Overall picture Any kind of control can encourage whistleblowing. The large majority of case are based on relatively minor control. The most common type of whistleblowers are internal whistleblowers, which bring back control to an employee or a different superior within their company or arranges. On the other hand, the external whistleblowers bring back control to the people or to the external entities. In these cases, according to severity and nature false-to make, the whistleblowers can bring back control to lawyers, at the agencies of media, application of law or monitoring, or to other people of the country, state, or federal agencies. If the revelation is specifically prohibited by law or is specifically required by the executive order to be maintained secret in the interest of national defense that the report by a whistleblower could be regarded as being by ones treason. However, in the United States, there is no case in which the whistleblower was tested for “treason” and it is not treacherous to blow whistle on illegal control by civils servant of government.



Moreover, under the majority of the federal statutes of whistleblower of the United States, in order to be considered a whistleblower that the employee must reasonably believe that its employer made a violation of a certain law, regulates or payment; to testify or begin a legal step on the legally protected matter; or refuse to violate the law. There are those which look at whistleblowing narrowly and try to limit the impact of whistleblowing while alleging that alleged whistleblowing role-prescribed, for example whistleblowing makes by the personnel of quality control or the listeners internal, does not constitute whistleblowing in the traditional direction, because the goal of employment is to bring back such things.

However, the courses of the United States have uniformily supported that people who hold of the positions of listener or quality control are protected from revenge to bring back violations of law or payments. There is a dichotomy false between whistleblowing “intern” and “external”, and under the terms of the federal law of the United States, much of course failed to distinguish both. For example, in the field of ambient federal whistleblowing the courses federal supported that whistleblowing “intern” protective is wise as question of law and order because statutes of whistleblower are provided to encourage with free casting of information to prevent violations, “internal” report supports to solve problems at the most preliminary possible stage, and the “internal” report of discouragement can have disastrous consequences.