Thomas Tamm: Whistleblower on NSA Warrantless Surveillance

By Jeralyn, Section War on Terror
Posted on Sun Dec 14, 2008 at 06:11:37 PM EST
Tags: NSA warrantless surveillance (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Michael Isikoff of Newsweek scores a huge exclusive, NSA warrantless wiretap whistleblower Thomas Tamm's story, in his own words.

Exhausted by the uncertainty clouding his life, Tamm now is telling his story publicly for the first time. "I thought this [secret program] was something the other branches of the government—and the public—ought to know about. So they could decide: do they want this massive spying program to be taking place?" Tamm told NEWSWEEK, in one of a series of recent interviews that he granted against the advice of his lawyers. "If somebody were to say, who am I to do that? I would say, 'I had taken an oath to uphold the Constitution.' It's stunning that somebody higher up the chain of command didn't speak up."

[More...]

Tamm concedes he was also motivated in part by his anger at other Bush-administration policies at the Justice Department, including its aggressive pursuit of death-penalty cases and the legal justifications for "enhanced" interrogation techniques that many believe are tantamount to torture. But, he insists, he divulged no "sources and methods" that might compromise national security when he spoke to the Times.

As for what Tramm is doing now:

He is no longer employed at Justice and has been struggling to make a living practicing law. He does occasional work for a local public defender's office, handles a few wills and estates—and is more than $30,000 in debt. (To cover legal costs, he recently set up a defense fund.) He says he has suffered from depression. He also realizes he made what he calls "stupid" mistakes along the way, including sending out a seemingly innocuous but fateful e-mail from his Justice Department computer that may have first put the FBI on his scent. Soft-spoken and self-effacing, Tamm has an impish smile and a wry sense of humor. "I guess I'm not a very good criminal," he jokes.

Nor is Tamm sorry he tipped off the Times:

Tamm understands that some will see his conduct as "treasonous." But still, he says he has few regrets. If he hadn't made his phone call to the Times, he believes, it's possible the public would never have learned about the Bush administration's secret wiretapping program. "I don't really need anybody to feel sorry for me," he wrote in a recent e-mail to NEWSWEEK. "I chose what I did. I believed in what I did."

While the Times earned a Pulitzer for its coverage of the NSA warrantless wiretapping program, Tamm hasn't fared very well:

The FBI has pursued him relentlessly for the past two and a half years. Agents have raided his house, hauled away personal possessions and grilled his wife, a teenage daughter and a grown son. More recently, they've been questioning Tamm's friends and associates about nearly every aspect of his life. Tamm has resisted pressure to plead to a felony for divulging classified information. But he is living under a pall, never sure if or when federal agents might arrest him.

< Iraqi Reporter Throws Shoes at Bush | It's Cold Outside, Don't Forget to Give >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Thomas Tamm: Whistleblower on NSA Warrantless Surveillance | 55 comments (55 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Needless to say, every discovery demand (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by scribe on Sun Dec 14, 2008 at 06:42:29 PM EST

in criminal cases involving (or even having the remote chance of involving) wiretap evidence should include a demand for STELLAR WIND material.

That was the formerly classified codename for the warrantless wiretapping program, also revealed in the Isikoff article.

And, the article confirms what many have suspected (since the existence of warrantless wiretapping became known): the government tried repeatedly to launder information generated by STELLAR WIND into ordinary FISA applications and, probably, into ordinary criminal cases. Judge Lamberth caught them at it and threatened to rule on the constitutionality of what they were doing. They stopped. Then, after his term ended, Judge Kollar caught them at it, again.

Mr. Tamm deserves praise - he stood up for his oath to the Constitution - not the persecution the Bush administration has dumped on him.

Stellar Wind data took down Spitzer (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by lambert on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 10:00:42 AM EST

here.

And since the NSA asked for domestic surveillance capabilities before 9/11, why would anyone be foolish enough to believe that terrorism was the prime motivator?

Why would you care what the motive was? (none / 0) (#15)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 10:37:19 AM EST

Do you believe that we need defense, or don't you?


I think (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by cenobite on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 11:35:06 AM EST

That blanket surveillance of american telecommunications is unconstitutional and unnecessary for national defense.

The constitutional standard is get a warrant particularly describing the place to be searched or the persons or things to seize.


There is/was not a blanket (none / 0) (#29)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 12:05:24 PM EST

The taps were on calls from suspected terrorists outside the US to US numbers and from US numbers to suspected terrorists outside the US.

Somewhat of a difference, eh??


You are not correct (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by cenobite on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 12:16:10 PM EST

They are capturing everything, and sorting through it later on fishing expeditions. All domestic traffic, all of it.


Capturing what? (none / 0) (#34)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 12:25:53 PM EST

Telephone numbers??

Links please. And not KOS types.

BTW - Are you aware that your telephone number does not belong to you?


Details (5.00 / 2) (#36)
by cenobite on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 12:49:31 PM EST

All internet traffic at the peering points.

Nearly all domestic numbers called by millions of americans.

Huge volumes of records of domestic emails and Internet searches as well as bank transfers, credit-card transactions, travel and telephone records.

NSA systems used to eavesdrop on known terrorist Tony Blair

This wasn't very hard to get. And the rule of the bush administration is no matter how bad you think it is, it's always worse.


: Huh?? (2.00 / 0) (#42)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 01:35:47 PM EST

None of this stuff is private.
How do you think the telcos bill you???

Sure (none / 0) (#16)
by jondee on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 11:01:35 AM EST

At any cost. Exactly what your soulmates the Stalinists and the National Socialists said.


Answer the question. (none / 0) (#30)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 12:06:51 PM EST

Do you believe that we need a defense?

And if you want to place limitations not in the Constitution, feel free to do so.


What part of the constitution (none / 0) (#35)
by jondee on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 12:38:36 PM EST

covers electronic surveillance, limited or unlimited?

If you want a new constitution with unlimited powers for the executive whenever chickenhawks are in power, feel free to start your own movement.


: You are the one complaining (2.00 / 0) (#41)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 01:30:05 PM EST

When we get around to (none / 0) (#39)
by jondee on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 11:30:54 AM CST
building a lead enclosure around the states that dont believe "Saddam done 'tacked us on 9/11", then I'll want "our side" to win.
In the mean time, we should be focusing on preventing the grossly ignorant and their enablers from rotting the country from the inside.
Jondee's daffyniition:
"Ignorant: Everyone who doesn't agree with me."

Think we shoud resurrect (none / 0) (#23)
by oldpro on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 11:27:52 AM EST

The Unamerican Activities Committees?


why would his laywer tell him (none / 0) (#2)
by samtaylor2 on Sun Dec 14, 2008 at 10:41:49 PM EST

Not to go public?

Of course he did. (none / 0) (#3)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 14, 2008 at 11:03:34 PM EST

I chose what I did. I believed in what I did."

That he has hurt the security of the country because he chose to ignore the will of the people who voted for Bush doesn't seem to penetrate his mind at all.

And he displays even more of his base motives when he says:

Tamm concedes he was also motivated in part by his anger at other Bush-administration policies at the Justice Department, including its aggressive pursuit of death-penalty cases and the legal justifications for "enhanced" interrogation techniques that many believe are tantamount to torture.

When you take the law into your own hands, bad things are apt to happen to you.

How does destroying the rule of law.... (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by lambert on Sun Dec 14, 2008 at 11:49:37 PM EST

... help the security of the country? Because that's what Bush did.

Bush took the law into his own hands, not Tamm.

Unless you're being ironic. But you mean what you say, right?


That is your opion (2.00 / 0) (#8)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 06:57:29 AM EST

and you he are welcome to it.

But I never say anything about FISA that broke the law.


What does that mean? (none / 0) (#18)
by oldpro on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 11:12:03 AM EST

"But I never say anything about FISA that broke the law."


: change say to "saw" (none / 0) (#21)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 11:22:14 AM EST

Sorry about that.

We have means to correct things that (none / 0) (#22)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 11:26:00 AM EST

the voters find to be wrong.

Notice VOTER(s.)

We don't need people taking the law into their hands.

What happens when the other side decides they don't want to put up with your complaining? IS it okay if they restrain you?

Obviously not and I think you see my point.


Doesn't being part of a nation that tortures.... (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by lambert on Sun Dec 14, 2008 at 11:51:40 PM EST

... make you angry?

If it doesn't, it ought to.

Attributing "base motives" to righteous anger at wrongdoing is the pits. You should be ashamed, jimakaPPJ. You and the rest of the 24 fans in the Village -- if they weren't beyond shame.


Define torture (1.00 / 2) (#9)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 07:05:58 AM EST

Temperature extremes, loud music, sleep deprivation, cultural shock (female guards, etc.), water boarding are not torture.

Very uncomfortable? Yes.

And please don't tell me about the military "leaders" who don't like it. Facts are that any of our troops will be treated the way the terrorists want to treat them irrespective of how we have treated them.

And please don't tell me about "can't trust" the information. The techniques for vetting information obtained from prisoners has existed for centuries and has been used time and again.'

Jim says (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by killer on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 08:16:42 AM EST

waterboarding is not torture. I will wait to see the consensus opinion on that. This country has carged, tried, convicted and imprisoned people for war crimes for just that. So, when did the change in law happen? We know when the change in policy happened. I was told in school that we are a nation of laws.

While there may be a justification for violating the law in a particular circumstance, to claim that waterboarding is not torture is to use your own private definitions for words, IMHO.

So the question becomes: what definitions for torture should be used in our conversations with each other? Or: what definitions for torture should be used in international war crimes trials?
Do you think that the "Jim said it wasn't torture" defense will work in a war crimes trial?


Disgusting (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by lambert on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 09:58:19 AM EST

But then, apologists for torture are always disgusting.


Define torture (none / 0) (#20)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 11:21:30 AM EST

Over a year ago a commentator here defined torture as someone one doing something to him that he didn't like.

Congratulations. You just let every terrorist out of prison... because they surely won't like to be locked up.

Congratulations. You just sent every policeman home because the thugs, robbers and murders, both white and blue collar, don't like to be arrested.

Congratulations. You just sent every fireman home because the terrorists won't like us trying to save lives and put our fires their explosions have caused.

Life is full of people doing difficult things caused by other people doing mean evil things.


OK, Against My Better Judgment (5.00 / 0) (#48)
by daring grace on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 03:21:28 PM EST

I'll engage you. On the What Is Torture question.

According to Wikipedia:

"Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions."

It's a lazy and ignorant cop-out to advocate that we torture people as if this era and the world as it is today is any more dangerous a place than ever before. The U.S. used to be better than that, when we had standards of decency and courage.

Hopefully, this lamentable chapter in our history is about to come to a close.


: I refer you to the word (2.00 / 0) (#49)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 04:43:26 PM EST

"severe."
Loud music, sleep deprivation, cultural mores disrespect, temperature swings and extremes, "dog collars," etc., are not "severe." Water boarding induces the gag reflex, but no severe pain. None of the above causes pain or permnanent damage.
They are very uncomfortable, but that is what they are designed to be. Very uncomfortable and meant to weaken the mental defenses of the prisoner.
As to coming to a close, perhaps. That is not my question. My question is how quickly will we see a major terrorist attack inside the US, as Joe Biden forecasted to happen within six months.

Laws are changed all the time. (none / 0) (#24)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 11:29:00 AM EST

And you are not aware of that? I think you are.

So. Your point is??

And if a US citizen is tried in an International trial of any type then we have lost our country and our citizenship.


Only THEN? (none / 0) (#26)
by jondee on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 11:38:38 AM EST

When its an "international trial"?

I'd say it starting getting lost once we starting launching imperial witchhunts around the world and claiming money invested in China was money invested in the U.S.


Could you speak English? (none / 0) (#31)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 12:14:49 PM EST

Congrats (none / 0) (#38)
by jondee on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 12:59:20 PM EST

That cabal of incompetants you've been fronting for prevented TWO worst attacks in history from occuring.


: Speak english (1.00 / 1) (#45)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 02:17:51 PM EST

"will of the people who voted for Bush" (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Andreas on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 12:42:04 AM EST

Certainly a number of those who voted for Bush also support the crimes he then committed. But that was also true for Adolf Hitler and his supporters.


: Andreas (none / 0) (#11)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 07:20:51 AM EST

Gee, Andreas how have you been?
How's Stalin and all the boys and girls?

Doesn't being part of a nation that tortures.... (none / 0) (#6)
by lambert on Sun Dec 14, 2008 at 11:51:45 PM EST

I get angry at things all the time (none / 0) (#10)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 07:18:38 AM EST

Like a school system that is so bad that my grand children have to be sent to a private school, straining the family finances... and that's after paying outlandish property taxes.

A medical system that is so poorly managed that the costs go up three and four times the rate of inflation and millions go untreated except in emergency rooms, slowing the service for true emergencies.

That we spend time and energy arguing and fighting over such things as who can marry who and whether or not a woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body.

A legal system that is so screwed up over the drug problem it is putting people in jail while selling two of the very worst drugs across the counter.

I don't get angry over the Feds listening to calls incoming from outside the US, or calls going to locations outside the US from suspected terrorists without a warrant.

But even on those I do get angry at I do not break he law. I call/email my representatives and VOTE.


Civil Disobedience... (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by santarita on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 11:06:33 AM EST

Sometimes the government including Congress doesn't do the right thing.

Tamm did what he thought he had to do to uphold the Constitution. He knew that he faced adverse consequences and is willing to accept them. Certainly one hopes that in a democracy that exercising one's franchise will be sufficient recourse but for some the action of the government is so egregiously wrong that recourse to civil disobedience seems to be the only appropriate remedy.


Hence, The Pentagon Papers. (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by oldpro on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 11:18:39 AM EST

Precisely and various ... (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by santarita on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 11:39:51 AM EST

protests against the Viet Nam War and segregation in the South.


Of course (none / 0) (#33)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 12:23:20 PM EST

all that did was cause N. Vietnam to understand they could lose the battles and win a political war, given to them by the Left.

Ever visit the wall?? Think about what prolonging the war cost in American lives? Think about the millions killed in Cambodia and the re-education camps in Vietnam??

Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?
A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.

Why Not Ask That Question to ... (5.00 / 0) (#37)
by santarita on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 12:58:33 PM EST

Nixon and Kissinger? In 1968 who encouraged the South Vietnamese to leave the negotiating table thinking that they could get a better deal from a Nixon Administration?


Starting and escalating (5.00 / 0) (#39)
by jondee on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 01:05:04 PM EST

the war good. "Prolonging" the war bad. Do you ever think these things out before you go into what-would-Hannity-say mode?

Try Googling what your pal Hitchens wrote about the Repubs intentionally sabotaging the Paris peace talks for gain in the '68 election.


: I pay as much attention to (2.00 / 0) (#51)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 04:54:24 PM EST

Hannity and Hitchens as I do you.
(Yes. That much.)
;-)

Yes, Jim...I've visited the wall. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by oldpro on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 01:28:59 PM EST

It wasn't folks like me (and the anti-Vietnam left) who prolonged the war...it was the voters who elected Nixon. You will recall his 'secret plan to end the war?'

And yes, the Vietnamese always knew that it was a political war...just as Iraq is a political war...going in and coming out.

Only Americans were misled and confused about that. You appear to be one of them...


Nope (2.00 / 0) (#43)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 01:48:21 PM EST

What you mean is that you couldn't surrender quick enough, though heaven knows you tried.

Go back and read the link, again.


OK...I read it again. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by oldpro on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 01:59:00 PM EST

So what?

It is a waste of time and energy to reargue the Vietnam War with people who still think we could have 'won.'

After 59,000+ dead Americans and over 300,000 maimed and wounded, what else have we '[lost' in Vietnam?

P.S. There is no Santa Claus and no Easter Bunny. Write that down.


Perhaps it would go away (2.00 / 0) (#46)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 02:20:54 PM EST

if the Left admitted their collective fault and the cost in lives and treasure.

The comparison, and the actions of the Left, to the War On Terror...actually I prefer to WWIV, is obvious.


What? What ARE you (5.00 / 0) (#47)
by oldpro on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 03:18:04 PM EST

talking about? What would 'go away?'

And what is the left's 'collective fault?' Not supporting wars of choice as opposed to wars of necessity? Did the left invade Vietnam? Iraq?

P.S. Terror is a tactic...no more likely to be obliterated by a war than smallpox.


Perhaps the anger of those on the Right (2.00 / 0) (#50)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 04:51:44 PM EST

who recognize that the Left's antics cost us the war and and thousands of lives..

It also brought us Jimmy Carter whose actions in Iran made him the Godfather of terrorism.

Terror is a tactic of our enemies. The purpose of killing terrorists is to stop the terrorist acts. Kill enough of them and the acts will go away.

Justify their acts in anyway and you will only get more killing. They have chosen their path.

And it really is just that simple.


Nonsense. Nothing is that simple. (5.00 / 0) (#52)
by oldpro on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 12:14:32 AM EST

As an Army brat, I can appreciate "Patton," the movie (yes, I visited your website), but I more appreciate an exploration of war from the point of view of the grunt. Meglamoniacal generals make for good drama but both Patton and McArthur (not to mention General light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel Westmoreland) forgot that in our country it is the civilians who decide policy. Such generals, in time of war especially, always think it is about them. It's not. My Dad and Harry Truman taught me that.

May I recommend "The Deerhunter" and "The Young Lions" just for openers. Well-made, brilliantly-acted, entertaining, instructive and thought-provoking films about WWII and Vietnam and the complexities of war for those caught up in it.


And your point is? (2.00 / 0) (#53)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 09:49:41 AM EST

An army brat? Having spent 10 years in Naval Aviation I'm afraid I can't relate to your extensive military background.

"Patton" as a movie was fairly accurate in a historical sense and never meant to be a study about the role of the "grunt." Patton's idea of how to protect and help his men was training, training, training and then keeping them in supplies and good spirits by having them believe in themselves.

Not bad stuff for sailors, airdales or ground pounders. The fundamentals still apply, eh?

He wasn't a politician but he was right on his demand that he be turned loose in the fall of '44 and given the supplies to let him finish off the Germans.

Instead politics said Montgomery should be given his "chance" and the result was a six month extension of the war and the loss of thousands of lives. Not to mention we most likely could have taken Berlin before the Soviets arrived and short circuited the Cold War.

I note you didn't mention "Band of Brothers." Any reason??

I saw "The Deer Hunter" and enjoyed it, but it doesn't make my list of favorites. I remember "The Young Lions" as a "movie name" but nothing else. The late fifties and the early sixties were busy busy for me so I may have just missed it.

But my "It's just that simple," goes to the heart of where we are now. We can not negotiate with the terrorists. They are radical Muslim fanatics that believe their mission is to establish Sharia law over the world and they are aided, not hindered, by policies in the west that do not highlight the many unacceptable social policies of the theocracies of the Muslim world.

So we must fight. To think otherwise is to fill your mind with delusions. Islam does not accept a pluralistic world. Perhaps it will reform itself as the Christian faith did, but then the question is, where is the opposition to the radical Muslims?


: Snotty and smug, alone or in (none / 0) (#54)
by oldpro on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 01:52:32 PM EST

combination, are not attractive, Jim. You know perfectly well what my point is.
As for extensive military background, I don't have one but my father did...22 years...and my husband (WWII) was also a Naval aviator. I mention it only to let you know that not all people with a complex view of military matters are anti military and some of us actualoly know a little bit more about it than the average warmonger hyped on myth and vengeance.
Didn't mention 'Band of Brothers' simply because I didn't see it.
Re Patton...I believe it was his superior military officers who reined in his ambitions...about which you may endlessly postulate and answer your own 'what-if questions' as he did. Whether you're right or wrong we'll never know but you should keep in mind that there is always a price to pay...whatever route is chosen. Always.
As for "it's simple..." Yes and no. Killing radical Muslims doesn't take a war of invasion...quite the opposite, I'd say. Believerpeople, whether Oklahoma bombers, Islamic or Christian prosyltizing fundamentalists or Hale Bopp Comet rapturists are all a problem. People who want to make their myths the reality of others will at all times and in all places be a problem. You can't wipe them out in a war...(see The Crusades).
Most amusing of all: "perhaps it will reform itself as the Christian faith did"...did I miss something? When did THAT happen? Oh, you mean in Europe! They don't seem to bomb abortion clinics or attack gay people on the street.
So.....fight? Yes. Just make sure your toolbox has more than one weapon and that you know how to use them. Sounds like a refresher training course at the War College is in order....you seem to be mired in the past. True of many of my generation.

Nope (none / 0) (#28)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 12:00:17 PM EST

I don't think he demonstrated. I think he got caught sending emails....


Whistleblower Bunny Greenhouse Retaliated Against (none / 0) (#55)
by lmw on Fri May 22, 2009 at 04:19:59 PM EST

I thought you might be interested in this letter written by Army Corps of Engineers whistleblower Bunny Greenhouse, who was retaliated against after she testified to Congress last week. Ms. Greenhouse is calling on all Americans to support whistleblower protection for federal employees. To read her letter go to http://capwiz.com/whistleblowers/issues/alert/?alertid=13371836