A recent case in Australia shows how easily fear can frustrate an informant's good intentions. In December, a woman wrote anonymously to the country's antitrust watchdog, the ACCC, alleging that her employer was colluding with others in breach of the Trade Practices Act. Her evidence was sufficient to suggest to the ACCC that fines of 10 million dollars could be imposed on 'a large company'. But the agency needed more details. So just before Christmas it advertised extensively to try and persuade the woman to come forward again. Some days later her husband rang the ACCC, but he hung up before disclosing vital information. Now the agency is trying to contact the couple again. In America, there is some evidence that the events of September 11th have made people more public-spirited and more inclined to blow the whistle. The Government Accountability Project, a Washington-based group, received 27 reproaches from potential informants in the three months before September 11th, and 66 in the three months after. Many of these complaints were about security issues. They included a Federal Aviation Administration employee who claimed that the agency had repeatedly failed to respond to known cases of security violations at airports. Legislation to give greater protection to people who expose corporate or government misbehavior. externally (after having received no satisfaction internally) is being introduced in a number of countries. In America, it focuses on informants among federal employees. According to Billy Garde, a lawyer who was a member of BP's Alaska inquiry team, they 'have less rights than prisoners'. A bill introduced last year by Senator Daniel Akaka to improve protection for them is currently stuck in congressional committees. In Britain, the Public Interest Disclosure Act came fully into force last year. Described by one American as 'the most far-reaching informant protection in the world', it treats informants as witnesses acting in the public interest. This separates them from people who are merely pursuing a personal grievance. But even in Britain, the protection is limited. Rupert Walker, a fund manager, was fired by Govett Investments in September 2001 for expressing concerns in the Financial Times about a group of people of investment trusts that invest in each other. What does the author most probably think about what the ACCC did to the woman?