Reading 06: I don’t care if people listen to me call my mom to ask how to bleach clothes
Edward Snowden released documents- primarily on Wikileaks but also to other news sources- over the course of a couple months. These documents showed US and UK involvement in egregious surveillance programs and US monitoring of numerous other countries and regions. Unlike many whistle blowers, Snowden took very public responsibility for the information leaks. His reasoning for doing so, as referenced in the interview embedded in the Guardian article, was that he thought people deserved an explanation and face for his reveals. He felt that doing this leak anonymously painted the act as someone against the United States government instead of someone simply trying to help the people. In last week’s reflection I asserted that the only reason whistle blowers would take ownership for their actions is for attention and I would like to rescind that. Snowden’s interview answer convinces me of a legitimate need for people like him to admit to their actions.
To start with, I am not sure why people care so much about the NSA monitoring them. If you are doing nothing wrong, it shouldn’t affect you in the slightest. People worry about the Amazon echo listening to their conversations and actions but I have 3 in my home. I don’t care if there is data on my phone calls and messages because my life is pretty boring. The Snowden revelations really haven’t had a material impact on my day to day actions.
All that being said, I can see why at the very least, people want to know that they are being monitored. I don’t really have a concrete reason for why I think this, it just feels better to know than to be completely in the dark. Maybe it just seems like the government has too much power if it has access to every realm of our lives without our knowing. In his article on The Intercept Snowden says “we, the people, are ultimately the strongest and most reliable check on the power of government” and I think there is a lot of truth in this. People need to know what is going on amongst the institution creating rules and regulations for their day to day lives. For this reason I feel like the informing of the public was moral. It at the very least brought the issue to light to everyone was aware. As mentioned in the Guardian article, “Others in the intelligence community, especially in the US, will grudgingly credit Snowden for starting a much-needed debate about where the line should be drawn between privacy and surveillance.” While I feel like the intention, informing the public, was ethical, I’m not sure I agree that his avenues to do so were.
As laid out in the argument in ‘Yes, Edward Snowden is a Traitor’, Snowden could have pursued legal avenues to accomplish his goal. He could have stood up for his beliefs in court and defended them in person. Instead he went straight to the media and fled the country. We talked about this a lot last week, but going to the media as a first resort is unethical because the story can spin out of control instantly. If he had pursued a more correct chain of command, gone to congress or something, the NSA could have curbed their behavior or made the information public in a controlled and healthy way. Instead he went straight to the press.
Ultimately Snowden benefited the public but I wouldn’t call him a hero. He avoided the legal options that may have been more time consuming to him and subsequently put the country at risk. He compromised a great deal of work national security had done, wasting time, energy, and taxpayer money. Perhaps the espionage charge is too severe for his actions however, I don’t think the US government has a valid reason to pardon his actions entirely. He needs to take ownership of his actions and face a trial.
