Working for a government department that has a significant cyber capability, I am frequently testing both their cyber capability and their patience. Yeah, I make sure I keep them busy monitoring their staff, they know that I know they are watching me, so I make it worth their effort. They follow my blog, I frequently see them checking my LinkedIn status and I would be sure they view my Facebook, Tumblr and Pintrest accounts.

As I know they are cyber stalking me, I post material that raises their eyebrows. I post material that goes right to the limit, but I don’t go over that line. Naturally, there have been internal complaints, but they cannot do anything as I do not identify the organisation. Nor will they push me further, if they were to attempt some form of detrimental action, then that would be a trigger to identify the organisation in an extremely negative way, and I do not identify the organisation. I am not going to do that, we currently float in a state of equilibrium, they do not sanction me and I do not identify them. This works for both of us, we have a stand-off of sorts and that is how relationship flows.

They know I will do more than take the cyberstalking to a public forum should they attempt to discipline me. They know they cannot anyway, a former manager in his wisdom took unnecessary and detrimental action against me as a potential whistleblower for misappropriation of government funds, They know that I am well versed in the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2003 and they know that the Act provides protection for disclosers [or incorrectly identified disclosers]. Despite their poor management practices, they are rational adversaries and they will not risk the case being heard in the Equal Opportunity Commission. As I have not identified them in a public forum, they will just continue to monitor me, and I won’t provide them with the means to take action against me.