mai 2012.
Cible : ce logiciel très sophistiqué aurait espionné depuis 2007 plusieurs pays, dont l'Iran, la Syrie, le Soudan, ou encore l'Arabie saoudite.
Origine supposée : opération des Etats-Unis et d'Israël.
GAUSS
Découverte : juin 2012.
Cible : capable d'espionner les transactions financières et messages électroniques, ce virus s'est répandu au Liban, en Israël et en Palestine.
Origine supposée : inconnue.
SHAMOON
Découverte : août 2012.
Cible : les ordinateurs des compagnies pétrolières saoudiennes Aramco et RasGas au Qatar ont été attaqués par ce virus.
Origine revendiquée : groupe de hackers appelé "Glaive tranchant de la justice", peut-être d'origine iranienne.

L’humain, de plus en plus stupide au fil des ans

Par Ben, le 23 novembre 2012 à 14:21

A croire que nous pourrions finalement ressembler à ceci d’ici 1000 ans. En tout cas, une étude tend à prouver que l’humain devient de plus en plus stupide au fil des années qui passent !
Gerald Crabtree, l’homme à la tête d’un laboratoire de génétique à l’université de Stanford, prend le temps d’expliquer que l’humain en tant que tel évolue vers dans le mauvais sens. De chasseur-cueilleur (des activités qui demandaient tout de même de jouer sur la corde intellectuelle) il a évolué, et est désormais face à des choix moins rudes, moins cruels. Crabtree fait le parallèle entre un chasseur d’époque, qui s’il ne trouvait pas de proie pouvait rapidement se retrouver en danger de mort, et un ponte de Wall Street actuel, qui même en réalisant une bourde ne sera pas forcément renvoyé, expulsé de chez lui, laissé sans possibilité de se nourrir, et de nourrir sa famille.
Une comparaison effectuée entre les génomes des parents et de leurs enfants a révélé qu’en moyenne, entre 25 et 65 mutations d’ADN étaient opérées entre chaque génération. Crabtree affirme que cette analyse table sur plus de 5 000 nouvelles mutations dans les 120 générations passées, qui couvrent environ 3 000 ans. De ce fait, selon lui, un habitant d’Athènes « moyen » en -1000 avant JC apparaîtrait comme très intelligent à l’heure actuelle, sans doute dans les personnes les plus intelligentes sur terre, doté d’une excellente mémoire, d’une vision sur les problèmes à résoudre.
Steve Jones de l’University College de Londres, va dans le même sens, affirmant que les mutations réduisent notre agressivité, notre sensibilité à la dépression, mais également… la taille du pénis des hommes. Avant de conclure : « mais quel type de journal voudrait publier de telles informations ». Effectivement, savoir qu’on va droit dans le mur et qu’on est visiblement bien moins intelligents que nos ancêtres, ça met un coup…

Berger à la tête d'une CFDT partisane du "dialogue social"

Action Juridique du CHSCT d’HP Grenoble sur les Evaluations et les Notations

[ Accueil ] [ Organigramme ] [ Assistance Juridique ] [ Actualité ] [ Adhérer ] [ Liens ]

Action Juridique du CHSCT d’HP Grenoble sur les Evaluations et les Notations.

L’audience aura lieu le lundi 3 décembre 2012 à 14 heures au palais de justice de Grenoble.

Sur le site Hewlett-Packard de Grenoble, nous, au travers l'action du CHSCT (voir 2 ème commentaire)   et avec le soutien du CE et des autres syndicats, avons lancé une action au TGI de Grenoble (mise en état finale le 26 janvier) pour montrer le caractère illicite du système d’évaluation. Le CHSCT a aussi fait une enquête sur les notations et évaluations 2009. Cette enquête a été un succès avec 1010 réponses et 423 commentaires. Elle fait le constat qu’il y a des notations forcées avec 21% de notes P- et I, et cela à des impacts multiples comme :

  ·           Impact sur la reconnaissance du salarié par sa hiérarchie
    ·           Impact sur son évolution de carrière
    ·           Impact sur sa pérennité dans l’emploi
    ·           Impact sur l’estime de soi
    ·           Impact sur la rémunération

-> Document de Synthèse de l’enquête

 Un CHSCT extraordinaire a eu lieu vendredi 4 juin pour discuter de l’ampleur des dégâts sur la santé principalement causée par des quotas de notes avec des évaluations relatives sur des critères subjectifs. La direction minimisant la gravité et l’application autoritaire et injuste des quotas, le CHSCT lance donc une expertise auprès du cabinet Technologia qui se déroule au travers d’un échantillon de 60 personnes questionnées  sur le site de Grenoble.

Dossier Lamy social du 13 décembre 2010 avec Mtre Le Quinquis du cabinet Bredin Prat, cabinet d’avocat de la direction d’HP.

·     ( ici version 1.0 des conclusions rédigées en juillet 2010)

·     Contact: Guy Benoist (0672991472) article du Miroir social correspondant

La subjectivité de la notation (notes forcées par un système de quota ou critères flous) et les conséquences associées pour le salarié impacté posent juridiquement question en France.
Après Wolters-Kluwer et General Electric Medical en 2009 et 2010, des jugements importants sont attendus chez Airbus et surtout HP avec le grand procès centralisé associant CHSCT Grenoble, CE HPF, CE HPCCF et Syndicats devant le TGI de Grenoble à une date qui n'a pas encore été fixée, mais à notre avis ce sera lors du premier semestre 2011. 

Articles sélectionnés :

·                   Des méthodes d’évaluation contestées (Le Monde, 6 janvier 2011)

·                   J’ai déjà utilisé tout mon quota de K (Le Monde, 6 janvier 2011)

·         Entretiens annuels : passage obligé, méthodes contestées (2010)

·         «  Une terrible injustice  »  (2002)

·                   Rendez-vous avec vos questions, commentaires, réactions dans les sujets du Blog :   

·                   Entretien d'évaluation 2010 et Objectifs 2011. Et aussi sur Facebook : CFTC HP contre les notations forcées de salariés

Le plus grand trou noir jamais découvert !

 

Chaque galaxie en spirale a un trou noir supermassif en son sein, rien de nouveau sous le soleil ? Pas tout à fait, les scientifiques ont découvert que le plus grand trou noir a une masse 17 milliards de fois plus importante que notre soleil ! Il remet même en cause la dynamique fondamentale de l’univers.


Découvert par le téléscope Hobby-Eberly Telescope du McDonald Observatory (on se demande encore comment il a été possible de passer à coté depuis toutes ces années), ce monstre baptisé NGC 1277 bat tous les records.

Non content d’être 17 milliards (17 !!!) de fois plus imposant que le soleil, il est aussi onze fois plus grand que le diamètre de Neptune. Continuons la comparaison. La lumière met 17 minutes pour parcourir le diamètre de la Terre ? Pour NGC 1277, il lui faut pas moins de quatre jours !
Et ce n’est pas tout, Karl Gebhardt explique,

« La masse de ce trou noir est beaucoup plus élevée que prévu… Ce qui nous amène à penser que les galaxies géantes ont un processus physique différent permettant de créer des trous noirs. »

Si cela semble anodin, cela jette aux ordures la théorie actuelle de formation et croissance des trous noirs, et accessoirement la dynamique fondamentale de l’univers !

Success Will Come and Go, But Integrity is Forever

If I could teach only one value to live by, it would be this: Success will come and go, but integrity is forever. Integrity means doing the right thing at all times and in all circumstances, whether or not anyone is watching. It takes having the courage to do the right thing, no matter what the consequences will be. Building a reputation of integrity takes years, but it takes only a second to lose, so never allow yourself to ever do anything that would damage your integrity.

We live in a world where integrity isn’t talked about nearly enough. We live in a world where “the end justifies the means” has become an acceptable school of thought for far too many. Sales people overpromise and under deliver, all in the name of making their quota for the month. Applicants exaggerate in job interviews because they desperately need a job. CEOs overstate their projected earnings because they don’t want the board of directors to replace them.  Entrepreneurs overstate their pro formas because they want the highest valuation possible from an investor. Investors understate a company’s value in order to negotiate a lower valuation in a deal. Customer service representatives cover up a mistake they made because they are afraid the client will leave them. Employees call in “sick” because they don’t have any more paid time off when they actually just need to get their Christmas shopping done. The list could go on and on, and in each case the person committing the act of dishonesty told themselves they had a perfectly valid reason why the end result justified their lack of integrity.


It may seem like people can gain power quickly and easily if they are willing to cut corners and act without the constraints of morality. Dishonesty may provide instant gratification in the moment but it will never last. I can think of several examples of people without integrity who are successful and who win without ever getting caught, which creates a false perception of the path to success that one should follow. After all, each person in the examples above could have gained the result they wanted in the moment, but unfortunately, that momentary result comes at an incredibly high price with far reaching consequences.  That person has lost their ability to be trusted as a person of integrity, which is the most valuable quality anyone can have in their life. Profit in dollars or power is temporary, but profit in a network of people who trust you as a person of integrity is forever.
Every one person who trusts you will spread the word of that trust to at least a few of their associates, and word of your character will spread like wildfire. The value of the trust others have in you is far beyond anything that can be measured.  For entrepreneurs it means investors that are willing to trust them with their money. For employees it means a manager or a boss that is willing to trust them with additional responsibility and growth opportunities. For companies it means customers that trust giving them more and more business. For you it means having an army of people that are willing to go the extra mile to help you because they know that recommending you to others will never bring damage to their own reputation of integrity. Yes, the value of the trust others have in you goes beyond anything that can be measured because it brings along with it limitless opportunities and endless possibilities.
Contrast that with the person who cannot be trusted as a person of integrity.  Warren Buffet, Chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway said it best:, “In looking for people to hire, look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy.  And if they don’t have the first one, the other two will kill you.”  A person’s dishonesty will eventually catch up to them. It may not be today, and it may not be for many years, but you can rest assured that at some point there will always be a reckoning.
A word of advice to those who are striving for a reputation of integrity: Avoid those who are not trustworthy. Do not do business with them. Do not associate with them. Do not make excuses for them.  Do not allow yourself to get enticed into believing that “while they may be dishonest with others, they would never be dishonest with me.” If someone is dishonest in any aspect of his life you can be guaranteed that he will be dishonest in many aspects of his life. You cannot dismiss even those little acts of dishonesty, such as the person who takes two newspapers from the stand when they paid for only one. After all, if a person cannot be trusted in the simplest matters of honesty then how can they possibly be trusted to uphold lengthy and complex business contracts?
It is important to realize that others pay attention to those you have chosen to associate with, and they will inevitably judge your character by the character of your friends. Why is that?  It is best explained by a quote my father often says when he is reminding me to be careful of the company I am keeping:  “When you lie down with dogs you get fleas.” Inevitably we become more and more like the people we surround ourselves with day to day. If we surround ourselves with people who are dishonest and willing to cut corners to get ahead, then we’ll surely find ourselves following a pattern of first enduring their behavior, then accepting their behavior, and finally adopting their behavior. If you want to build a reputation as a person of integrity then surround yourself with people of integrity.
There is a plaque on the wall of my office which reads: “Do what is right, let the consequence follow.” It serves as a daily reminder that success will indeed come and go, but integrity is forever.
~Amy (for my daily blogs go to www.amyreesanderson.com/blog)

Hewlett-Packard: What next after its latest crisis?

By Kimiko de Freytas-Tamura Business reporter, BBC News
 

 

 

 HP has struggled due to bad management, analysts say

From a one-car garage in Palo Alto, California, Hewlett-Packard (HP) gave birth to Silicon Valley more than seven decades ago, inspiring an entire generation of tech entrepreneurs.

In a well-known anecdote about the generosity of its founders, 12-year-old Steve Jobs once phoned Bill Hewlett for parts he needed in a school project. His wishes were granted and after landing a summer job at HP he went on to found Apple, the most valuable company of all time.
"I had always loved the company, seeing it as emblematic of technology, entrepreneurship and the Silicon Valley spirit," says Paul Kedrosky, a Canadian venture capitalist who was once offered a job at the iconic company. "That is, sadly, no longer the case on any of those dimensions."
Today, HP is "declining, adrift, and increasingly desperate, relying overly on CEO changes and risky acquisitions to turn around its flagging share prices and market value," he says.
The recent debacle surrounding HP's data analytics subsidiary, Autonomy, is only the latest in a string of crises to hit the 73-year-old company, which has struggled to retain an edge in every market it was once a leader in.
'Lost its way' HP shares are down 54% since the beginning of the year, and tumbled to a 10-year low on Tuesday amid an alleged accounting fraud involving the UK company.
HP has steadily given up its leadership in PCs and IT services, having been slow to capitalise on the runaway popularity of smartphones and a fast-growing niche for 'big data', which helps businesses handle and make sense of vast volumes of data.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

When I talk to investors, that is what they are concerned about: the credibility of the board”

Shaw Wu Analyst at Sterne Agee

The company has also been unable to fend off nimbler rivals from China and South Korea.

Revolving-door CEOs gave investors the impression "it had lost its way" says Richard Holway, chairman of TechMarketView, an IT analysis firm.
Hewlett-Packard "is being attacked from all directions. They have limped through one bad acquisition to another. It's sometimes very difficult to understand what their strategy is going to be from one month to another, and that has been extremely worrying for investors and shareholders," he adds.
"Tech companies that were big 20-to-30 years ago are finding it extremely difficult to regenerate themselves. HP seems to be going that way."
In October, Gartner Research said that China's Lenovo had overtaken HP as the number-one maker of PCs.
Meanwhile Samsung and Apple are leading in tablets and smartphones, while IBM has successfully positioned itself as a software giant after selling its PC unit to Lenovo.
HP tried to catch up with IBM by buying Autonomy, whose Cambridge-educated founder Mike Lynch developed so-called 'meaning-based computing' that could look at vast volumes of disparate data and extract meaning from them. But some industry experts questioned its value.
'Dysfunctional' "As an industry analyst I couldn't fathom how it could be a billion-dollar business," says Alan Pelz-Sharpe of 451 Research, who first circulated a warning note to industry insiders after the $12bn takeover deal in October 2011.
"It didn't have the visibility. It's very good technology, but there was a huge disparity between what it was worth and what HP paid for it."
Since its acquisition of PC group Compaq in 2002, HP has faced a rocky road, and analysts point to a "dysfunctional" board and management.

 

 

HP failed to break in the smartphone market with its Palm tablet

The company has seen three CEOs since 2010. It oversaw the 2010 acquisition, then the spin-off a year later, of smartphone manufacturer Palm, whose webOS mobile operating system failed to compete in the face of Apple's iPhone and Google's Android devices.
Then, HP's $14bn (£9bn) buyout of its struggling IT outsourcing arm EDS in 2008 led to a massive $8bn write-down in August, prompting speculation of a sell-off.
In the latest debacle, HP on Tuesday said it was forced to write off $5bn in its latest quarterly accounts after accusing Autonomy of inflating its value. The former management team of Autonomy has "flatly rejected" the allegations.
"When I talk to investors, that is what they are concerned about: the credibility of the board," says Shaw Wu, an analyst at Sterne Agee. "There already has been a lot of turmoil at this company, but maybe they still need more change."
Topeka Capital Markets analyst Brian White in a research note called for a new purge of HP's board.
But experts have not completely written off HP.
"This is the worst of its write-downs," says Mr Pelz-Sharpe of 451 Research. "Now all of the junk and the mess is out.
"They have good technology, and the hope now is that HP can sort-of embed Autonomy's technology [in its core business]. I think they can leverage it quite well. I think they can rebound."
Mr Holway of TechMarketView says that the only way for HP to revive itself is to get rid of unprofitable businesses - much like IBM - before it is too late.
"Sometimes, to be reborn, you first must die," he says, quoting a Chinese proverb.

Hewlett-Packard accountants sued over Autonomy purchase

Deloitte and KPMG are being sued over their alleged role in Hewlett-Packard's controversial purchase of Autonomy.

An HP shareholder says the US PC-maker paid too much for the UK software firm.
The lawsuit, filed in California on Monday, accuses the two auditors and other named defendants of failing in their duty to spot that Autonomy was not worth as much as it claimed, and then misrepresenting the deal's value.
Both firms have denied responsibility for valuing Autonomy at the time.
"Simply put, HP grossly overpaid for Autonomy," claims the legal action, which was brought by Philip Ricciardi, an HP shareholder since 2007.
Last week, HP announced that it was writing off $8.8bn of the $11.1bn it paid for Autonomy, of which $5bn was "linked to serious accounting improprieties, misrepresentation and disclosure failures".
HP's boss, Ms Whitman, said that her firm had relied on the work of the UK unit of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, which had acted as Autonomy's auditor prior to the acquisition.
She also said HP had relied on KPMG's audits of Deloitte's work.
The computer maker said it would be taking civil action itself to try and recover money for shareholders.
'Red flags' Shares in the US computer-maker have lost 60% of their value since the Autonomy deal was announced in August last year - including a steep fall on the day after the announcement - and are down by three-quarters since their peak in April 2010.
Continue reading the main story

Hewlett-Packard Co.

Last Updated at 29 Nov 2012, 20:59 GMT

price	change	%
12.89	+ +0.16	+ +1.26

The legal case, which came to light on Wednesday, has been brought by the shareholder against the two auditors, as well as against Autonomy's former chief executive Mike Lynch, HP chief executive Meg Whitman, former HP chief executive Leo Apotheker, and Barclays and Perella Weinberg Partners, who acted as financial advisers on the deal.

It claims that the two auditors, as well as other advisers and employees paid to work for HP, failed in their duty to the company and "consistently misled the public with improper statements".
The two auditors "consciously disregarded numerous red flags" that should have alerted them to Autonomy's allegedly inflated value, the lawsuit said, according to the Bloomberg news agency.
KPMG has denied HP's claims, saying that it was engaged only to provide limited services and did not carry out any audit work.
For its part, Deloitte has insisted that it was not responsible for the due diligence work that HP carried out on Autonomy before going ahead with the purchase.
Barclays and Perella Weinberg could not be reached for comment.
Second lawsuit It is the second such lawsuit to be filed by an HP shareholder over the Autonomy deal. Another investor, Allan Nicolow, filed a similar case at the same court and on the same day.
The other legal case has been brought against Hewlett-Packard, as well as various executives of the firm - but not against the two auditors or the two financial advisers - and seeks damages for HP's purchase of Autonomy, as well as an earlier purchase of Electronic Data Systems Corporation, which the suit also claims was overvalued.
Mr Nicolow's lawyers hope to turn his case into a class action lawsuit on behalf of all investors who owned shares in HP between 19 August 2011 - the day after the Autonomy acquisition - and 20 November 2012.
Autonomy's former head, Mike Lynch - who is a non-executive director of the BBC - has rejected HP's claims that former Autonomy management misled them as to the company's value.

Whistleblower

A whistleblower (whistle-blower or whistle blower)^[1] is a person who tells the public or someone in authority about alleged dishonest or illegal activities (misconduct) occurring in a government department or private company or organization. The alleged misconduct may be classified in many ways; for example, a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health/safety violations, and corruption. Whistleblowers may make their allegations internally (for example, to other people within the accused organization) or externally (to regulators, law enforcement agencies, to the media or to groups concerned with the issues).
One of the first laws that protected whistleblowers was the 1863 United States False Claims Act (revised in 1986), which tried to combat fraud by suppliers of the United States government during the Civil War. The act encourages whistleblowers by promising them a percentage of the money recovered or damages won by the government and protects them from wrongful dismissal.^[2]
Whistleblowers frequently face reprisal, sometimes at the hands of the organization or group which they have accused, sometimes from related organizations, and sometimes under law.
Questions about the legitimacy of whistle blowing, the moral responsibility of whistle blowing, and the appraisal of the institutions of whistle blowing are part of the field of political ethics.

Federal Government of the United States's whistleblower awareness poster

Origin of term

The term whistle-blower comes from the whistle a referee uses to indicate an illegal or foul play.^[3][4] US civic activist Ralph Nader coined the phrase in the early 1970s to avoid the negative connotations found in other words such as "informers" and "snitches".^[5]

Definition

Ryszard Kukliński believed that he would be able to prevent the war in Europe between the Warsaw Pact and NATO countries by handing in 40,265 pages of secret military documents of East Germany and People's Republic of Poland to CIA in West Germany

Most whistleblowers are internal whistleblowers, who report misconduct on a fellow employee or superior within their company. One of the most interesting questions with respect to internal whistleblowers is why and under what circumstances people will either act on the spot to stop illegal and otherwise unacceptable behavior or report it.^[6] There is some reason to believe that people are more likely to take action with respect to unacceptable behavior, within an organization, if there are complaint systems that offer not just options dictated by the planning and control organization, but a choice of options for absolute confidentiality.^[7]
External whistleblowers, however, report misconduct on outside persons or entities. In these cases, depending on the information's severity and nature, whistleblowers may report the misconduct to lawyers, the media, law enforcement or watchdog agencies, or other local, state, or federal agencies. In some cases, external whistleblowing is encouraged by offering monetary reward.
Under most US federal whistleblower statutes, in order to be considered a whistleblower, the federal employee must have reason to believe his or her employer has violated some law, rule or regulation; testify or commence a legal proceeding on the legally protected matter; or refuse to violate the law.
In cases where whistleblowing on a specified topic is protected by statute, US courts have generally held that such whistleblowers are protected from retaliation.^[8] However, a closely divided US Supreme Court decision, Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) held that the First Amendment free speech guarantees for government employees do not protect disclosures made within the scope of the employees' duties.

Common reactions

Ideas about whistleblowing vary widely. Whistleblowers are commonly seen as selfless martyrs for public interest and organizational accountability; others view them as "tattle tales" or "snitches," solely pursuing personal glory and fame. Some academics (such as Thomas Alured Faunce) feel that whistleblowers should at least be entitled to a rebuttable presumption that they are attempting to apply ethical principles in the face of obstacles and that whistleblowing would be more respected in governance systems if it had a firmer academic basis in virtue ethics.^[9][10]
It is probable that many people do not even consider blowing the whistle, not only because of fear of retaliation, but also because of fear of losing their relationships at work and outside work.^[11]
Because the majority of cases are very low-profile and receive little or no media attention and because whistleblowers who do report significant misconduct are usually put in some form of danger or persecution, the idea of seeking fame and glory may be less commonly believed.^{[citation needed]}
Persecution of whistleblowers has become a serious issue in many parts of the world. Although whistleblowers are often protected under law from employer retaliation, there have been many cases where punishment for whistleblowing has occurred, such as termination, suspension, demotion, wage garnishment, and/or harsh mistreatment by other employees. For example, in the United States, most whistleblower protection laws provide for limited "make whole" remedies or damages for employment losses if whistleblower retaliation is proven. However, many whistleblowers report there exists a widespread "shoot the messenger" mentality by corporations or government agencies accused of misconduct and in some cases whistleblowers have been subjected to criminal prosecution in reprisal for reporting wrongdoing.
As a reaction to this many private organizations have formed whistleblower legal defense funds or support groups to assist whistleblowers; two such examples are the National Whistleblowers Center^[12] in the United States and Public Concern at Work^[13] in the UK. Depending on the circumstances, it is not uncommon for whistleblowers to be ostracized by their co-workers, discriminated against by future potential employers, or even fired from their organization. This campaign directed at whistleblowers with the goal of eliminating them from the organization is referred to as mobbing. It is an extreme form of workplace bullying wherein the group is set against the targeted individual.

Legal protection

Legal protection for whistleblowing varies from country to country and may depend on any of the country of the original activity, where and how secrets were revealed, and how they eventually became published or publicized. Over a dozen countries have now adopted comprehensive whistleblower protection laws which create mechanisms for reporting, investigate reports, and provide legal protections to the people who informed them. Over 50 countries have adopted more limited protections as part of their anti-corruption, freedom of information, or employment laws.^[14] For purposes of the English Wikipedia, this section emphasizes the English-speaking world and covers other regimes only insofar as they represent exceptionally greater or lesser protections.

USA

Main article: Whistleblower protection in the United States

Whistleblowing in the U.S. is affected by a complex patchwork of contradictory laws.
In the United States, legal protections vary according to the subject matter of the whistleblowing, and sometimes the state in which the case arises.^[15] In passing the 2002 Sarbanes–Oxley Act, the Senate Judiciary Committee found that whistleblower protections were dependent on the "patchwork and vagaries" of varying state statutes.^[16] Still, a wide variety of federal and state laws protect employees who call attention to violations, help with enforcement proceedings, or refuse to obey unlawful directions.
The first US law adopted specifically to protect whistleblowers was the 1863 United States False Claims Act (revised in 1986), which tried to combat fraud by suppliers of the United States government during the Civil War. The act encourages whistleblowers by promising them a percentage of the money recovered or damages won by the government and protects them from wrongful dismissal.^[2]
Another US law that specifically protects whistleblowers is the Lloyd – La Follette Act of 1912. It guaranteed the right of federal employees to furnish information to the United States Congress. The first US environmental law to include an employee protection was the Clean Water Act of 1972. Similar protections were included in subsequent federal environmental laws, including the Safe Drinking Water Act (1974), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1976), Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (through 1978 amendment to protect nuclear whistleblowers), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or the Superfund Law) (1980), and the Clean Air Act (1990). Similar employee protections enforced through OSHA are included in the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (1982) to protect truck drivers, the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act (PSIA) of 2002, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century ("AIR 21"), and the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, enacted on July 30, 2002 (for corporate fraud whistleblowers).
Investigation of retaliation against whistleblowers under 20 federal statutes falls under the jurisdiction of the Office of the Whistleblower Protection Program^[17] of the United States Department of Labor's^[18] Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).^[19] New whistleblower statutes enacted by Congress which are to be enforced by the Secretary of Labor are generally delegated by a Secretary's Order^[20] to OSHA's Office of the Whistleblower Protection Program (OWPP).
The patchwork of laws means that victims of retaliation need to be alert to the laws at issue to determine the deadlines and means for making proper complaints. Some deadlines are as short as 10 days (for Arizona State Employees to file a "Prohibited Personnel Practice" Complaint before the Arizona State Personnel Board; and Ohio public employees to file appeals with the State Personnel Board of Review). It is 30 days for environmental whistleblowers to make a written complaint to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Federal employees complaining of discrimination, retaliation or other violations of the civil rights laws have 45 days to make a written complaint to their agency's equal employment opportunity (EEO) officer. Airline workers and corporate fraud whistleblowers have 90 days to make their complaint to OSHA. Nuclear whistleblowers and truck drivers have 180 days to make complaints to OSHA. Victims of retaliation against union organizing and other concerted activities to improve working conditions have six months to make complaints to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Private sector employees have either 180 or 300 days to make complaints to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (depending on whether their state has a "deferral" agency) for discrimination claims on the basis of race, gender, age, national origin or religion. Those who face retaliation for seeking minimum wages or overtime have either two or three years to file a civil lawsuit, depending on whether the court finds the violation was "willful."
Those who report a false claim against the federal government, and suffer adverse employment actions as a result, may have up to six years (depending on state law) to file a civil suit for remedies under the US False Claims Act (FCA).^[21] Under a qui tam provision, the "original source" for the report may be entitled to a percentage of what the government recovers from the offenders. However, the "original source" must also be the first to file a federal civil complaint for recovery of the federal funds fraudulently obtained, and must avoid publicizing the claim of fraud until the US Justice Department decides whether to prosecute the claim itself. Such qui tam lawsuits must be filed under seal, using special procedures to keep the claim from becoming public until the federal government makes its decision on direct prosecution.
Federal employees could benefit from the Whistleblower Protection Act,^[22] and the No-FEAR Act (which made individual agencies directly responsible for the economic sanctions of unlawful retaliation). Federal protections are enhanced in those few cases where the Office of Special Counsel will support the whistleblower's appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). The MSPB rejects the vast majority of whistleblower appeals, however, as does the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.^[23] Efforts to strengthen the law have met with failure in recent years, but minor reforms seem likely. See, e.g.,Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2011, S. 743, H. Rep. 3289, 112th Cong. (2011).

Wall Street

A woman protesting the state of protections for whistleblowers of banking fraud at the Occupy Wall Street rally, September 17, 2011

Securities whistleblowers are provided incentives and protection by the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (2010).^[24] The Dodd-Frank Act offers whistleblowers significant incentives and increases protection for whistleblowers in the SEC whistleblower program. This legislation authorizes the SEC to reward those who provide information concerning violations of the federal securities laws at companies that are required to report to the SEC.
Further, the Dodd-Frank Act strengthens the whistleblower protection provisions of the False Claims Act, and contains one of the strongest confidentiality provisions for whistleblowers ever enacted. For the first time, whistleblowers will be allowed to initially report fraud anonymously by filing a claim through an attorney.
Additionally, the law prohibits employers from retaliating against whistleblowers. Employers may not fire, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or discriminate against a whistleblower. The Dodd-Frank Act expands the reach of whistleblower protections provided under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to include employees of public companies as well as employees of its private subsidiaries and affiliates. Whistleblowers who suffer from employment retaliation may sue for reinstatement, back pay, and any other damages incurred.

US military

The Military Whistleblower Protection Act^[25] protects the right of members of the armed services to communicate with any member of Congress (even if copies of the communication are sent to others).

US law enforcement

Frank Serpico and Michael Dowd were two better known whistleblowers in the NYPD during the respective early 1970s (Knapp Commission),Michael Dowd in the early/mid 1990s (Mollen Commission) and Theodore Briseno in the LAPD in the early 1990s during his involvement in Rodney King's beating. Serpico was shot in 1971 during a drug raid that his colleagues failed to cover him on. Serpico survived, although partially deaf, testified to the Knapp Commission later that year and retired in 1972 on a disability pension, living abroad until his quiet return to the U.S. in 1980, when he moved upstate into an old fashioned cabin. Michael Dowd was arrested in 1992 for his part in assaulting citizens and other corruption, testified about his and his colleagues activities to the Mollen Commission in 1993, was convicted in 1994 and sentenced to 14 years but paroled in 2004 after serving ten. Ted Briseno was fired from the LAPD in 1994 despite both state and federal acquittals after informing on his fellow officers in violation of their unwritten Blue Code of Silence and is living somewhere in Illinois.

Tax fraud

The Internal Revenue service rewards whistleblowers with a percentage of the tax money and penalties recovered with the information provided. In September 2012, Brad Birkenfeld received a $104 million prize for revealing how the wealthy use Swiss Banks to avoid taxes.^[26]

UK

In the United Kingdom, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 provides a framework of legal protection for individuals who disclose information so as to expose malpractice and matters of similar concern.^[27]

Australia

There are also laws in a number of states.^[28] The former NSW Police Commissioner Tony Lauer summed up official government and police attitudes as: "Nobody in Australia much likes whistleblowers, particularly in an organisation like the police or the government." Mr Lauer's comments are clearly at odds with public support for WikiLeaks.
Whistleblowers Australia is an association for those who have exposed corruption or any form of malpractice, especially if they were then hindered or abused.^[29]

Canada

Canadian protection for whistleblowers is notoriously poor by English-speaking countries' standards.^{[weasel words]} Until recently, there was no formal protection for those who spoke up from a position of knowledge inside government^{[citation needed]}, with even senior civil servants (Shiv Chopra being one notable case) being fired or constructively dismissed for speaking up about internal abuses.
In the private sector, the situation was even worse as Canada retained the unreformed common law of libel without the exceptions for public issues or public interest that were added in all other English-speaking countries.^{[citation needed]} This made political libel cases unfortunately common, with one infamous case even filed by the Prime Minister himself versus Official Opposition for alleging that the Prime Minister, when in Opposition, had bribed MP Chuck Cadman.^{[citation needed]}
Historically, many Canadian private sector business scandals had come to light only through the intervention of the US SEC or other regulators (Garth Drabinsky, Conrad Black, Steven Bingham being three notable examples), due in part to the lack of whistleblower protections, plaintiff-friendly libel laws and a lack of investigative journalism due to these.^{[citation needed]}

Canadian government

Canada's parliament has instituted the Public Sector Integrity Office (Canada), a parliamentary office for the protection for whistleblowers who speak up against abuses in government. However, that office was itself cast into some doubt when the first Integrity Commissioner, Christiane Ouimet, was heavily criticized in the auditor general's report in December 2010.^[30][31] Cabinet minister Stockwell Day defended the office^[32] but independent groups urged the re-opening of already closed files.^[33][34]

Jamaica

In Jamaica, the Protected Disclosures Act, 2011^[35] received assent in March 2011. It creates a comprehensive system for the protection of whistleblowers in the public and private sector. It is based on the UK's Public Interest Disclosure Act.

India

Main article: Whistleblower protection in India

The Government of India has been considering adopting a whistleblower protection law for several years. In 2003, the Law Commission of India recommended the adoption of the Public Interest Disclosure (Protection of Informers) Act, 2002.^[36] In August 2010, the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010 was introduced into the Lok Sabha, lower house of the Parliament of India.^[37] The Bill was approved by the cabinet in June, 2011. The Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010 was renamed as The Whistleblowers' Protection Bill, 2011 by the Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice.^[38] The Whistleblowers' Protection Bill, 2011 was passed by the Lok Sabha on 28 December 2011.^[39] The Bill is however currently pending in the upper house of Parliament, Rajya Sabha for discussion and further passage. The Bill was introduced in Rajya Sabha on 29 March 2012 by V. Narayanasamy, Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs.

Ireland

The government of Ireland committed to adopting a comprehensive whistleblower protection law in January 2012. The bill will reportedly cover both the public and private sectors.^[40]

Other countries

There are also comprehensive laws in New Zealand and South Africa. A number of other countries have recently adopted comprehensive whistleblower laws including Ghana, South Korea, and Uganda. They are also being considered in Kenya and Rwanda. The European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2008 that whistleblowing was protected as freedom of expression.^[41]

Legal acts

This article's factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information. Please help improve the article by updating it. There may be additional information on the talk page. (August 2010)

The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (August 2010)

Ceballos case and the Whistleblower Protection Act of 2007

The US Supreme Court dealt what many considered a major blow to government whistleblowers when, in the case of Garcetti v. Ceballos, 04-5, 547 US 410,^[42] it ruled that government employees did not have protection from retaliation in performance evaluations by their employers under the First Amendment of the Constitution if the alleged speech was produced as part of his/her duties.^[43] Ceballos did not dispute that his memo was made as part of his official duties. Whistleblowers who want to pursue a federal case under the First Amendment must now always claim the memos and writings made are part not only of the official duty but of a citizen's opinion and discourse of public relevance. This can be done by alleging that the cause for retaliation is not the text of the memo but the ideas surrounding it. In the case of Ceballos he could have argued that his protected speech was his concept of strict adherence to the rule of law.
The free speech protections of the First Amendment have long been used to shield whistleblowers from retaliation by whistleblower attorneys. In response to the Supreme Court decision, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 985, the Whistleblower Protection Act of 2007. President George W. Bush, citing national security concerns, promised to veto the bill should it be enacted into law by Congress. The Senate's version of the Whistleblower Protection Act (S. 274), which has significant bipartisan support, was approved by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on June 13, 2007. However, it has yet to reach a vote by Senate as a hold has been placed on the bill by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK).^[44] According to the National Whistleblower Center, Coburn's hold on S. 274 has been done to further President Bush's agenda.^[45]
In December 2010 the Senate passed enhanced protections for government employees and contractors who report cases of waste, fraud and abuse.^[46]

California False Claims Act

The California False Claims Act protects whistleblowers from retaliation from their employer under a section entitled: "Section 12653. Employer interference with employee disclosures."^[47] Under this section, employers may not make rules that prevent an employee from disclosing information to the government in furtherance of a false claims action, an employer may not discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, deny promotion to, or in any other manner discriminate against, an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because he or she has disclosed information to the government.

Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA)

CEPA, New Jersey's whistleblower law, prohibits an employer from taking any retaliatory action against an employee because the employee does any of the following:

• Discloses, or threatens to disclose, to a supervisor or to a public body an activity, policy, or practice of the employer or another employer, with whom there is a business relationship, that the employee reasonably believes is in violation of a law, or a rule or regulation issued under the law, or, in the case of an employee who is a licensed or certified health care professional, reasonably believes constitutes improper quality of patient care;
• Provides information to, or testifies before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing or inquiry into any violation of law, or a rule or regulation issued under the law by the employer or another employer, with whom there is a business relationship, or, in the case of an employee who is a licensed or certified health care professional, provides information to, or testifies before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing or inquiry into quality of patient care; or
• Objects to, or refuses to participate in, any activity, policy or practice which the employee reasonably believes: is in violation of a law, or a rule or regulation issued under the law, or, if the employee is a licensed or certified health care professional, constitutes improper quality of patient care; is fraudulent or criminal; or is incompatible with a clear mandate of public policy concerning the public health, safety or welfare or protection of the environment.^[48]

"Concerning protection for health care workers who report patient safety information" in Colorado

"Patient safety is of paramount importance in the delivery of health care to Colorado citizens. A patient is at his or her safest when a health care worker has the right to speak out on the patient's behalf without fear of reprisal or retaliation. Health care providers recognize that, in order to deliver the highest quality health care, it is imperative that all health care workers have the right to report patient safety concerns and to advocate for a patient's well being without the risk of disciplinary action or loss of employment."^[49]

Medical residents and extending whistleblower protection to enforce safety, health, and maximum work hour standards

Other proposals have been made to extend federal whistleblower protection to medical residents working at health care facilities, hospitals, and health care providers, as an internal means to ensure that certain patient hospital and health standards are being effectuated, including enforcing maximum hour guidelines for medical residents^[50]

Best International Practices For Organizations

All organizations, whether public, private, or non-profit (including governmental) should, as a best practice, adopt a robust whistleblower system to induce its employees to internally report illegal or excessively risky activity directly to its board of directors or trustees. Without a robust whistleblower system, directors/trustees of the organization may fail in their oversight responsibilities. A robust whistleblower system encourages internal reporting of misconduct so as to permit it to be corrected.It is particularly important in countries (such as the United States) which provide significant financial rewards to whistleblowers who externally report illegal behavior to government entities.
There have been numerous examples of boards of directors/trustees who have been uninformed as to problems in the organization, even though lower level employees knew about these problems. These boards were misled because they relied primarily on top management and the auditors for their information.

See also

• Bribe Payers Index
• Bid rigging
• Complaint system
• Conflict of interest
• Corruption in India
• Department of Defense Whistleblower Program
• Destabilisation
• ECC: Leniency policy
• Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
• Global Integrity whistle blowers worldwide.
• Group of States Against Corruption
• Influence peddling
• Informant
• IRS Whistleblower Office
• List of whistleblowers
• Lobbying
• Misplaced loyalty
• Money trail - Money loop
• Organized crime
• Pay to Play
• Price fixing
• Shooting the messenger
• Source criticism
• Transparency International
• Whistleblower protection in India
• UK Bribery Act 2010

-----------