Ethical Implications of the Snowden Leaks

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
The Duty to Whistleblow
The Impact of Snowden Leaks on Whistleblowing
The Impact of Snowden Leaks on State Surveillance
The Government was Legally Right but Unethical In Pursuing Snowden
Conclusion
Bibliography

Introduction

In recent years, a national backlash has intensified over the federal government’s expanded capacity to eavesdrop on Americans nearly everywhere. The debate spiraled out of control in 2013 when former I.T. systems expert turn whistleblowers Edward Snowden purposefully leaked top-secret information. The leaks disclosed information regarding the National Security Agency’s (NSA) intelligence surveillance operations, targets, and special access programs. Confronted with a unique but self-assigned moral issue, Snowden indeed considered the consequences of his conduct. Perhaps the most outstanding issue was whether it was morally correct for America’s spy organizations to abuse virtually all established wireless information-sharing mechanisms in support of U.S. policies and priorities, despite the possibility of mass surveillance on many citizens in breach of the Fourth Amendment. Here, it can be argued that Snowden applied ethical decision-making values, albeit with erroneous rationale leading to a treacherous deed with long-term consequences for U.S. espionage activities and international diplomacy. While Snowden violated the constitution, his actions were ethical from a utilitarian viewpoint because he had a moral duty to intervene by informing American citizens and the country’s allies that they were being watched.

The Duty to Whistleblow

Every U.S. Federal worker must take an oath of loyalty to the U.S. Constitution, even the lowest-ranking military personnel. The specific phrases vary by location and rank, but the basic concept is to “respect and support” or “preserve, guard, and defend” the United States Constitution from all foes, domestic and foreign. Where security checks are necessary for work, such as with all 17 U.S. intelligence authorities, a formal “non-disclosure” agreement must be signed. These agreements differ according to rank and agency, although they are generally in the form of agreements in which the signee takes responsibility for keeping all secrets given to them safe from unauthorized individuals.

The information must be kept from the media in particular. Breach of the pact may result in consequences such as loss of employment, loss of liberty under challenging situations or security clearance, and even death if convicted of breaking the 1918 Sedition Act or 1917 Espionage Act. Typically, they are advised about legal (safe) means to question waste, abuse, fraud, or downright illegal activity in their organizations. These include actions such as reporting to Inspectors General (IG) or the Senate Intelligence Oversight Committees; however, this is not always the case. The primary question presented by Edward Snowden’s revelations is whether the Pledge to the United States Constitution takes precedence above agreements with Agencies. In his instance, the NSA, even though he was serving as a contractor when he transferred a massive amount of sensitive data to multiple news outlets for additional screening and distribution at their discretion.

Opponents of this approach may depend on “utilitarianism” to judge Snowden’s actions based on their results. Utilitarian philosophers would argue that monitoring is perfectly justified in the cause of preventing terrorism and ensuring the safety of the American people as a whole. As a result, by disclosing details concerning the NSA’s monitoring, Snowden jeopardized U.S. national security. He leaked classified material to the media, violating a statute meant to protect Americans by preserving genuine national-security information and assets protected from adversaries. This is correct; however, it is evident that it is crucial to focus on its motivation to analyze the virtue of this act properly.

First, from the standpoint of an ethical rationalist, Snowden’s leaking is ethical since the purpose was to assist the public by informing them about the truth about their government. Ethical rationalism is a type of deontology that analyzes morality in terms of volition. Thus according to Kant, the will may be the only entity that is always good and, therefore, should result in good acts since actions, not results. In this scenario, Snowden intended to fulfill his nation a significant favor. He believed he was working in the public interest since he was ready to jeopardize his own life for the sake of the public. His will was heroic and selfless. He put himself at risk knowing he would be convicted of stealing government properties, the unlawful transmission of national defense details, and intentional transfer of sensitive communications intelligence material to an illegal person. Snowden did not undertake it for the sake of fame or money.

Conversely, he claimed that he did not want to be in the press focus since he did not want individuals to be diverted from the real issue. Furthermore, if he was driven by money, he might have sold these data to various countries and become wealthy. Snowden disclosed the papers because he thought “the government has awarded itself authority it is not entitled to”. The motive underlying the conduct is thus fundamentally positive. Second, deontology evaluates the moral of actions using universal maxims in addition to a will. If these standards are followed and adhered to, one is acting ethically.

As a result, Snowden’s actions were justifiable since he had an ethical duty to act. He was responsible for telling the people what was accomplished in their name and what was undertaken against them. He opted to disclose this information despite the significant personal danger, despite the death penalty. In his perspective, it was his obligation to share this news with Americans since the state was monitoring the people and accumulating large amounts of specific details about each person in the United States, which he considered morally wrong. It was what he was expected to do and obligated to do. He obeyed the maxims of categorical imperatives, which are instructions that must be observed regardless of one’s inclinations.

Kant’s initial categorical imperative states that one should only act on the “maxim” that he can simultaneously will into a universal norm. Snowden’s actions obey this because they can be generalized as if they were a universal law. When the citizen’s privacy is violated, and one is aware of it, an individual should raise it to their notice so that society can be more transparent and less distrusting. Individuals would trust the state more if this were a worldwide law, and their privacy might not be violated. As a result, Snowden’s actions satisfy the first “categorical imperative.” Moreover, his action passes the second categorical, which specifies that human beings must be treated as an end themselves and not as mere means. Indeed, his act shows great respect for the American civilian and is an action against the government treating its citizens as a means to an end.

Snowden demonstrated “rule utilitarianism” to the extent that he believed nobody would consciously endorse a law that permits countries to surveil their populations. The effects of which could erode public confidence in the state. If Snowden had acted under the maxim “Act utilitarianism,” his reasoning process could have been complicated. If Snowden believed that the cumulative effects of the government eavesdropping on its people generated a greater benefit, he could have remained silent on the matter. His action would have violated the “act” utilitarian principle since it caused widespread discontent among the people, the NSA, and himself.

Considering an ethical standpoint, the NSA behaved per “Act” utilitarianism, thinking that their acts were intended to protect the country from terrorism provided they could conceal the mechanisms they applied during the process, hence avoiding misery. The “rule” utilitarianism premise, on the other hand, seemed to be better appropriate for the NSA, given the harmful consequences that were subsequently experienced owing to their disobeying the ethical principle against dishonesty. Utilitarianism necessitates calculating how many individuals are adversely impacted versus how many are happily affected. Snowden may have believed that the destructive repercussions of the NSA’s operations outweighed their positive advantages for the majority of the population. According to the Utilitarian school of thought, Snowden’s activities are morally justifiable and beneficial to the general public.

According to Kantian ethics, humans can make rational moral judgments free of coercion, and all reasonable people should observe basic moral rules regardless of their implications. Snowden obeyed the categorical command “never snoop on others” and ignored the repercussions of his conduct. The difficulty with Kant’s philosophy is that every rule may be expressed in a manner that considers the specific circumstance. For instance, the phrase “never eavesdrop on individuals” could be supplemented by “unless it is meant to protect the country.” This rule might be made a “categorical imperative” since it is possible that all people of any nation would be motivated to protect their nation against foreign aggression.

The Impact of Snowden Leaks on Whistleblowing

Sharing or acquiring “classified” material has traditionally been dangerous, both for the source, who typically was once employed by the state, and the recipient, who was frequently a journalist. Many governments, including the United States, have developed a habit of overclassifying information that sometimes is unnecessary. For example, hiding information from the public because it is considered humiliating to an individual in authority but not because it is essential to national security. Nothing protects government squanders, fraud, and injustice better than a conspiracy of silence reinforced by legal consequences. Consequently, there is an extensive history of investigative journalism in the United States dedicated to uncovering the truth behind the facade of confidentiality. This legacy in the U. S. relies entirely on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects free speech and freedom of worship.

Whistleblowing has evolved in the age of the internet, social media, and big data. A persistent communications intelligence organization, such as the NSA, can learn practically anything concerning a “subject” without physically approaching them or “tapping” their communication devices. Coupled with the most vigorous indictments of suspected “whistleblowers” in U.S. history, initially by the Bush-Cheney regime, then by the Obama government, and finally, by the Trump administration, the risk of government employees leaking classified information and of media daring to publicize such material has increased significantly. One startling outcome is that the most proactive leakers of American secrets are currently domiciled abroad, such as Snowden, who sought exile in Russia and became a permanent citizen. Thus, journalists’ capacity to effectively expose crimes committed by intelligence organizations in the United States has undoubtedly deteriorated throughout over the years. Additionally, the hazards to federal or state whistleblowers have grown considerably.

One irrefutable repercussion of Snowden’s leaked documents is intensified focus in United States’ intelligence services on wanting to identify personnel who could expose top secret information before they do. The crackdown on leakers is indiscriminate, whether motivated by moral dilemmas or nefarious goals for profit, fame, or retribution. A classic example is the most recent case of Reality Winner. Revelations that Winner forwarded a copy of an inside “classified document” to a news organization brought her to the spotlight of the most recent whistleblower crisis. The classified U.S. dossier, which she leaked in 2017, purportedly reveals that Russian army surveillance hackers regularly attempted to breach U.S. voting systems before the 2016 presidential election, sparking fresh concerns regarding the scope of the Kremlin’s interference.

Authorities announced Winner’s capture amid the latest humiliation for the NSA, which has previously experienced intrusions perpetrated by previous whistleblowers and hacker organizations. Winner allegedly gave a government report to The Intercept, a web-based news website centered on national security matters, which posted a comprehensive report on a cyber-attack activity linked to Kremlin’s GRU surveillance directorate. According to the article, the breach targeted privately-owned U.S. corporations that provide local authorities with voter registration facilities and infrastructure. In 2018, she was sentenced to over five years in prison and subsequently released in 2021. Winner’s story illustrates how dangerous leaking has become after the Snowden exposures. Unlike Snowden, Winner was arrested, charged, and imprisoned because she did not flee the United States.

A further unforeseen impact is a gradual erosion in the caliber of the labor upon whom all intelligence services rely. This is because the “most qualified” individuals will only tolerate a limited amount of interference in their private life, including background screening, tracking, polygraph testing, and more. Most of these individuals do not wish to entrust their personal lives, for instance, sexual experiences to strangers or their works on critical issues forever to scrutiny and suppression by institutions and sometimes unknown security agents. Others may not want to request permission from the agencies every time before interacting or communicating with any non-American citizen. Most would wish to wed without conducting a “background check” on their partner. One key consequence of this is a decline in the caliber of individuals hired by these institutions.

The last is mental health problems, although this is a far broader and more complex subject. Most come whole and with good intentions, yet they encounter a poisonous atmosphere for mental wellbeing. Secrecy stifles knowledge, arrogance degrades it, demands are immense, and the incapacity to confer with trustworthy colleagues is quite harmful when the difficulties of their highly demanding work become too high. In this regard, Snowden’s actions did not positively impact the practice of whistleblowing. From a utilitarian viewpoint, the action has caused harm to a few individuals; hence is acceptable for the greater good. In homeland security, espionage, confidentiality, and monitoring play crucial roles. However, America and the globe are now being harmed by a fixation on these objectives.

Snowden has had a significant influence on the NSA, and the people have begun to analyze the covert operations that allow them to keep and exploit their personal information. Developments have resulted from the leaked documents, including the vast data collecting and failing encryption of numerous firms like Facebook, Google, and Yahoo. Snowden’s efforts have had a good impact so far, with firms safeguarding the people who use them virtually every day.

The Impact of Snowden Leaks on State Surveillance

The Snowden leaks have had a considerable impact on the globe. The British secret services were compelled to give testimony before the national assembly, and the German administration severed all affiliations with Verizon. This telecom corporation gave the NSA unlimited access to all telephone calls. Likewise, the German authorities terminated deals with Boeing and other major U.S. businesses. There has been a significant increase in the adoption of encryption and privacy-focused startup enterprises.

Further, the international outcry in response to Snowden’s revelations exacerbated the disconnect between America and Europe concerning data privacy and other Internet-related concerns. In perspective, it caused these long-time friends to clash with one another. In this context, these superpowers should unite and combat the totalitarians who want to construct a tightly controlled Internet. Consequently, internet regulations have been strictest in nations monitored by US intelligence. Russia and Brazil have established “data sovereignty” legislation mandating that all Internet providers keep customer data in Russia, with China enacting comparable statutes. Russia has restricted online networking sites and messaging applications that do not conform or offer data access and communications.

Russia has censored social media and messaging apps that have failed to comply or provide access to data and messages. In addition, China has enacted new cybersecurity policies that require IT suppliers to hand over code base for all programs and hardware for “screening”. However, these nations spy on each other and internally the information leaked by Snowden was not news to them. For instance, the U.S., European countries and many others across the world share real-time crime intelligence data through organizations such as INTERPOL. Essentially, this is spying but legally protected by the concept of “fighting international crime.”

On its part, the U.S. government defended its actions noting how important it is to the fight against terrorism. In his 2014 address, the President of the United States admitted that errors had been made but attempted to defend the acts done. September 11 necessitated the organizations to collect far additional intelligence, unlike before. Furthermore, the President argued that if the spy agencies had access to the intelligence in their possession today, security agencies would have apprehended the offenders before they perpetrated their crimes.

President Obama stated that the information collection was not being misused. Some actual opponents and risks need to be fought. Spy organizations like the NSA perform critical responsibilities in this regard. Obama argued that if a similar 9/11 catastrophe occurs, a blame game and accusations will be directed toward those hired to defend their citizens. Nonetheless, under the revised USA Freedom Act (2015), Obama issued new executive orders that consider security issues and partnerships, investment and trade relationships, American company interests, and devotion to privacy and freedoms of citizens. Notably, the Appeals Court issued a historical judgment that declared the gathering of millions of call logs illegal and unlawful, paving the way for possible prosecution of the NSA.

Indeed, the relevancy of the information leaked by Snowden declines every day. There are still serious concerns over espionage, privacy, and national security, and there has been a significant erosion of confidence between the federal government and the telecommunications industry. Courts in the United Kingdom have previously concluded that GCHQ’s mass surveillance and collection operation violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Accordingly, U.K. lawmakers have recently amended the Computer Misuse Act, which pertains to GCHQ’s unlawful actions, to give them extra immunity in performing their tasks. This shows that the Snowden leaks have encouraged many governments to hide their surveillance practices.

To a large extent, the question here is whether or not Snowden initially attempted to make his revelations via the appropriate avenues. The British Computer Society (BCS) and the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) need the client’s potential conflict of interest to be disclosed. The ACM (1992) further emphasizes that all participants must respect current regulations provided there is a moral reason not to, and that obedience should be tempered with a knowledge that unethical regulations or laws ought to be questioned (Wolf 2016). Overall, the NSA might win if there was no evidence that Snowden leaked the information, but there is some difference in opinion.

The Government was Legally Right but Unethical In Pursuing Snowden

Edward Snowden violated the 1917 Espionage Act, which he was pledged allegiance to obey. As a result, the U.S. government had legal grounds to pursue him. However, article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates that “everybody has the right to seek and receive refuge from persecution in other nations” (United Nations 2020). This privilege cannot be asserted in charges legitimately stemming from non-political offenses or activities opposed to the U.N.s’ aims and ideals. The American Convention on Human Rights expressly grants a person the “right to request and be accorded refuge in a foreign jurisdiction if he is being persecuted for political violations or similar acts” (Bhatnagar and Jamil 2013). In Mr. Snowden’s situation, the U.S seriously impeded his ability to seek refuge in two aspects.

First, the United States government canceled Snowden’s passport. This decision did not leave Mr. Snowden without a state as he remained U.S. citizen. It made it exceedingly hard for him to fly or obtain refuge, particularly in nations that demand asylum seekers to be physically available in their jurisdiction when refuge is requested. Second, although it is within America’s legal authority to request Snowden’s deportation to stand trial in the U.S., law enforcement and diplomatic attempts to deport him should be compatible with international regulations. Thus, it can be argued that U.S. actions impeded Snowden from getting a fair and unbiased review of his refuge applications in several nations which he purportedly sought.

Apart from ethics, a federal employee signs several papers promising not to expose customer data. Many directives from professional organizations, leasing businesses, and government papers outline the steps to follow in the case of a conflict of duty. Snowden ought to have made more efforts to adhere to these protocols, guaranteeing that supporting papers and communications were accessible and that he had exhausted all formal routes.

Overall, both Kantian and Rule utilitarianism ethics are likely to follow general principles. Rule utilitarianism maintains general rules to achieve the collective good, whereas Kant follows prevailing norms since they are ethically correct regardless of the outcomes. Snowden was behaving in both a Kantian and a Rule utilitarianism ethos since he was obeying a crucial requirement of never spying on individuals and a Rule utilitarianism ethos if he considered that informing the public about the NSA’s conduct was the greater good.

Conclusion

Snowden broke the Espionage Act of 1917, which defined the disclosure of classified information as treasonous. Even if he was legally liable, he was not ethically responsible. Because the will behind the action is the only element that is certain to be good, evil, or balanced in this circumstance, ethical rationalism is the more compelling ethical framework to examine this moral issue. Because no one can anticipate the future, even if Snowden compromised national security by increasing the risk of a terrorist strike, this may not have been his aim. He acted in the public interest and to protect the Constitution.

Accordingly, he should be praised and aided, as he has performed a valuable public service. Furthermore, stronger whistleblower security for government personnel should be legislated in the future to better safeguard the people from corruption, injustices, and power abuses. If Snowden had known the ethical conduct of his corporations and the organizations he worked for, he would not have felt compelled to defend his principles and jeopardize his liberty in the United States and his opulent lifestyle for the rest of his fellow Americans. Whistleblowers are increasingly more crucial in today’s political context when dishonesty and secrets are the trends instead of transparency and integrity. Americans must identify and combat any efforts to weaken the country’s imperfect but necessary principles that incentivize whistleblowers.

Bibliography

Andregg, Michael. 2016. “Ethical Implications of the Snowden Revelations.” The International Journal of Intelligence, Security, and Public Affairs 18, no. 2: 110-131.

Bauman, Zygmunt, Didier Bigo, Paulo Esteves, Elspeth Guild, Vivienne Jabri, David Lyon, and Rob BJ Walker. 2014. “After Snowden: Rethinking the impact of surveillance.” International political sociology 8, no. 2: 121-144.

Bellaby, Ross W. 2016. “Justifying Cyber-Intelligence?.” Journal of Military Ethics 15, no. 4: 299-319.

Bellaby, Ross W. 2018. “The ethics of whistleblowing: Creating a new limit on intelligence activity.” Journal of International Political Theory 14, no. 1: 60-84.

Bellaby, Ross. 2012. “What’s the harm? The ethics of intelligence collection.” Intelligence and National Security 27, no. 1: 93-117.

Bhatnagar, Chandra and Dakwar, Jamil. 2013. “U.S. Actions in Snowden Case Threaten Right to Seek Asylum.” American Civil Liberties Union. Web.

Brownlee, Kimberley. 2016. “The civil disobedience of Edward Snowden: A reply to William Scheuerman.” Philosophy & Social Criticism 42, no. 10: 965-970.

Diderichsen, Adam, and Kira Vrist Rønn. 2017. “Intelligence by consent: on the inadequacy of Just War Theory as a framework for intelligence ethics.” Intelligence and National Security 32, no. 4: 479-493.

Gallagher, Sean. “The Snowden Legacy, Part One: What’s Changed, Really?” Ars Technica. Ars Technica, 2018. Web.

‌Herschel, Richard, and Virginia M. Miori. 2017. “Ethics & big data.” Technology in Society 49: 31-36.

Johnson, Loch K., Richard J. Aldrich, Christopher Moran, David M. Barrett, Glenn Hastedt, Robert Jervis, Wolfgang Krieger et al. 2014. “An INS special forum: Implications of the Snowden leaks.” Intelligence and National Security 29, no. 6: 793-810.

Mitchell, C. Newton-Matza. 2017. The Espionage and Sedition Acts: World War I and the Image of Civil Liberties. Routledge.

Omand, David, and Mark Phythian. 2018. Principled spying: The ethics of secret intelligence. Oxford University Press.

Omand, Sir David, and Mark Phythian. 2013. “Ethics and intelligence: A debate.” International journal of intelligence and counterintelligence 26, no. 1: 38-63.

Philipps, Dave. 2018. “Reality Winner, former NSA translator, gets more than 5 years in leak of Russian hacking report.” New York Times 23.

Phythian, Mark. 2018. “Intelligence and the liberal conscience.” Intelligence and National Security 33, no. 4: 502-516.

Scarre, Geoffrey. 2020. Utilitarianism. Routledge.

Scheuerman, William E. 2016. “What Edward Snowden can teach theorists of conscientious law-breaking.” Philosophy & Social Criticism 42, no. 10: 958-964.

Sinnar, Shirin. 2013. “Protecting Rights from within: Inspectors General and National Security Oversight.” Stan. L. Rev. 65: 1027.

United Nations. 2020. “Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations.” United Nations. United Nations. 2020. Web.

Walker, Ralph CS. 2013. Kant-Arg Philosophers. Routledge.

Winner, Brittany. 2021. “Speaking for my silenced sister.” Index on Censorship 50, no. 2: 48-50.

Wolf, Marty J. 2016. “The ACM code of ethics: a call to action.” Communications of the ACM 59, no. 12: 6-6.

Woodard, Christopher. 2013. “The common structure of Kantianism and act-utilitarianism.” Utilitas 25, no. 2: 246-265.

Click Here To Order Now!