All right.
Often, in cases like this, we notice that we leave the burden of responsibility on the user rather than the agency. That's what I'm trying to find out with my question. Without accusing anyone, it's easy to say that there are resources, that there is this and that. But sometimes, people just don't know. Literacy on certain subjects, such as digital or financial literacy, may not be high enough. Nevertheless, that doesn't prevent these people from having rights.
Let's get back to whistle-blowers. There's one thing I'd like to know, because I've been interested in this subject for a long time. When a whistle-blower comes forward, it's usually because they haven't been listened to internally, or because they're afraid because the person concerned is their superior. So there's at least some discomfort. You don't raise an alarm for nothing, and I take it for granted that people are generally honest. So I'd like to know what's going on.
The agency's culture seems to favour secrecy. It seems to me that there has been more of an attempt to find out who the whistle-blowers are than to find out who the culprit actually is. When you look at the sequence of events, it seems that the culprit is actually the whistle-blower.
I'd like you to shed some light on this situation.