What Drives the Spy or the Whistleblower May Be Different - Term Paper Example

How espionage differs from whistle blowing Institution Names Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Background: The Edward Snowden Case 4 Difference between espionage and whistle blowing 5 Clear divergence in definitions 5 Primary motivation 6 Personal financial problems 8 Diminished organisational loyalty 9 Diminished national loyalty 10 Altruistic behaviours 12 Military targets 13 Conclusion 13 References 15 Introduction Corporations, individuals, military, and nations depend on counterintelligence for their security and safety. According to Prunckun (2014), the purpose of counterintelligence is to support intelligence functions and formulation of sound security measures. On the other hand, Woods and King (2008) show that without counterintelligence, classified intelligence would be open to espionage by adversaries. Based on this analogy, it is easy to see why counterintelligence is commonly thought to be security. The primary objective of counterintelligence is protection of secret or classified information (Prunckun, 2014). Counterintelligence is also aimed at detecting and deterring hostile intelligence or the enemy spies. Unauthorised passing of the secret information by insiders to external people may result to security breach (Beutel, 2007). Depending on the perspective taken, individuals who expose the secret information to outsiders may be regarded as whistleblowers or spies. Leakers who have made headlines, such as Edward Snowden have been viewed as individuals who allegedly did something for the greater good of the public. On a different perspective, Snowden has been viewed as a traitor who traded his country’s intelligence, hence exposing his country to security vulnerabilities. When an individual reveals classified information that he obtains by way of high-level security clearance to the general public, should he be considered a spy or whistleblower? What if supposed leaker was motivated by the need to expose executive’s transgressions of law, moral principles, or duty? Or, should this really matter, when it comes to matters of national security? These questions show the confusion regarding who should be regarded as a spy or whistleblower. The questions also pose the lack of clear delineation between who is a spy and whistle blower among counterintelligence literature. Yet, in differentiating between a spy and a whistleblower, Perry (2000) suggests that focusing on what motivates or drives the hypothetical leaker to make public disclosure of the classified information or intelligence. An underlying assumption for this is since what drives the spy or the whistleblower may be different. This paper shows that it is the individual leaker’s motives that determine whether he is a spy or a whistle blower. While whistleblowers are motivated by the need to bring greater public good on grounds of moral obligation, spies are driven by selfish desires of gaining financial gains or ideological advantages. It is concluded that Snowden was a spy. Background: The Edward Snowden Case Edward Snowden worked as an employee of National Security Agency’s (NSA’s) contactor firm Booz Allen Hamilton. Snowden leaked classified government intelligence to the ‘Washington Post’ and ‘The Guardian.’ Some of the leaked reports exposed a number of Internet surveillance programs the NSA used, such as XKeyscore, PRISM and Tempora. Others also involved information on telephone interceptions in Europe and the United States. Snowden’s activities that resulted in leaks to the international media were perceived as either espionage or courageous act of whistle-blowing. Some critics have also described Snowden as a ‘traitor” who caused ‘irreparable damage’ to US intelligence capacity, some have portrayed his as a “patriot”, “hero” or whistleblower, since the NSA conducted activities viewed as transgressing on privacy rights, by conducting surveillance practices to leaders of other governments and its own citizens (Masnick, 2010). The US Government decided that Snowden’s activities were illegal. In June 2014, the US Government charged Snowden with unauthorised communication national defence information, theft of government property and intentional communication of classified communication of security intelligence to unauthorised persons under section 793(d) of the Espionage Act 1950, which prohibits lawfully in possession of information related to national defence from disclosing the information to unauthorised persons (Vladeck, 2008). Difference between espionage and whistle blowing Clear divergence in definitions The definitions of a ‘whistleblower’ and a ‘spy’ differ in many aspects. Firtko and Jackson (2005) define whistle-blowing as any reporting of misconduct within the workplace. Tavani (2013) portray whistle-blowing as involving reporting of unethical, incompetent and illegal incidences within the workplace to individuals or an authority that can stop them. On the other hand, Erhman (2009) considers espionage as an act of spying. It involves an individual, company or government obtaining information that is considered confidential or secret with the authorization of the holder of the information (Erhman, 2009). However, these definitions are problematic since they do not differentiate between reporting to external agencies such as the media and reporting of intelligence to an enemy government or bodies. Elsewhere, Benkert (2010) shows that the information gathered for whistle-blowing may be reported to independent media house. Pincus (2014) also argues that while whistleblowers pass the information to an independent media, a spy passes the information to an enemy government. Snowden was therefore a whistleblower rather than a spy. He contacted independent news media to call attention to government abuses, negligence or hazards that menaced the public interest. Grounds of Legitimacy Unlike spying, whistle-blowing is legal. Tsahuridu and Vandekerckhove (2008) consider whistle-blowing activities to be legal. The researchers surveyed the trends of whistle-blowing activities in the United States and cited incidences of increased protection of whistleblowers by the government. In the view, the increase contrasted the increased court cases where US courts have been asked to enforce secrecy agreements in order to prosecute whistleblowers. Spies understand that their actions are detrimental to the information holder, and therefore illegal. In which case, the morality of their actions may not be their concern (Papandrea, 2014). Unlike whistle-blowing, espionage is a clandestine activity since it is considered unwelcome, deathly, illegal and punishable by law (Crane, 2005). Snowden was therefore a whistleblower. Despite being indicted under the Espionage Act, the actual charges brought against him were unauthorized communication of national defence information, theft of government property, and intractable communication of classified intelligence information to unauthorized persons. Primary motivation The motive for spying is malicious while that of whistle-blowing is for public good. A study by Defense Personnel Security Research Center (PERSEREC) that investigated economic, social and technology trends to determine the motivations and opportunities, found that increasing motivations and opportunities for insider espionage correspond with the increase in frequency of espionage (PERSEREC, 2005). Kramer et al. (2005) and Papandrea (2014) agree that while technological advances have led to increased opportunities for espionage and whistle-blowing, it is the motive of the leaker that differentiates whether one is a spy or whistle-blower. The motive may be malicious or for public good. Malicious intent would amount to espionage. While leaking the information to enemy governments or bodies would be amount to espionage (Konstantopoulos, 2014). According to Vandenabeele (2011), the motives for whistle-blowing can be explained by the public service motivation theory, where individual respond to the motives driven by the need to improve the public institutions. According to Perry (2000), it is the motivational force that drives individuals to achieve meaningful public service. In Clonan (2013) views, it is the general unselfish motivation to serve community, state or nation’s interests. Therefore, disclosing the information for public good could in such circumstances be regarded as whistle-blowing. Pincus (2014) argued that spies have an external-type and mercenary-type motivation that drives them to gather and reveal secret information to enemies by bypassing counterintelligence. On the other hand, whistleblowers have internal type motivation and tend to see themselves as being righteous, moralistic, and altruistic. They also tend to be inspired by their understanding of doing the right thing and telling the truth for public good. Unlike spies therefore, whistleblowers may welcome public acknowledgement or seek anonymity, since they understand that their actions are legal. Snowden was therefore a whistleblower. Review of media reports show that Snowden claimed that his ‘sole motive’ for leaking the intelligence was mainly to inform the public of government transgressions (Masnick, 2010). Further, he allowed ‘The Guardian’ and the ‘Washington Post’ to reveal his identity. He also had internal type motivation and tended to view himself as being righteous, moralistic, and altruistic. A survey of media reports also shows he understood that he was doing the right thing and telling the truth for public good. Indeed, Edward Snowden received the ‘whistle-blower price’ in Germany and became a nominee for the European Parliament’s Sakharov prize for freedom of thought (Ackerman, 2013). Personal financial problems Whistleblowers tend to have no perceivable personal financial problems. In survey of espionage activities in the United States, PERSEREC (2005) found that most insiders who have access to classified intelligence may become motivated to engage in espionage once they encounter conditions in their professional or personal lives that drive them to do so. PERSEREC (2005) further justified his claims by explaining that personal financial stress is among the leading factors known to provide motivation for espionage. Therefore, serious financial pressures may trigger an individual to turn to espionage. Kramer and Heur (2005) illustrated that cases of espionage increased in the United States after the 2008/2011 economic recession that substantially increased financial pressures on employees because of medical expenses and loss of jobs. While this may not apply in Snowden’s situation, analysis of whistle-blowing perspective provides some light. A study by Kramer and Heur (2005) also supports the assumption that existence of personal financial problems is a key driver for engaging in espionage activities. From a review of literature on what motivates individuals to engage in whistle-blowing, it cannot be established whether the insiders have personal financial problems that trigger them to engage in whistle-blowing. Benkert (2010) argues that whistle-blowing has the narrow objective of drawing attention to abuse or negligence, or perhaps alerting the public to threats, hence they are not motivated by financial rewards. Firtko and Jackson (2004) also disputed the idea that whistleblowers were motivated by the need to get themselves out of personal financial problems. According to Firtko and Jackson (2004), in whistleblowing, the insiders choose to ‘blow the whistle’ out of moral commitment and social consciousness. Snowden was a whistleblower. He did not ask for financial rewards for his disclosures (Rieder, 2013). The Guardian and Washington Post confirmed that Snowden was never paid for his disclosures (Turley, 2014). He also did not have any perceived personal financial problems. In fact, Snowden is portrayed by the media as having led a ‘comfortable life’, including a salary of about $200,000, stable career and a home in Hawaii (Turley, 2014). Diminished organisational loyalty From a survey of counterintelligence literatures, it is established that diminished loyalty among the employees also separates an espionage agent from a whistleblower. In a study of spies who had been caught in the United States over five decades, Kramer and Heur (2005) found that diminished organisational loyalty among employees of intelligence agencies motivated them to engage in espionage. Kramer and Heur (2005) stated that lack of loyalty to the employer or resentment due to perceived mistreatment opens ground for insiders to rationalise theft of employer’s property, including intelligence. In another study by Defense Personnel Security Research Center, it was found that changing conditions in the workplace indicated the rising number of employee dissatisfaction and lack of motivation due to frequent downsizing, and temporary work and general lack of job security (PERSEREC, 2005). Several researches on whistle-blowing have showed that whistleblowers tend to be experienced, positive thinking, moderately powerful and highly performing employees (Vandenabeele, 2011). In which case, they are not disloyal, disgruntled and disillusioned employees. This argument is congruent with predictions of power relationships theory in organisation, where individuals with greater responsibility, sense of ownership and who are highly committed may have greater power to effect change (Mesmer-Magnus and Viswesvaran, 2005). Similarly, employees who demonstrate higher levels of commitment are more interested in seeing organisational growth, and are therefore more likely to blow the whistle. Snowden was a whistleblower. A survey of media and government reports show no evidence that Snowden was a disgruntled low-performing employee. According to Turley (2014), he was a low-level employee of Dell contractor at a nondescript National Security Agency site. He was also a committed and a highly performing individual. There was also no perceived mistreatment at the workplace. Diminished national loyalty Unlike whistle-blowers, espionage agents tend to have diminished national loyalty. A study by Defense Personnel Security Research Center on spies caught in the United States showed that spies tended to be unpatriotic individuals. Kramer and Heur (2005) support this idea when they argue that the rise in ethnic diversification in countries such as the United States over the last four decades has led to the rise in the number of espionage activities. In their view, more citizens today have with business contacts and relatives abroad. Kramer and Heur (2005) pointed out that these emotional ties to relatives or friends in foreign countries resulted to conflicts of conscience regarding national loyalty. Consistent with the research findings, Lewis (2010) also established that the growth of bicultural number of Americans, where their identities are rooted to the larger global culture. Zegart (2010) pointed out that spies showed increased acceptance of global values makes it easy for potential leakers to rationalise actions, which are in fact driven by ulterior financial motives. On the other hand, whistleblowers are generally patriotic individuals. In Perry's (2000) review of literature, he concluded that whistleblowers tend to be highly performing employees, who are highly satisfied with their jobs. A recent longitudinal survey by Mesmer-Magnus and Viswesvaran (2005) revealed that whistleblowers could be perceived as being disloyal to the organisation and loyal to the public. An earlier study that evaluated data from Merit principles survey conducted in 1992, undertaken by US-based Merit System Protection Board found that whistleblowers were motivated by concern for public interests and mostly displayed high levels of job security, satisfaction, and commitment. It could further be reasoned that whistleblowers’ area of interest is the organisation rather than their country. Rather than show satisfaction, loyalty, and commitment to the national ideologies, whistleblowers centre their interests on the organisation. Snowden was a whistleblower. According to Ingersoll (2013), Snowden believed that NSA’s mass collection of phone and Internet data was both unethical acts and illegal acts. He also believed that NSA had violated the federal privacy law and that the only way to blow the whistle was to pass the information to the press and to let the resulting public furore to stop NSA. Altruistic behaviours Unlike spies, whistleblowers show altruistic, or unselfish, behaviour (Kramer and Heur, 2005). Citing this perspective, Heuer (2006) stated that financial motivation drove insiders to engage in espionage purposes. Following a review of approximately 79 percent of the Americans charged with espionage over the last 50 years. Heuer (2006) further argued that espionage cases that have appeared to be financially motivated have actually been motivated by emotional needs, such as power, money, influence and a need to gain self-esteem. Consistent with these findings, Perry (2000) observed that whistleblowers are not motivated to fulfil personal or family lives. Rather, they tend to be unselfish and engage in whistle-blowing to enrich the general interest of those in their business lives (Brown et al., 2014). Whistleblowers do not seek financial rewards. Vadera et al. (2009) examined the correlation between morality and whistle-blowing and concluded that whistleblowers were mostly driven by moral obligation rather than selfish desires. For his willingness to sacrifice his career and his personal comforts, Snowden is considered a whistleblower. According to a report by The Guardian, Snowden claimed he was willing to sacrifice his career because he could not in good conscience allow the US government to destroy internet freedom, privacy and fundamental liberties from people around the globe (Greenwald et al., 2013). Military targets Espionage is focused on intelligence and counterintelligence concerned with political and military targets. This view is supported by Tucker (1997), in his review of the US Government's war on economic espionage. Wood et al. (2005) supported this perspective by arguing that frequent cases of espionage have involved American scientist selling military technology to the Soviet Union, especially during the Cold War. In Woods and King (2008) view, espionage is associated with spying on actual or potential enemies for military purposes. However, it may also be for gaining commercial advantages. Pandey and Kusum (2013) define this kind of spying economic or industrial espionage. A spy or espionage agent infiltrates the enemies’ ranks to steal information (Fedorowich, 2005). In return, they can gather all kinds of information regarding the strength and size of the enemies’ technology or army. Snowden was a whistleblower as he passed the secret information to independent media houses rather than American adversaries. In a media report by ‘The Guardian,’ Ackerman (2013) wrote that NSA was unable to provide evidence that Snowden passed intelligence to US adversaries, such as al-Qaeda. Conclusion It is the individual leaker’s motives that determine whether he is a spy or a whistle blower. While whistleblowers are motivated by the need to bring greater public good on grounds of moral obligation, spies are driven by selfish desires of gaining financial gains or ideological advantages. Therefore, Snowden was a spy. A ‘whistleblower’ and a ‘spy’ differ in many aspects. While whistleblowers inform citizens or organisational wrong doings or crimes by the government, spies work individually to help the enemies spy network. Additionally, while the whistleblowers go to independent news media or other authority and demand discretion to prevent releasing information that could be detrimental to the country, a spy works for many years passing secret intelligence that are specifically intended to harm the country he spies on. Further, a whistleblower is interested in evidence that show government's wrongdoings outside of its authority, while a spy provides government's strengths and weaknesses to military. Whistleblowers do not seek financial rewards. Rather, they risk jail term to warn of transgressions due to belief in moral obligation. On the other hand, spies week financial rewards. Spies also understand that their actions are detrimental to the information holder, and therefore illegal. In which case, the morality of their actions may not be their concern. Unlike whistle-blowing, espionage is a clandestine activity since it is considered unwelcome, illegal and punishable by law. Spies have an external-type motivation that drives them to gather and reveal secret information to enemies by bypassing counterintelligence. On the other hand, whistleblowers have internal type motivation and tend to see themselves as being righteous, moralistic and altruistic. They also tend to be inspired by their understanding of doing the right thing and telling the truth for public good. Therefore, whistle-blowing could be depicted as the general unselfish motivation to serve community, state or nation’s interests. Whistleblowers also tend to have no perceivable personal financial problems. They also have diminished national and organisational loyalty. Snowden was therefore a whistleblower. His ‘sole motive’ for leaking the intelligence was mainly to inform the public of government transgressions. Further, he allowed ‘The Guardian’ and the ‘Washington Post’ to reveal his identity. He also had internal type motivation and tended to view himself as being righteous, moralistic and altruistic. He also understood that he was doing the right thing and telling the truth for public good. References Ackerman, S. (2013). Edward Snowden is a whistleblower, not a spy – but do our leaders care? The Guardian. Retrieved: Beutel, A. (2007). Breach of Law, Breach of Security: A Muslim American Analysis of US Counterterrorism Policies. Paper Presented at AMSS 36th Annual Conference Brown. A., Lewis, D.. Moberly, R. & Vandekerckhove, W. (2014). International Handbook on Whistleblowing Research. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing, Burke, I. (2013). Navigating the fine line between whistleblowing and espionage. RAPSI. Retrieved: Clonan, T. (2013). Whistleblower, Soldier, Spy: A Journey into the Dark Heart of the Global War on Terror. Dublin: Liberties Press Crane, A. (2005). In the company of spies: When competitive intelligence gathering becomes industrial espionage. Business Horizons, 48, 233 — 240 Epstein, E. (2014). Was Snowden's Heist a Foreign Espionage Operation? The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved: Erhman, J. (2009). What are We Talking About When We Talk about Counterintelligence? Studies in Intelligence 53(2) Fedorowich, K. (2005). British espionage and British counter-intelligence in South Africa and Mozambique, 1939-1944. Historical Journal, 48(1). pp. 209-230. Firtko, S. & Jackson, D. (2005). Do The Ends Justify The Means? Nursing and The Dilemma Of Whistleblowing. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing 23(1), 51-56 Greenwald, G., MacAskill, E. & Poitras, L. (2013). Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations. The Guardian. Retrieved: Haynes, J. (2003). Chasing Spies: How the FBI Failed in Counterintelligence but Promoted the Politics of McCarthyism in the Cold War Years (review), Journal of Cold War Studies 5(2), 117-119 Heuer, R. (2006). The Insider Espionage Threat. Defense Personnel Security Research Center. Retrieved: Ingersoll, G, (2013). There Is No Justification For Edward Snowden's Latest Leaks. Business Insider. Retrieved: Konstantopoulos, I. (2014). Intelligence and IR Theory: Economic Espionage and the Levels of Analysis. Retrieved: Kramer, L., Heuer, R. & Crawford, K. (2005). Technological, Social, and Economic Trends That Are Increasing U.S. Vulnerability to Insider Espionage. PERSEREC Technical Report 05-10 May 2005 Lewis, D. (2010). A Global Approach to Public Interest Disclosure: What Can We Learn from Existing Whistleblowing Legislation and Research? Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing Masnick, M. (2010). Where's The Line Between Whistleblowing And Criminal Leaking Of Classified Works? TechDirty. Retrieved: Mesmer-Magnus, J. & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). Whistleblowing in Organizations: An Examination of Correlates of Whistleblowing Intentions, Actions, and Retaliation. Journal of Business Ethics 62(1), 277-297 Pandey, S. & Kusum, H. (2013). China’s Economic Miracles and the Statecraft. Global Research Journal of Business Management, 1(1), 1-4 Papandrea, M. (2014). Leaker Traitor Whistleblower Spy: National Security Leaks and The First Amendment. Boston University Law Review 94(1), 449-544 Perry, J. (2000). Toward a Theory of Public-Service Motivation. Journal of Public Administration and Theory 10(2), 471-488 PERSEREC. (2005). Technological, Social, and Economic Trends That Are Increasing U.S. Vulnerability to Insider Espionage. PERSEREC Technical Report 05-10 Pincus, W. (2014). A true whistleblower doesn’t behave like Edward Snowden. The Washington Post. Retrieved: Prunckun, H. (2014). Extending The Theoretical Structure Of Intelligence To Counterintelligence. Salus Journal 2(2), 31-49 Rieder, R. (2013). “Snowden's NSA bombshell sparks debate.” USA Today, Retrieved: < http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/rieder/2013/06/12/rem-rieder-surveillance/2415753/> Tsahuridu, E. & Vandekerckhove, W. (2008). Organisational Whistleblowing Policies: Making Employees Responsible or Liable? Journal of Business Ethics 82(1), 107–118 Tucker, D. (1997). The Federal Government's War on Economic Espionage. U. Pa. J. Int'l Econ. L 18(3), 1109-2002 Turley, J. (2014). Edward Snowden: Whistleblower or traitor? Aljazeera. Retrieved: Vadera, K., Aguilera, R. & Caza, B. (2009). Making Sense of Whistle-Blowing’s Antecedents: Learning From Research On Identity And Ethics Programs. Retrieved: Vandenabeele, W. (2011). The relationship between public service motivation and whistle-blowing intention: Interplay of individual and structural element. Paper presented at the annual EGPA conference 2011, SGIII, Bucharest, Romania. Vladeck, S. (2008). The Espionage Act and National Security Whistleblowing After Garcetti. American University Law Review 57(5),1531-1546 Woods, M. & King, W. (2008). An Assessment of the Evolution and Oversight of Defense Counterintelligence Activities. Journal Of National Security Law & Policy 3(1), 169-219 Wood, S., Crawford, K. & Lang, E. (2005). Reporting of Counterintelligence and Security Indicators by Supervisors and Coworkers. PERSEREC Technical Report 05-6 May 2005 Zegart, A. (2010). Spytainment”: The Real Influence of Fake Spies. International Journal of Intelligence and Counter Intelligence, 23(4), 599 -622 Read More

Others also involved information on telephone interceptions in Europe and the United States. Snowden’s activities that resulted in leaks to the international media were perceived as either espionage or courageous act of whistle-blowing. Some critics have also described Snowden as a ‘traitor” who caused ‘irreparable damage’ to US intelligence capacity, some have portrayed his as a “patriot”, “hero” or whistleblower, since the NSA conducted activities viewed as transgressing on privacy rights, by conducting surveillance practices to leaders of other governments and its own citizens (Masnick, 2010).

The US Government decided that Snowden’s activities were illegal. In June 2014, the US Government charged Snowden with unauthorised communication national defence information, theft of government property and intentional communication of classified communication of security intelligence to unauthorised persons under section 793(d) of the Espionage Act 1950, which prohibits lawfully in possession of information related to national defence from disclosing the information to unauthorised persons (Vladeck, 2008).

Difference between espionage and whistle blowing Clear divergence in definitions The definitions of a ‘whistleblower’ and a ‘spy’ differ in many aspects. Firtko and Jackson (2005) define whistle-blowing as any reporting of misconduct within the workplace. Tavani (2013) portray whistle-blowing as involving reporting of unethical, incompetent and illegal incidences within the workplace to individuals or an authority that can stop them. On the other hand, Erhman (2009) considers espionage as an act of spying.

It involves an individual, company or government obtaining information that is considered confidential or secret with the authorization of the holder of the information (Erhman, 2009). However, these definitions are problematic since they do not differentiate between reporting to external agencies such as the media and reporting of intelligence to an enemy government or bodies. Elsewhere, Benkert (2010) shows that the information gathered for whistle-blowing may be reported to independent media house.

Pincus (2014) also argues that while whistleblowers pass the information to an independent media, a spy passes the information to an enemy government. Snowden was therefore a whistleblower rather than a spy. He contacted independent news media to call attention to government abuses, negligence or hazards that menaced the public interest. Grounds of Legitimacy Unlike spying, whistle-blowing is legal. Tsahuridu and Vandekerckhove (2008) consider whistle-blowing activities to be legal. The researchers surveyed the trends of whistle-blowing activities in the United States and cited incidences of increased protection of whistleblowers by the government.

In the view, the increase contrasted the increased court cases where US courts have been asked to enforce secrecy agreements in order to prosecute whistleblowers. Spies understand that their actions are detrimental to the information holder, and therefore illegal. In which case, the morality of their actions may not be their concern (Papandrea, 2014). Unlike whistle-blowing, espionage is a clandestine activity since it is considered unwelcome, deathly, illegal and punishable by law (Crane, 2005).

Snowden was therefore a whistleblower. Despite being indicted under the Espionage Act, the actual charges brought against him were unauthorized communication of national defence information, theft of government property, and intractable communication of classified intelligence information to unauthorized persons. Primary motivation The motive for spying is malicious while that of whistle-blowing is for public good. A study by Defense Personnel Security Research Center (PERSEREC) that investigated economic, social and technology trends to determine the motivations and opportunities, found that increasing motivations and opportunities for insider espionage correspond with the increase in frequency of espionage (PERSEREC, 2005).

Read More