| December 7, 2006 Editorial on my case |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
From the Oakland Tribune / Argus Newspaper,
December 7, 2006
A bad precedent for whistleblowers
CASES such as Stephen Heller make whistleblowers an
endangered species.
The Van Nuys actor and temporary worker recently
pleaded guilty to a computer crime, agreed to pay a
$10,000 fine, and write an apology to Diebold and its Los
Angeles attorneys, Jones Day, for making confidential
Diebold legal memos public in 2004.
Heller had copied and released 500 pages of memos and
other data indicating that Diebold violated state election
laws by peddling in Alameda and other counties software
that had not been tested or approved for use in
elections. The Argus published some of the documents.
Shortly thereafter, state election officials decertified
Diebold touch-screen systems statewide.
Though critics of electronic voting consider Heller a
brave whistleblower with the public's interest at heart, the
Los Angeles District Attorney's Office announced an
indictment on charges of unauthorized access to a
computer, second-degree burglary and receiving stolen
goods. Each charge could have resulted in his being
sentenced to four years in prison.
Working as a word processor, he had heard a taped
statement by a Jones Day attorney describing ways
Diebold could get around state law and its $12 million
contract with Alameda County.
Heller then did what many right-minded, concerned
citizens would do. He went public with information
indicating wrongdoing. Many consider that responsible
conduct.
We agree with Cindy Cohn of the Electronic Frontier
Foundation that this case was a "miscarriage of justice."
"They should be giving this guy a medal. The secretary
of state should be writing him a letter thanking him ... for
helping the people of California and showing a light on
what Diebold was really about. ..."
Charges should not have been filed against Heller. The
district attorney's office could have dropped — or not
filed — them. After all, he revealed information that
Diebold and its attorneys were trying to deceive the
public and its officials. Given its own deceptions, the law
firm should have requested that charges be dropped.
The outcome discourages whistleblowers and others
from coming forward when they uncover misconduct
and illegal public activity. It runs counter to the best
interests of the public and state.
But if you're in that position, it may lead to you being
charged with felonies and hauled into court if you act as
a whistleblower. Before making a decision to break or try
to skirt the law, whistleblowers must weigh the
consequences and explore legal avenues for going
public with such information. Caution — such actions
carry legal consequences — talking to a lawyer, law
enforcement and the press first may help inform and
guide your decision about such a venture. Gathering
information and examining all legal avenues and options
is prudent when considering such an undertaking.
We respect Heller for his integrity and attempt to do
what's right. We hope eventually his conviction is
expunged. And, it would be fitting if some like-minded
party stepped forward to pay his fine.
December 7, 2006
A bad precedent for whistleblowers
CASES such as Stephen Heller make whistleblowers an
endangered species.
The Van Nuys actor and temporary worker recently
pleaded guilty to a computer crime, agreed to pay a
$10,000 fine, and write an apology to Diebold and its Los
Angeles attorneys, Jones Day, for making confidential
Diebold legal memos public in 2004.
Heller had copied and released 500 pages of memos and
other data indicating that Diebold violated state election
laws by peddling in Alameda and other counties software
that had not been tested or approved for use in
elections. The Argus published some of the documents.
Shortly thereafter, state election officials decertified
Diebold touch-screen systems statewide.
Though critics of electronic voting consider Heller a
brave whistleblower with the public's interest at heart, the
Los Angeles District Attorney's Office announced an
indictment on charges of unauthorized access to a
computer, second-degree burglary and receiving stolen
goods. Each charge could have resulted in his being
sentenced to four years in prison.
Working as a word processor, he had heard a taped
statement by a Jones Day attorney describing ways
Diebold could get around state law and its $12 million
contract with Alameda County.
Heller then did what many right-minded, concerned
citizens would do. He went public with information
indicating wrongdoing. Many consider that responsible
conduct.
We agree with Cindy Cohn of the Electronic Frontier
Foundation that this case was a "miscarriage of justice."
"They should be giving this guy a medal. The secretary
of state should be writing him a letter thanking him ... for
helping the people of California and showing a light on
what Diebold was really about. ..."
Charges should not have been filed against Heller. The
district attorney's office could have dropped — or not
filed — them. After all, he revealed information that
Diebold and its attorneys were trying to deceive the
public and its officials. Given its own deceptions, the law
firm should have requested that charges be dropped.
The outcome discourages whistleblowers and others
from coming forward when they uncover misconduct
and illegal public activity. It runs counter to the best
interests of the public and state.
But if you're in that position, it may lead to you being
charged with felonies and hauled into court if you act as
a whistleblower. Before making a decision to break or try
to skirt the law, whistleblowers must weigh the
consequences and explore legal avenues for going
public with such information. Caution — such actions
carry legal consequences — talking to a lawyer, law
enforcement and the press first may help inform and
guide your decision about such a venture. Gathering
information and examining all legal avenues and options
is prudent when considering such an undertaking.
We respect Heller for his integrity and attempt to do
what's right. We hope eventually his conviction is
expunged. And, it would be fitting if some like-minded
party stepped forward to pay his fine.