this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2023
2 points (100.0% liked)

conspiracy

202 readers
1 users here now

Magazine for posting about and discussing conspiracy theories. Post threads, videos, images or articles for discussion.

founded 1 year ago
 

So let’s say there is a whistleblower who wants to reveal damning information about a corrupt government or corporation, and that this organization would go so far as to murder people to keep the info from coming out. In an effort to protect themselves, the whistleblower sets up a “dead man’s switch”, meaning in the event of their untimely death, all of the most damning info gets automatically released all at once.

What doesn’t make sense to me is isn’t that the very same info that the whistleblower should have released from the beginning? The hard hitting info that actually matters, not just the trivial diluted stuff. And if the whistleblower’s goal is to eventually release all of that info anyway, what possible protection could a dead man’s switch offer? Isn’t the act of withholding the most important info by the whistleblower the very same crime that the corrupt organization is doing?

I bring this up because I heard Steven Greer mention that this is his situation in one of the documentaries he’s in (either The Lost Century or Above Top Secret, can’t remember which). Yeah I know that most seasoned conspiracy aware people find Greer to be a con man and a fraud. I find myself agreeing with most of the things he says (namely that if suppressed free energy technologies exist and work as their inventors claim, that it’s important to get them out to the world), but I can’t help but feel there may be some ulterior motives behind Greer. Like how is he even still alive if he talks about how many members of his team have been assassinated?

From the point of view of a corrupt organization, is there a certain point where a whistleblower can gain enough fame and notoriety that killing them off would create more of a shit storm for you than would letting them live?

I really don’t expect this to generate discussion since no one seems to be here, but this was on my mind so I figured I’d post it.

top 2 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lynny 3 points 1 year ago

In many cases whistle blowers work with journalists to provide people with privacy and personal security. For example, if you have a trove of documents like Snowden has, which could threaten the lives of individual agents who are out in the field, you don't want to release their info.

The threat in cases like this are that the dead man switch will release all the info in bulk for the entire world to see. There wouldn't be any redactions, no journalists who can be trusted to keep the information out of the wrong hands.

Of course that doesn't apply to situations with corporate whistleblowing where people's lives aren't at direct risk, but there could still be similar privacy issues for people who are involved but not at fault, such as working at the wrong company in the wrong department with the wrong coworkers.

[–] Concept1037 2 points 1 year ago

I mean there must be some legitimacy to the concept, as the other commenter mentioned, Snowden had the files sent to journalists for redaction.

On the Snowden story it all died. The Intercept which supposedly had all the files suddenly stopped reporting on it. I think that the alphabet agencies have such control over the media and the internet in general that they really don’t care about dead man’s switches anymore.

Sure, something might be posted on an obscure forum (like how supposedly there have been and are real UAP videos floating about), but I guess we can’t really trust anything anymore. This information overload with real info blended with misinformation and disinformation creates a real problem when finding out the truth. Not only that, when viewing a video/document or whatever, we are so politicized now that we don’t even see the same thing.

Interesting thoughts. I’ll be looking for your post in the future. This is how we create this space 👌