PRIVACY
Edward Snowden: Whistleblower or Traitor?
Edward Snowden was a computer programmer. He worked as a subcontractor for the NSA(National Security Agency). In 2013, at 29 years of age, he took the world by surprise when he broke with the American intelligence establishment. He revealed that the United States government was secretly seeking the means to collect every single phone call, text message, and email.
This blog explores the ethical and moral dilemma he faced while making this decision and defends his decision.
Privacy and security are both fundamental rights of human beings. However, what happens when there is a conflict between the two? Can the government intrude on people’s right to privacy? Can they invade people’s right to privacy for the security and protection of the country’s people?
What is the limit to which security can be used as an excuse to collect private data?
Imagine the entire history of your life. Every conversation you ever had, anything you searched for, every purchase, phone call, email, text message, basically everything except the thoughts in your mind. Now imagine if someone had all this information about you. What amount of power and control would they have over you? They would have the ability to control and ruin your life with that information.
Believe it or not, this was happening in the US. The US government was collecting “metadata”. It is fancy to say they were tracking your activity and collecting data. The metadata is basically “data about data”. For example, a phone call’s metadata includes its time, date, device no, phone numbers of both caller and the receiver, etc.
The fourth amendment of the American Constitution states,
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
This metadata is the papers of the modern age. It is our personal property. Hence, to perform surveillance at such a large scale, the government must have a much greater cause like National Security or the safety of their citizens. What made this act more unethical and immoral is that the government did this without the public’s consent.
Hence, when Snowden disclosed this information to the public, he did not commit a security breach or an act of treason. Instead, it was an act of heroism.
As defined in Wikipedia, a whistleblower is a person who exposes secretive information or activity that is deemed illegal, unethical, or not correct within a private or public organization.
Snowden realized the extent of the “mass surveillance” or “bulk collection” being done by the US government. He was shocked and thought he had a moral obligation to inform the public about this.
He was in an ethical dilemma as sharing this information with anyone was deemed a federal offence. He then read the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989.
This act declared it “the duty of all persons in the service of the United States, as well as all other inhabitants thereof, to give the earliest information to Congress or any other proper authority of any misconduct, frauds, or misdemeanours committed by any officers or persons in the service of these states, which may come to their knowledge”.
He had a very comfortable life, a job with a salary of over 200 grand, a girlfriend, and a family he loved. It was easy for him to keep this a secret. But, putting his life, career, and family in jeopardy, he selflessly chose to reveal the truth to the world.
According to him, as he writes in his book Permanent Record,
“… coming forward and disclosing to journalists the extent of my country’s abuses wouldn’t be advocating for anything radical, like the destruction of the government, or even of the IC (Intelligence Community). It would be a return to pursuing the government’s and the IC’s stated ideals”.
The US government has charged Snowden with “theft of government property”, “unauthorized communication of national defence information”, and “willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person”. The last two charges come under the 1917 Espionage Act.
Many people have critiqued his decision arguing that they have nothing to hide and security takes priority over the right to privacy. Some people have characterized him as a traitor whose actions put the country at risk. His decision has also been known to have created panic and mass hysteria. Warnings are issued to all government employees and contractors about the unauthorized disclosure of classified information being a federal offence. Some critics have argued that some of the surveillance programs were legally authorized. Hence, he wasn’t blowing on anything illegal. But instead, something that didn’t meet his standards of decency. Another argument is that he had sworn not to disclose government secrets. Even the latest version of the Whistleblower Protection Act does not protect people who uncover classified intelligence.
“Arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.”
— Edward Snowden, Permanent Record
The argument about panic and mass hysteria collapses because most people prefer knowing they are being tracked rather than not knowing.
Snowden also knew that some of these programs were legally authorized, as he leaked the court order that approved the case of Verizon. The issue is not about the law but ethics and morals. The government considers these programs legal as irrelevant as the fundamental right to privacy. Also, the Whistleblower Protection Act protects people if the activity violates any law, which is the right to privacy.
“What is right is not always the same as what is legal.”
— Edward Snowden
Snowden agrees that some information should be classified and hidden from the public, such as the names or locations of undercover agents. Complete transparency is impossible. The government should be as transparent as possible about any data they collect from the people. The right to privacy is a fundamental right of the people. It can only be superseded by the government or anybody if there is a much more significant threat or cause like national security or terrorism or the lives of citizens at stake.
The government should be held responsible and highly cautious that this information remains safe and secure. They must ensure that it does not get leaked or misused in any way possible because we know how powerful data is in the wrong hands.
Hence, Snowden was a whistleblower and not a traitor. He was a true patriot who worked for the public instead of for the government. He made the tough and correct decision to put his whole life at risk for the public good.
Thanks for Reading! Show some love! I would love to know your thoughts in the comment section!
I am a freelance content writer, blogger and graphic designer. Please email me at: hnambiar200@gmail.com for work.
If you like my stories, kindly donate to the link below this article. Every tiny bit helps!
