essay about edward snowden

McCombs School of Business

• Español ( Spanish )

Videos Concepts Unwrapped View All 36 short illustrated videos explain behavioral ethics concepts and basic ethics principles. Concepts Unwrapped: Sports Edition View All 10 short videos introduce athletes to behavioral ethics concepts. Ethics Defined (Glossary) View All 58 animated videos - 1 to 2 minutes each - define key ethics terms and concepts. Ethics in Focus View All One-of-a-kind videos highlight the ethical aspects of current and historical subjects. Giving Voice To Values View All Eight short videos present the 7 principles of values-driven leadership from Gentile's Giving Voice to Values. In It To Win View All A documentary and six short videos reveal the behavioral ethics biases in super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff's story. Scandals Illustrated View All 30 videos - one minute each - introduce newsworthy scandals with ethical insights and case studies. Video Series

Case Study UT Star Icon

Edward Snowden: Traitor or Hero?

Was Edward Snowden’s release of confidential government documents ethically justifiable?

In 2013, computer expert and former CIA systems administrator, Edward Snowden released confidential government documents to the press about the existence of government surveillance programs. According to many legal experts, and the U.S. government, his actions violated the Espionage Act of 1917, which identified the leak of state secrets as an act of treason. Yet despite the fact that he broke the law, Snowden argued that he had a moral obligation to act. He gave a justification for his “whistleblowing” by stating that he had a duty “to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them.” According to Snowden, the government’s violation of privacy had to be exposed regardless of legality.

Many agreed with Snowden. Jesselyn Radack of the Government Accountability Project defended his actions as ethical, arguing that he acted from a sense of public good. Radack said:

“Snowden may have violated a secrecy agreement, which is not a loyalty oath but a contract, and a less important one than the social contract a democracy has with its citizenry.”

Others argued that even if he was legally culpable, he was not ethically culpable because the law itself was unjust and unconstitutional.

The Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, did not find Snowden’s rationale convincing. Holder stated:

“He broke the law. He caused harm to our national security and I think that he has to be held accountable for his actions.”

Journalists were conflicted about the ethical implications of Snowden’s actions. The editorial board of The New York Times stated, “He may have committed a crime…but he has done his country a great service.” In an Op-ed in the same newspaper, Ed Morrissey argued that Snowden was not a hero, but a criminal: “by leaking information about the behavior rather than reporting it through legal channels, Snowden chose to break the law.” According to Morrissey, Snowden should be prosecuted for his actions, arguing that his actions broke a law “intended to keep legitimate national-security data and assets safe from our enemies; it is intended to keep Americans safe.”

Discussion Questions

1. What values are in conflict in this case? What harm did Snowden cause? What benefits did his actions bring?

2. Do you agree that Snowden’s actions were ethically justified even if legally prohibited? Why or why not? Make an argument by weighing the competing values in this case.

3. If you were in Snowden’s position, what would you have done and why?

4. Would you change your position if you knew that Snowden’s leak would lead to a loss of life among CIA operatives? What about if it would save lives?

5. Is there a circumstance in which you think whistleblowing would be ethically ideal? How about ethically prohibited?

Related Videos

Causing Harm

Causing harm explores the types of harm that may be caused to people or groups and the potential reasons we may have for justifying these harms.

Bibliography

Whistle-Blowers Deserve Protection Not Prison http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/06/11/in-nsa-leak-case-a-whistle-blower-or-a-criminal/whistle-blowers-deserve-protection-not-prison

Eric Holder: If Edward Snowden were open to plea, we’d talk http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/eric-holder-edward-snowden-plea-102530.html

Edward Snowden: Whistleblower http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/02/opinion/edward-snowden-whistle-blower.html?_r=0

Edward Snowden Broke the Law and should be Prosecuted http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/06/11/in-nsa-leak-case-a-whistle-blower-or-a-criminal/edward-snowden-broke-the-law-and-should-be-prosecuted

Stay Informed

Support our work.

Edward Snowden: A Hero or a Traitor Essay

Society is structured in such a way that individuals are usually divided into heroes or traitors, depending on the civil effect their actions have had. As a rule, any historical figure is viewed only through this paradigm of uniqueness, and the attempt to recognize dualism proves unsuccessful. However, such judgments are not only characteristic of descriptions of distant events of the past but are also applicable to the contemporary agenda. From the moral positions of good and evil, society can judge a person for their deeds, and based on these judgments, build models of punishment or encouragement. The situation is more intriguing when states act as judges, treating the same offense differently. This essay raises the issue of Edward Snowden being recognized as a public hero who declassified U.S. state secrets in favor of protecting the anonymity and privacy of citizens. Recognizing all motives and operating with such philosophical categories as human counsel, social responsibility, and an act of peacemaking, it is appropriate to call the American a hero rather than a traitor. This academic essay seeks to elaborate on the author’s opinion regarding this thesis.

As part of the discourse on Snowden’s social responsibility, one of the central themes of the essay is to determine the moral background of the government’s actions in collecting personal data. It is no secret that virtually everyone today uses electronic devices, whether a smartphone or a computer, for personal purposes. Ideally, private communication in a virtual environment should be built on security and cybersecurity principles so that users are sure of data privacy (Soken-Huberty, 2017). It is enough to imagine the magnitude of personal correspondence online to understand how critical a well-functioning mechanism for its protection is. The problem lies in the fact that citizens must trust the government and national security measures. Nevertheless, the intrusion into the privacy of individuals is morally completely unjustifiable, which means that a government that decides to take this measure will one day lose its legitimacy.

Such reasoning is necessary when attempting to justify Edward Snowden’s actions. For a brief explanation, it is essential to clarify that the American had seriously violated U.S. laws regarding the disclosure of state secrets and NSA procedural regulations when, in 2013, he disclosed to the world information about how authorities monitor Americans’ correspondence (Burrough et al., 2014). There is no doubt about the seriousness of this offense performed by Snowden, and according to existing legal principles, he should be sentenced to punishment. Nevertheless, the secret he revealed raises a significant ethical dilemma as to whether a person can be forgiven if he has committed a public good in circumvention of the law. Moreover, the question can be considered from the perspective of not only forgiveness but even the conferral of the title of hero.

In fact, it can be safely argued that Snowden is a public hero because his actions to declassify useful information are of high importance to civil society. Every individual seeks to protect their interests and privacy, and there is nothing unnatural about this. A citizen who pays their taxes diligently and contributes daily to society has a right to expect that the intelligence services will not investigate their private life. At least, that is what most citizens who assess personal space and the public interest think (Geiger, 2018). However, this issue is somewhat different when discussing national security philosophy. It is the government’s responsibility to provide a level of protection for the public in which living conditions are as comfortable and unhindered as possible. In turn, the logic of the CIA or the NSA comes down to the fact that total surveillance and reading the electronic commerce of citizens is one of the measures that contribute to this protection.

Such judgments have a right to exist, especially in the context of increased threats to public security. Since the 2001 terrorist attack, the U.S. government has recognized how vital citizen surveillance is (Pope, 2017). Elaborating on this thought, it might seem that such an NSA program is not something unconstitutional, as it is fully justified by the protection of the national interest. The before-mentioned views have been repeatedly stated by the U.S. jurisdiction, and as a result, the surveillance program has even been partially approved at the federal level (Pope, 2017). However, such reforms are expected to generate public outrage, initiated by the conflict between the personal and the public.

Edward Snowden is a public hero because he showed incredible courage. From the government’s perspective, such an episode in which an NSA employee with the highest level of access to classified data becomes an informant and reveals state secrets to the world is unfavorable. Nevertheless, guided by the principle of human conscience, Snowden took a severe risk that proved justified. The result of his actions was a public recognition of the former NSA agent and open discussions on the scope of application of anti-terrorism laws.

However, an attempt to study statistical surveys regarding Snowden’s heroism led the author to unexpected results. In particular, the initial hypothesis that his actions are perceived positively is only partially confirmed. Thus, about 64% of Americans did not fully support the agent’s actions and treated him negatively (Nelson, 2015). On the other hand, similar figures for other states are much lower, which means it is appropriate to conclude that Edward Snowden is very popular as a hero abroad, but not among his compatriots. An attempt to interpret such intriguing data could lead to the view that the publication of U.S. secrets has become an important occasion for political and cultural grievances against America. Many U.S. geopolitical rivals have spoken negatively about such an NSA program, and Russia has even granted Snowden political asylum (Burrough et al., 2017). Taken together, this leads to the conclusion that the former NSA agent is being recognized as a hero wherever it is expressly approved.

The consequences of such courageous actions by Snowden may also be evidence of his heroism. In the case of an individual revealing a minor secret of no social significance, state authorities are hardly interested in arresting them. However, an event as grandiose as the leak of intelligence data has clearly motivated the government’s interest in punishing Snowden. Looking at the argument from the other side, the man understood precisely what the consequences of his decision would be, and was willing to go along with it. Now it is only possible to imagine what his motives were — conscience, morality, or social responsibility — but regardless of the reason, Snowden took severe risks for the sake of society. That is enough to give him the title of a public hero, if not for most Americans, but for the world.

Moreover, there is no doubt about the significance of such a meaningful data breach. In fact, from a legal point of view, Snowden’s actions did not lead to any major reforms or changes, but they did shed light on the sensitive data collection programs initiated by the NSA. However, for 2013, this news was incredibly relevant and debated, and there were two reasons for this. First of all, the European world was experiencing severe crisis times caused by the intensification of the flow of migrants and the uprisings in Ukraine. Consequently, any reason to blame the U.S. was appropriate. On the other hand, thanks to Edward Snowden, the whole world became aware of states spying on citizens. Even individuals who only suspected surveillance were able to see for themselves. It follows that the former agent’s actions have a new connotation: profound public awareness and an increase in virtual culture. To summarize, it is appropriate to reiterate that Snowden’s figure must be viewed from the perspective of a public hero and a courageous man who tried to change the world.

Alternative views also have the right to exist, but they turn out to be untenable when analyzed in detail. In particular, as mentioned above, the government has an interest in protecting the public by any means necessary, and reading personal correspondence, which the First Amendment prohibits, is not an obstacle to this. As Geiger (2018) has shown, most people approve of such measures, which means there is no apparent problem for democracy. Authorities read people’s correspondence, and people confident in such an action’s necessity turn out to be okay with it. In this harmonious paradigm, Edward Snowden, who has broken the constructed bond, appears to be a public traitor worthy of just punishment. By breaking U.S. laws and displaying classified government data in front of the world, Snowden leads to serious pressure on America. In response, many U.S. citizens are legitimately unhappy with such behavior by the agent and brand him a traitor, which is especially relevant for such a militarized power.

In reality, however, such reasoning hides a possible threat to personal security that has the potential to become a more severe problem. By recognizing the need for total surveillance, Americans are voluntarily consenting to the public nature of their personal data. Even if such a policy is appropriate in the case of anti-terrorism measures, there is no guarantee that the authorities will not go further. Having developed tools for surveillance and having eliminated all terrorists, it is possible that the government will continue to conduct surveillance for its own purposes. In that case, personal correspondence would no longer serve the national interest and could become a mechanism in the hands of corrupt officials and criminals operating at the federal level. In addition, the thesis that Snowden is a traitor may be motivated by a deep resentment of Americans against the United States’ public humiliation. At the same time, it is well known that emotional decisions cannot be regarded as credible.

To summarize this essay, the philosophy of peace is built on an unambiguous view of events as strictly positive or negative. In Edward Snowden’s case, these reflections lead to the conclusion that he is an agenda-changing public hero. Through the declassification of the NSA’s unconstitutional program, the whole world and the United States have learned that their personal data is not actually personal. Furthermore, knowing the sanctions that awaited him, Edward Snowden voluntarily decided to act to the end, which demonstrates bravery and courage for the public good. Attempts to identify the man as a traitor prove untenable, as the fact that the authorities violated personal boundaries is difficult to ignore. Considering all of the above, Edward Snowden is a hero.

Burrough, B., Ellison, S., & Andrews, S. (2014). The Snowden saga: A shadowland of secrets and light . Vanity Fair.

Geiger, A.W. (2018). How Americans have viewed government surveillance and privacy since Snowden leaks . PRC.

Nelson, S. (2015). Edward Snowden unpopular at home, a hero abroad, poll finds . US News.

Pope, P. (2017). Surveillance and wiretapping . The First Amendment Encyclopedia.

Soken-Huberty, E. (2017). 10 reasons why privacy rights are important . HRC.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, October 8). Edward Snowden: A Hero or a Traitor. https://ivypanda.com/essays/edward-snowden-a-hero-or-a-traitor/

"Edward Snowden: A Hero or a Traitor." IvyPanda , 8 Oct. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/edward-snowden-a-hero-or-a-traitor/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Edward Snowden: A Hero or a Traitor'. 8 October.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Edward Snowden: A Hero or a Traitor." October 8, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/edward-snowden-a-hero-or-a-traitor/.

1. IvyPanda . "Edward Snowden: A Hero or a Traitor." October 8, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/edward-snowden-a-hero-or-a-traitor/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Edward Snowden: A Hero or a Traitor." October 8, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/edward-snowden-a-hero-or-a-traitor/.

• Events in the 1984 by George Orwell
• View of the Financial Crimes
• Cyber Privacy in the Organization’s Cyber Systems
• Stalin as One of the Greatest Mass Murderers
• Andrew Carnegie: Life and Professional Activity
• Life and Work of Fernando Ortiz
• Charles Lindbergh, American Pilot
• Comparison of Gandhi’s and Hitler’s Leadership

Who Is Edward Snowden, the Man Who Spilled the NSA's Secrets?

Few have vaulted from anonymity to the front pages more spectacularly than Edward Snowden, the former government contractor who revealed secrets from the National Security Agency's spying program.

NBC News will devote an hour of primetime on Wednesday to the first American television interview with Snowden, who disclosed secrets from the National Security Agency. Brian Williams, the anchor and managing editor of "NBC Nightly News," traveled to Moscow last week for an exclusive, wide-ranging interview with Snowden. The interview airs Wednesday at 10 p.m. Eastern/9 p.m. Central.

While some call Snowden a traitor who disclosed American secrets, others call him a patriot who exposed violations of the constitution.

Although his intense gaze and stubbled chin became the face of an international debate over privacy and security, many questions remain about his motivations, the exact extent of his removal of documents, and his future.

The impact of Snowden's disclosures, however, is already widespread. President Barack Obama appointed a review panel that criticized the NSA's domestic data collection. Obama recommended in March that the NSA end the warrantless collection in bulk of metadata on Americans, which can show the most intimate details of an individual's life and the patterns of movement and communication of millions. And the House recently passed a bill to end that bulk metadata collection.

Here, in anticipation of Wednesday's special report, is a primer on Snowden's life, his actions, and his impact.

What did he disclose?

Snowden is a former systems administrator for the CIA who later went to work for the private intelligence contractor Dell, first inside a National Security Agency outpost in Japan and then inside an NSA station in Hawaii. In early 2013, he went to work for contractor Booz Allen Hamilton inside the same NSA center in Hawaii.

While working for the contractors, at some point Snowden began downloading secret documents related to U.S. intelligence activities and partnerships with foreign allies, including some that revealed the extent of data collection from U.S. telephone records and Internet activity.

What are the key disclosures?

Among the revelations are the NSA’s bulk collection of phone and internet metadata from U.S. users, spying on the personal communications of foreign leaders including U.S. allies, and the NSA’s ability to tap undersea fiber optic cables and siphon off data.

Based on the Snowden documents, NBC News reported on Jan. 27 that British cyber spies demonstrated a pilot program to their U.S. partners in 2012 in which they were able to monitor YouTube in real time and collect addresses from the billions of videos watched daily, as well as some user information, for analysis. At the time the documents were printed, they were also able to spy on Facebook and Twitter.

NBC News also reported on Feb. 7 , based on the documents, that British spies have developed “dirty tricks” for use against nations, hackers, terror groups, suspected criminals and arms dealers that include releasing computer viruses, spying on journalists and diplomats, jamming phones and computers, and using sex to lure targets into “honey traps.” According to the documents, which come from presentations prepped in 2010 and 2012 for NSA cyber spy conferences, the agency’s goal was to “destroy, deny, degrade [and] disrupt” enemies by “discrediting” them, planting misinformation and shutting down their communications.

What is his background?

Snowden, now 30, was born June 21, 1983, in Elizabeth City, N.C., where he lived with his parents, Lonnie, a Coast Guard officer, and Elizabeth, known as Wendy. The family moved to Maryland in the early 1990s, while he was still in grade school, and his parents divorced. He lived outside Baltimore with his mother, a federal court employee.

Snowden was, by his own admission, not a stellar student. He dropped out of high school in his sophomore year. But by that time, he had developed a fascination with computers and technology and was able to develop considerable skills on his own, and via friends and online forums. After attending a community college off and on, he passed a General Educational Development test in the early 2000s, receiving a high school equivalency credential.

He enlisted in an Army Reserve Special Forces training program in 2004 with the intention of fighting in Iraq to “fight to help free people from oppression,” he later told Britain’s Guardian newspaper . But he said he broke his legs in a training accident, and Army records show he was discharged after just four months.

He also worked briefly as a security guard before beginning his intelligence work in 2006, when he was hired by the CIA as a computer systems administrator.

How did Snowden gain access to top-secret documents?

Despite being a high-school dropout who eventually received a GED equivalency credential, Snowden was granted top-secret clearance when he was hired by the CIA.

He maintained that clearance during subsequent jobs with CIA and NSA contractors Dell and Booz Allen Hamilton.

Removing the documents was not complicated for someone with his access and expertise, NBC News reported in August . When Snowden stole the crown jewels of the National Security Agency, he didn’t need to use any sophisticated devices or software or go around any computer firewall. All he needed, said multiple intelligence community sources, was a few thumb drives and the willingness to exploit a gaping hole in an antiquated security system to rummage at will through the NSA’s servers and take 20,000 documents without leaving a trace. “It’s 2013 and the NSA is stuck in 2003 technology,” said an intelligence official.

NBC also reported in August that intelligence sources said Snowden accessed some of the secret documents by assuming the electronic identities of top NSA officials. “Every day, they are learning how brilliant [Snowden] was,” said a former U.S. official with knowledge of the case. “This is why you don’t hire brilliant people for jobs like this. You hire smart people. Brilliant people get you in trouble.”

Whom did he give the documents to?

In late 2012, Snowden began to reach out to journalists, and in 2013 he leaked documents to Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian, Barton Gellman of The Washington Post, and documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras.

The Pulitzer Prize board in April awarded its highest honor, the medal for public service, to The Washington Post and The Guardian for their articles based on the documents provided by Snowden. The award echoed the Pulitzer given in 1972 to The New York Times for its reports on the Pentagon Papers, the secret history of the Vietnam War.

The executive editor of The Washington Post, Martin Baron, said when the Pulitzers were announced, "“Disclosing the massive expansion of the NSA’s surveillance network absolutely was a public service. In constructing a surveillance system of breathtaking scope and intrusiveness, our government also sharply eroded individual privacy. All of this was done in secret, without public debate, and with clear weaknesses in oversight."

Without the disclosures, Baron said, "we never would have known how far this country had shifted away from the rights of the individual in favor of state power. There would have been no public debate about the proper balance between privacy and national security. As even the president has acknowledged, this is a conversation we need to have.”

Congressman Peter King (R-N.Y.) tweeted that "awarding the Pulitzer to Snowden enablers is a disgrace."

How much information did he take?

Government officials initially said that it could be up to 200,000 classified NSA documents, and later gave the estimate of 1.7 million . Officials, including NSA Director Keith Alexander, have assured the public that the government knows the scope of the leak.

But Snowden has not said how many documents he took, and NBC News reported in August that officials say the NSA has been unable to determine how many documents he took and what they are.

What was in the documents?

Among the revelations from documents in the Snowden trove are the NSA’s bulk collection of phone and Internet metadata from U.S. users; NSA spying on the personal communications of foreign leaders, including U.S. allies; and the NSA’s ability to tap undersea fiber optic cables and siphon off data.

Did anyone suspect he was taking documents?

Snowden’s CIA supervisor at the CIA during his assignment in Geneva placed a critical assessment of his behavior and work habits in his personnel file and voiced the suspicion that he had tried to “break into classified computer files to which he was not authorized to have access,” the New York Times reported after he was identified as the leaker.

“The supervisor’s cautionary note and the CIA’s suspicions apparently were not forwarded to the NSA or its contractors, and surfaced only after federal investigators began scrutinizing Mr. Snowden’s record once the documents began spilling out,” the newspaper reported, citing unidentified intelligence and law enforcement officials.

And the Wall Street Journal reported in August 2013 that a federal review of his employment at the CIA and the intelligence contractors found the final security check that Snowden underwent in 2011 was inadequate. Investigators “failed to verify Mr. Snowden's account of a past security violation and his work for the CIA, … didn't thoroughly probe an apparent trip to India that he had failed to report, and they didn't get significant information from anyone who knew him beyond his mother and girlfriend,” it said.

Separately, the U.S. Department of Justice has joined a whisteblower’s lawsuit against USIS , the company that vetted Snowden, alleging the company faked 665,000 background checks it conducted for the Office of Personnel Management. It is not clear whether Snowden’s check was among those that, according to the criminal complaint, were fraudulently classified as “complete.” (The case is still pending. The company told NBC News in January that "a small group of individuals" was responsible for the bogus checks and a source said they had been “terminated.”)

What is he charged with?

In a criminal complaint unsealed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on June 21, 2013, the U.S. Justice Department charged Snowden with theft, “unauthorized communication of national defense information” and “willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person.” The latter two charges are violations of the 1917 Espionage Act.

Each of the three charges carries a maximum prison sentence of 10 years, for a total of 30 years. Additional counts could be added.

Snowden has retained a prominent Washington attorney who has represented several clients charged with violating the Espionage Act, reportedly in hopes of negotiating a plea deal.

Why did he do it?

Snowden has said in interviews that he acted out of the belief that the spying program was illegal and immoral.

"My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them," he told The Guardian in his first interview .

Snowden also has said he didn’t trust the Obama administration, having seen it prosecute whistleblowers at an unprecedented rate.

Did he have foreign help?

Snowden has denied suggestions that he worked with or for foreign governments. NBC reported in January that law enforcement officials have not found any evidence that Snowden was working for Russia as a spy.

What damage did Snowden’s leaks do to the U.S.?

That is a matter of considerable debate.

The man who leaked the Pentagon Papers, Daniel Ellsberg, has called the Snowden disclosures the most significant leak in U.S. history. "Edward Snowden has done more for our Constitution in terms of the Fourth and First Amendment," Ellsberg said, "than anyone else I know."

Privacy advocates say that Snowden’s revelation of the extensive U.S. spying operations was a bold and necessary step that forced the federal courts, the Congress, and the Obama administration to re-examine the previously secret programs and, in some cases to reform them.

But U.S. officials, members of Congress, and others have said that the Snowden disclosures harmed national security by enabling foreign spies.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said the revelations caused "huge, grave damage" to the nation's intelligence capabilities.

Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified in March that the Pentagon might need to spend billions to overcome the damage done to military security by Snowden's leaks of intelligence documents. Unnamed intelligence officials were quoted by AP saying that the agencies were scrambling to maintain surveillance of terror groups after they changed their methods of communication in the wake of Snowden's revelations.

The officials have not given details of any specific damage caused by the Snowden leaks.

The U.S. was also embarrassed by the disclosures — or by the behavior being disclosed — when the Snowden documents revealed that the U.S. has eavesdropped on the personal communications of foreign leaders, including allies.

Where is he now?

Since August of last year, Snowden has been living at an undisclosed location in Russia, under temporary asylum granted by Russian authorities as they consider his application for permanent political asylum.

What happens next?

His one-year temporary asylum in Russia expires on Aug. 1, but it could be extended if Moscow has not ruled on his request for permanent asylum.

It is also possible – but considered unlikely – that Russia would hand him over to U.S. authorities at that point.

Find anything you save across the site in your account

Edward Snowden’s Real Impact

By Jeffrey Toobin

The assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert F. Kennedy led directly to the passage of a historic law, the Gun Control Act of 1968. Does that change your view of the assassinations? Should we be grateful for the deaths of these two men?

Of course not. That’s lunatic logic. But the same reasoning is now being applied to the actions of Edward Snowden. Yes, the thinking goes, Snowden may have violated the law, but the outcome has been so worthwhile. According to Glenn Greenwald , the journalist who was one of the primary vehicles for Snowden’s disclosures, Snowden “is very pleased with the debate that is arising in many countries around the world on Internet privacy and U.S. spying. It is exactly the debate he wanted to inform.”

In this debate, Snowden himself says, those who followed the law were nothing better than Nazis: “I believe in the principle declared at Nuremberg, in 1945: ‘Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience. Therefore individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring.’ ”

To be sure, Snowden has prompted an international discussion about surveillance, but it’s worthwhile to note that this debate is no academic exercise. It has real costs. Consider just a few.

What if Snowden’s wrong? What if there is no pervasive illegality in the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs?

Indeed, for all the excitement generated by Snowden’s disclosures, there is no proof of any systemic, deliberate violations of law. Based on the ruling in a 1979 Supreme Court case, Smith v. Maryland , it is well established that individuals do not have an expectation of privacy in the phone numbers they call. This is not entirely surprising; we all know that we’re already sharing that information with the phone company. In the same way, it’s long established that the government has great latitude in intercepting communications between the United States and other countries. It’s true, too, that while the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court is largely toothless, it has, on occasion, rejected some N.S.A. procedures, and the agency has made adjustments in response . That is not the act of an entirely lawless agency.

It is true that, as the Washington Post ’ s Barton Gellman recently reported, the N.S.A. sometimes went beyond its authority. According to Gellman, the agency privately admits to two thousand seven hundred and seventy-six incidents of unauthorized collection of data within a twelve-month period. This is bad—but it’s not clear how bad. If it’s that many incidents out of a total of, say, three thousand initiatives, then it’s very bad. But if—as is far more likely—it’s two thousand seven hundred and seventy-six incidents out of many millions, then the errors are less serious. There should be no mistakes, of course. But government surveillance, like any human activity, is going to have errors, and it’s far from clear, at this point, that the N.S.A.’s errors amounted to a major violation of law or an invasion of privacy.

What are the actual dollar costs of Snowden’s disclosures?

The United States, like any great power, is always going to have an intelligence operation, and some electronic surveillance is obligatory in the modern world. But, because of Snowden’s disclosures, the government will almost certainly have to spend billions of dollars, and thousands of people will have to spend thousands of hours, reworking our procedures. This is all because a thirty-year-old self-appointed arbiter of propriety decided to break the law and disclose what he had sworn to protect. That judgment—in my view—was not Snowden’s to make. And it is simply grotesque that Snowden compares these thousands of government workers—all doing their jobs to protect the United States—to the Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg.

What did China and Russia learn about American surveillance operations from Snowden—and what will they do with this information?

As part of Snowden’s flight from American justice, he went to two of the most repressive and technologically sophisticated countries on earth. (Hong Kong is, of course, part of China.) In an interview with Greenwald , Snowden said that the authorities in those countries behaved like perfect gentlemen.

“I never gave any information to either government, and they never took anything from my laptops,” Snowden said.

Oh, really? Is he serious? Should anyone believe a word of this? China and Russia spend billions of dollars conducting counterintelligence against the United States. An American citizen walks into their countries bearing the keys to our most secret programs, and both—both!—China and Russia decline to take even a peek. That is a preposterous proposition. Even assuming that Snowden believes he had control of his computers 24/7 (he never slept?), there is simply no way that China and Russia would pass up that kind of bounty.

There is obviously some legitimate debate to be had about the extent and the legality of American surveillance operations. But there is no doubt about the nature of China and Russia. Snowden’s pious invocation of the Nuremberg trials will probably be small comfort to the dissidents and the political prisoners whose cell doors may be locked a little tighter today because of what these authoritarian governments may have learned from his hard drive.

Photograph: Maxim Shemetov/Reuters

By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

By Kyle Chayka

By Keith Gessen

By Amy Davidson Sorkin

By Zadie Smith

Movie Reviews

Tv/streaming, collections, great movies, chaz's journal, contributors.

Now streaming on:

If Edward Snowden didn’t exist, Oliver Stone might have invented him. One can imagine a Stone film about a former employee of the U.S. government who becomes disillusioned with his country when he learns the depth of its deceit. In fact, that last sentence could describe a few Stone films, and so “Snowden” has been widely anticipated as a return to form for the director of masterpieces like “ Platoon ,” “ JFK ” and “ Born on the Fourth of July .” It’s his first film in four years and his first with a true story behind it in almost a decade (“W.”).

History will recognize Stone as one of the most important cinematic historians when it comes to the stories of his country, from Vietnam to Richard Nixon to 9/11. And so it makes perfect sense that he would be attracted to the story of Edward Snowden, the whistleblower who revealed the scope of just how little privacy we have in a post-9/11 world. Stone made the very smart move to hire a committed, underrated actor to play the challenging lead role, and the result is a film that thrives off its central performance. Some of the elements around that performance are a bit lacking, especially the script, but there’s an energy here that Stone hasn’t had in a few films, as if he's been enlivened by a subject he was destined to document.

“Snowden” actually opens with a scene that will be very familiar to viewers of the Oscar-winning “ Citizenfour ”—that film’s director, Laura Poitras ( Melissa Leo ), and journalist Glenn Greenwald ( Zachary Quinto ) are going to meet Snowden ( Joseph Gordon-Levitt ), who then recounts the last few years of his life under extreme cover (cell phones go in the microwave, for example). The structure of Kieran Fitzgerald and Stone’s script essentially alternates between three stories—the story of Snowden’s discovery of his government’s highly intrusive and global surveillance; the story of Snowden’s romance with Lindsay Mills ( Shailene Woodley ) and how it was impacted by his top-secret jobs; and the story of the release of what Snowden knew, as documented in “Citizenfour.” All three arcs have that “JFK”-esque tendency to have even the smallest roles filled by recognizable faces: Rhys Ifans , Tom Wilkinson , Nicolas Cage , Timothy Olyphant, Joely Richardson , Logan Marshall-Green , Keith Stanfield , Ben Chaplin and more pop up throughout the complex story.

And this story is truly complex, especially in the way Stone and Fitzgerald have chosen to tackle it. They offer a little bit of “the early days of Edward,” but it’s not long before Snowden is, shall we say, seeing how the sausage gets made. For those viewers who have not seen “Citizenfour” or read many of the articles written about Snowden, the mid-section of Stone’s film could prove incredibly shocking, and may force a trend of people putting pieces of tape over their laptop camera. That covert operations run by our government have the capability to turn on your laptop camera without you knowing it is only one of the revelations here. And as Snowden continues to get deeper into the rabbit hole of privacy invasion, Gordon-Levitt’s performance becomes more exceptional. At first, it feels like something of an impression (although a really good one, for the record), but the film works in the way that Gordon-Levitt captures the conflicted inner turmoil of Snowden as the story progresses. He has a remarkable ability to do what so many other actors can’t: look at a computer screen and take in its information as if he’s seeing it for the first time. He grounds a complex story by giving it a very human, reactive element at its center.

Stone's film falters with the relationship drama involving Snowden and Shailene Woodley's Lindsay Mills. Both actors do their best to make these scenes connect, but some moments feel like they came out of another movie and the pair doesn't quite have the right chemistry to make them effective. I understand the intention—to balance the inordinate number of sequences in front of computer screens with a flesh and blood dynamic—but they just don't work, partially due to flat dialogue but also because they don’t have the energy of the rest of the film. They almost feel like an obligation—a producer’s note to make the film more relatable—but it creates a herky-jerky pace to “Snowden” that keeps it from building steam. I’m sure there were dozens of drafts exploring different ways to tackle this story, and I'm not convinced they found precisely the right one. Less relationship drama, and perhaps going chronological from front to back instead of using flashback structure, might have helped the rhythm.

Despite my issues with the structure of “Snowden,” there are numerous accomplished scenes and the film is carried throughout by Gordon-Levitt. It’s in his body language, which captures a man truly conflicted about what to do with the information he’s discovered. And that’s an interesting approach to the Snowden story in and of itself. In the days after the whistleblowing, and even today, many people still want to villainize Snowden as a traitor. It’s not surprising that Stone doesn’t feel that way, but what I like about the film is how deeply he works to humanize someone who has become a symbol for US privacy invasion and the need for transparency. Working with a very identifiable actor, Stone is careful to keep this story specific. To be honest, that’s been a gift of his for years, making sure he doesn’t lose the human story of people like Ron Kovic or Jim Garrison as he’s simultaneously painting a bigger picture. It’s good to have him back at the canvas.

Brian Tallerico

Brian Tallerico is the Managing Editor of RogerEbert.com, and also covers television, film, Blu-ray, and video games. He is also a writer for Vulture, The Playlist, The New York Times, and GQ, and the President of the Chicago Film Critics Association.

Now playing

A Bit of Light

Peyton robinson.

Terrestrial Verses

Godfrey cheshire.

Simon Abrams

Mary & George

Cristina escobar.

Sweet Dreams

Matt zoller seitz.

Sheila O'Malley

Film credits.

Snowden (2016)

Rated PG-13 for language and some sexuality/nudity.

134 minutes

Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Edward Snowden

Shailene Woodley as Lindsay Mills

Scott Eastwood as Trevor

Zachary Quinto as Glenn Greenwald

Tom Wilkinson as Ewen MacAskill

Melissa Leo as Laura Poitras

• Oliver Stone

Writer (book)

• Anatoly Kucherena
• Luke Harding
• Kieran Fitzgerald

Cinematographer

• Anthony Dod Mantle
• Alex Marquez
• Craig Armstrong
• Adam Peters

Latest blog posts

The Beatles Were Never More Human Than in ‘Let It Be’

Dear Tim Cook: Be a Decent Human Being and Delete this Revolting Apple Ad

The Problem and the Solution: Why Palpatine from Star Wars is One of the Great Movie Villains

A Good Reason to Be a Coward: Jim Cummings on The Last Stop in Yuma County

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

How Americans have viewed government surveillance and privacy since Snowden leaks

Five years ago this month, news organizations broke stories about federal government surveillance of phone calls and electronic communications of U.S. and foreign citizens, based on classified documents leaked by then-National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden. The initial stories and subsequent coverage sparked a global debate about surveillance practices, data privacy and leaks.

Here are some key findings about Americans’ views of government information-gathering and surveillance, drawn from Pew Research Center surveys since the NSA revelations:

Americans were divided about the impact of the leaks immediately following Snowden’s disclosures, but a majority said the government should prosecute the leaker. About half of Americans (49%) said the release of the classified information served the public interest, while 44% said it harmed the public interest, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted days after the revelations. While adults younger than 30 were more likely than older Americans to say the leaks served the public interest (60%), there was no partisan divide in these views.

At the same time, 54% of the public said the government should pursue a criminal case against the person responsible for the leaks, a view more commonly held among Republicans and Democrats (59% each) than independents (48%). Snowden was charged with espionage in June 2013. He then fled the U.S. and continues to live in Russia under temporary asylum. 

Americans became somewhat more disapproving of the government surveillance program itself in the ensuing months , even after then-President Barack Obama outlined changes to NSA data collection . The share of Americans who disapproved of the government’s collection of telephone and internet data as part of anti-terrorism efforts increased from 47% in the days after the initial disclosure to 53% the following January.

Other research by the Center also showed that a majority of adults (56%) did not think courts were providing adequate limits on the phone and internet data being collected. Moreover, 70% believed that the government was using surveillance data for purposes beyond anti-terror efforts. Some 27% said they thought the government listened to the actual contents of their calls or read their emails. (Similar figures emerged in a 2017 survey .)

Disclosures about government surveillance prompted some Americans to change the way they use technology. In a survey by the Center in late 2014 and early 2015, 87% of Americans said they had heard at least something about government surveillance programs. Among those who had heard something, 25% said they had changed the patterns of their technology use “a great deal” or “somewhat” since the Snowden revelations.

On a different question, 34% of those who were aware of the government surveillance programs said they had taken at least one step to hide or shield their information from the government, such as by changing their privacy settings on social media.

Americans broadly found it acceptable for the government to monitor certain people, but not U.S. citizens , according to the 2014-15 survey . About eight-in-ten adults (82%) said it was acceptable for the government to monitor communications of suspected terrorists, and equal majorities said it was acceptable to monitor communications of American leaders and foreign leaders (60% each). Yet 57% of Americans said it was unacceptable for the government to monitor the communications of U.S. citizens.

About half of Americans (52%) expressed worry about surveillance programs in 2014 and 2015, but they had more muted concerns about surveillance of their own data . Roughly four-in-ten said they were somewhat or very concerned about government monitoring of their activity on search engines, email messages and cellphones. Roughly three-in-ten expressed the same amount of concern over monitoring of their activity on social media and mobile apps.

The vast majority of Americans (93%) said that being in control of who can get information about them is important, according to a 2015 report . At the same time, a similarly large majority (90%) said that controlling what information is collected about them is important.

Few Americans, however, said that they had a lot of control over the information that is collected about them in daily life. Just 9% of Americans said they had a lot of control over the information that is collected about them. In an earlier survey, 91% agreed with the statement that consumers have lost control of how personal information is collected and used by companies.

Some 49% said in 2016 that they were not confident in the federal government’s ability to protect their data . About three-in-ten Americans (28%) were not confident at all in the government’s ability to protect their personal records, while 21% were not too confident. Just 12% of Americans were very confident in the government’s ability to protect their data (49% were at least somewhat confident).

Americans had more confidence in other institutions, such as cellphone manufacturers and credit card companies, to protect their data. Around seven-in-ten cellphone owners were very (27%) or somewhat (43%) confident that cellphone manufacturers could keep their personal information safe. Similarly, around two-thirds of online adults were very (20%) or somewhat (46%) confident that email providers would keep their information safe and secure.

Roughly half of Americans (49%) said their personal data were less secure compared with five years prior , according to the 2016 survey . The Snowden revelations were followed in the ensuing months and years with accounts of major data breaches affecting the government and commercial firms. These vulnerabilities appear to have taken a toll. Americans ages 50 and older were particularly likely to express concerns over the safety of their data: 58% of these older Americans said their data were less secure than five years prior.  Younger adults were less concerned about their data being less secure; still, 41% of 18- to 49-year-olds felt their personal information was less secure than five years earlier.

• Defense & National Security
• Federal Government
• Online Privacy & Security
• Privacy Rights

A.W. Geiger is a former associate digital producer and writer for Pew Research Center .

A growing share of Americans have little or no confidence in Netanyahu

Rising numbers of americans say jews and muslims face a lot of discrimination, younger americans stand out in their views of the israel-hamas war, how u.s. muslims are experiencing the israel-hamas war, how u.s. jews are experiencing the israel-hamas war, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

Edward Snowden Essay

Edward Snowden is a 34-year-old American computer professional. He joined the military in 2004 but he was injured falling off his bunk bed which resulted in a career-ending injury. Still wanting to serve and protect his country he then pursued a position with the CIA. He worked as a private contractor for the NSA and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). He had worked in various jobs in the intelligence industry in the previous 9 years. He started as a system engineer, he went on as a solutions consultant and a senior advisor for the CIA. The level he is working at is Federal because the NSA and CIA have programs that can spy all around the world. During Snowden’s time with the CIA and NSA, he discovered that the intelligence community can invade …show more content…

had conducted mass surveillance in Germany, including tapping Chancellor Angela Merkel's mobile phone. There was a rise in encryption and user privacy startup companies who have developed apps and hardware with higher security from Wickr messaging, Silent Circle's Blackphone and more. Tech giants like Google and Yahoo stepped up their security following the disclosures by adding encryption to users' emails. The report was released entitled "DoD Information Review Task Force-2: Initial Assessment, Impacts Resulting from the Compromise of Classified Material by a Former NSA Contractor" the report stated "the scope of the compromised knowledge related to US intelligence capabilities is staggering." Edward Snowden’s leaks contribute to the common good. First of all Edward Snowden’s leaks confirmed that the U.S. government, without obtaining any court warrants, routinely collects the phone records of tens of millions, maybe even hundreds of millions, of Americans and citizens of the world, who have no links to terrorism at all. Edward Snowden's way of exposing the NSA, the CIA, and the government was the best way. First of all, it was the fastest way of getting his documents and files out of the agency. His way was the only way to get all the documents and files out to the whole world in a matter of days to see. Now the world knows and can make a change to the

Edward Snowden: Hero or Traitor?

• 5 Works Cited

After September 11th, Americans looked to the government for protection and reassurance. However, they did not expect to find out thirteen years later that the government did this by using technology to spy on Americans, as well as other countries. George W. Bush began the policy shortly after the terrorist attack and Barack Obama continued it. There have been many confrontations over the years about the extent of the N.S.A.’s spying; however, the most recent whistle-blower, Edward Snowden, leaked information that caused much upset throughout America (EFF). It has also brought many people to question: is he a hero or a traitor?

American Revolution Civil Disobedience

Edward Snowden is responsible for exposing these government secrets. Many call this an act of treason, but it can also be seen as an act of civil disobedience. The most peaceful nature of his rebellion, and the unconstitutional behavior that it consequentially exposed qualify his actions. Although it was wrong of him to escape the consequences of his actions by fleeing to Hong Kong, his actions were ultimately beneficial to the American public. Being spied upon by the government is a direct violation of our right to privacy, and hiding it from the public is wrong as well. From John Cassidy’s article, “Why Edward Snowden is a hero,” he quotes Ellsberg; “‘This wholesale invasion of Americans and foreign citizens’ privacy does not contribute to our security; it puts in danger the very liberties we are trying to protect.’” The act of bringing these facts to light is an act of trying to preserve our liberty, and that’s what civil disobedience is all about.

Argumentative Essay On Edward Snowden

Furthermore, Edward Snowden had done more than disclose the governments illegals acts, but also inform the world about programs and secret government agendas about how much freedom and privacy is being taken away in the name of security. Samuel Adams also once said, “The truth is, all might be free if they valued freedom, and defended it as they ought.” In this sense, Edward Snowden had valued freedom more so over anything against it, and had acted as he did fighting and defending his individual freedom. Edward Snowden had also fought for the truth, and not only exposed the government, but also to the American people what was happening to their rights and freedoms. The many stories and historical freedom fighters had even put their lives on the line for truth and liberty, and Edward Snowden had also done the same and succeeding in continuing the fight for freedom. Many who also who perceive Edward Snowden as a hero inspire them to do the same as he had, and exposing the government of their false truths and secrecy.

Essay Edward Snowden: Traitor or Whistleblower

Edward Snowden. This is a name that will be in the history books for ages. He will be branded a traitor or a whistleblower depending on where you look. Many Americans feel that Edward Snowden is a traitor who sold the United States’ secrets aiming to harm the nation. Others believe that he was simply a citizen of the United States who exercised his right to expose the government for their unconstitutional actions. It is important to not only know the two sides to the argument of friend or foe, but to also know the facts as well. My goal in this paper is to present the facts without bias and to adequately portray the two sides of the argument.

The United States Government Surveillance Policy

Ever since the American public was made aware of the United States government’s surveillance policies, it has been a hotly debated issue across the nation. In 2013, it was revealed that the NSA had, for some time, been collecting data on American citizens, in terms of everything from their Internet history to their phone records. When the story broke, it was a huge talking point, not only across the country, but also throughout the world. The man who introduced Americans to this idea was Edward Snowden.

Ethics of Edward Snowden Essay

The reason Edward Snowden has left his amazing life behind is not because he was forced to but it was because he felt a sense of duty to, and he did not want to be part of the government, specifically the NSA for what they were doing. Edward Snowden believed what the NSA did was wrong and he did not want to be part of an organization as this. In this interview of Edward Snowden, he was asked multiple question and one of the most important

Edward Snowden's Whistleblower Questions And Answers

Edward Snowden was a former NSA contractor who leaked documents to reporter Glenn Greenwald. These documents revealed “detailed secret NSA programs and capabilities that have been and continue to be used to collect and store personal communications both within the US and abroad”. His document leaks led to many people to question their security. They have led to numerous investigations into the surveillance the U.S. is doing and violations of human rights to privacy and freedom of information. Nineteen proposals for reformation are pending in the U.S.

Edward Snowden's Violation Of Mass Surveillance

In 2013, it was revealed by Edward Snowden that the National Security Agency (NSA) was spying on the public through tapping phones and internet records. Snowden encountered an ethical dilemma when he had to choose between being loyal to his employer and informing the public about the mass surveillance. While the intentions of the NSA were to keep the American public safe, their method of mass surveillance is a violation of people’s privacy and ineffective at stopping crime. This can be explained by examining who Edward Snowden is, why he exposed the mass surveillance scandal, and what exactly the mass surveillance scandal was. Edward Snowden worked as a system administrator for the NSA, where he was exposed to a lot of the NSA’s secrets and documents (Greenwald 2015:

Edward Snowden: An American Hero

Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency (N.S.A) subcontractor turned whistle-blower is nothing short of a hero. His controversial decision to release information detailing the highly illegal ‘data mining’ practices of the N.S.A have caused shockwaves throughout the world and have raised important questions concerning how much the government actually monitors its people without their consent or knowledge. Comparable to Mark Felt in the Watergate scandals, Daniel Ellsberg with the Pentagon Papers, Edward Snowden joins the rank of infamous whistleblowers who gave up their jobs, livelihood, and forever will live under scrutiny of the public all in the service to the American people. Edward Snowden released information detailing the

NSA and Edward Snowden Essay examples

• 2 Works Cited

While working for the NSA, Snowden became aware of their extensive trespasses against the privacy of U.S. and international citizens alike. Upon considering the extent of these trespasses, Snowden felt that it was his moral duty, as he stated, “to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them”. His provided information showed the use of Internet surveillance programs, and the evaluation of phone records in the form of “metadata”. Many argue that Snowden’s leaking of information has hindered our government’s ability to intercept terrorist plots, by informing the world of the NSA’s capabilities, and therefore allowing terrorist groups to plot attacks beyond the reach of U.S. surveillance. In light of this, Snowden’s leak has indeed made us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, but does this justify the NSA’s chosen use of power? Since Snowden’s revelations, it has become evident that the NSA consistently uses their surveillance abilities to unjustified ends. One function of the NSA’s electronic data analysis is to find targets for the military’s Joint Special Operations Command to strike with lethal drone attacks. Many innocent civilians in middle-eastern countries have lost their lives as a result of this military sect’s reliance on the NSA’s data, rather than human correspondence. According to an anonymous former drone-operator, the victims of these attacks “might have been terrorists, or they could have been

Pros And Cons Of Edward Snowden

Edward Snowden released classified information from the National Security Agency. The information released by Snowden caused American citizens to question the legality of the actions taken by the government. Suddenly, people were concerned with their privacy and what information to which the NSA had access. Soon after Edward Snowden released the classified information, the government took action and declared several NSA practices to be illicit as stated by Beatrice Edwards (McCutcheon 113).

The Nsa's Program Prism

The information Snowden leaked goes beyond your average Facebook or Yahoo phishing hack from a curious hacker behind his computer in his mom and dad’s basement. In the 2013 scandal, Snowden reveal that the NSA was collecting “the telephone records of tens of millions of Americans” (BBC News, 2014, para. 1). Additionally, BBC News (2014) reports that “the NSA tapped directly into the servers of nine internet firms, including Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, to track online communication in a surveillance programme known as Prism” (para. 3). According to Dreyfuss, B. and Dreyfuss, E. (2013), the NSA’s program Prism stands for the “Planning Tool for Resource Integration, Synchronization, and Management” (para. 2). Not only does Prism collect data from the U.S., it also collects data internationally. Furthermore, Dreyfuss, B. and Dreyfuss, E. (2013) report that Snowden provides examples of the kind of data that was being collected such as, ‘“e-mail, chat, videos, photos, stored data, VoIP, file transfers, video conferencing, notifications of target activity...”’ (para. 17). Essentially, this data and metadata were being analyzed by the NSA and other government agencies for tracking and security purposes. Metadata, according to Pfleeger, C., Pfleeger, S., and Margulies (2015), is data tracking that “can occur with data the user or owner does not even know [exists]” (p. 529). This is exactly what Snowden believed needed to be shared with the world, or the users and

Why Is Edward Snowden Unethical

Edward Snowden is an American computer professional who was a former Central Intelligence Agency employee who brought to light surveillance programs conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA) and the British government (GCHO). While working for the NSA, Snowden a high salary job and lived comfortably. Snowden was not directly involved with PRISM, however, as an IT personal, he had access to an immense amount of documents that not all analyst have. One of the major reasons behind Snowden decision to release classified information was to demonstrate that “It is not that I do not value intelligence, but that I oppose.  .

Edward Snowden Kantian Ethics

The government, specifically the NSA and Obama Administration have been embarrassed by the leaks. Their aim is to bring Snowden back to the US for prosecution and have him be the next target under the Espionage Act for whistleblowers. Under the Obama Administration there have been double the amount of people prosecuted under the act than any other previous administration in history since the enacting. (Greenberg, 2014) It seems that Snowden has seen an unfairness and gross abuse of power and has felt compelled to bring these things to light for the public interest, and for the global stage. The need for change from such actions, the employment of fear to strip the public’s rights and privacies, and the use of mining centers to take all our data to whatever government end has all been shown. They (the government) is not particularly happy with the revealed truths behind their hidden programs. The fact they label it under the Espionage Act as to say Snowden has aided our enemies in breaching national security is, to the open minded and intelligent, a cowardly move, since our “enemies” already have known

Analysis Of ' Oedipus ' Rex '

Edward Snowden is a United States citizen and former employee of the National Security Agency (NSA). Snowden leaked information about the NSA to the media in 2013 and is now in Russia where he was recently granted three years of asylum. The NSA uses cryptology and others forms of information gathering to enable various networks to make advantageous decisions for the Nation and our allies under all circumstances. The NSA operates undetected by civilians, and uses global monitoring so broadly defined that it has allowed for unscrupulous behavior that was witnessed by contracted employee, Edward Snowden. Snowden believed that as the public gained knowledge of the illegal intelligence gathering by the government of domestic citizens, and abroad, he would gain protection from the public. Snowden did receive protection from people including powerful lawyers, journalists, and privacy advocates. Analysis of the Edward Snowden case

Related Topics

• Computer security
• National security
• Federal government of the United States
• Surveillance

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Law Edward Snowden

Edward Snowden Controversy: A Hero or A Traitor

*minimum deadline

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below

• International Law
• Patriot Act
• Bill of Rights
• Money Laundering

Related Essays

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

• Mission & History
• Transparency
• 2023 Annual Report
• Trivia Nights with NWC
• Join Our Email List
• Game Changers in 2024
• Attorney Referral Program
• Find An Attorney
• Who is a Whistleblower?
• What to Know
• Protections and Rewards
• Stop Retaliation
• Climate Center
• URGENT: 90 Day Sprint for DOJ Whistleblower Rewards Program
• Revitalize the IRS Whistleblower Program
• Enact AML Whistleblower Rules
• Save the CFTC Whistleblower Program
• Protect the False Claims Act
• Reform the SEC Whistleblower Program
• Strengthen U.S. Whistleblower Laws
• Whistleblower Chats
• Rules for Whistleblowers
• Press Releases
• Whistleblower Network News
• Contact Form

The case of Edward Snowden

By nick younger, communications associate, published on november 19, 2020.

After Deep Throat and Daniel Ellsberg, one of the whistleblowers at the top of American minds is Edward Snowden. In 2013, Snowden revealed the existence of previously classified mass intelligence-gathering surveillance programs run by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) and the U.K.’s intelligence organization, Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). For this, Snowden was charged with espionage by the U.S. government and, subsequently, fled the country.

Snowden’s exposure of NSA surveillance is a controversial subject; supporters claim he is a hero, while detractors say he is un-American. Snowden himself though is confident about the positive impact of his disclosures. In a 2019 interview with The Guardian , Snowden said, “we live in a better, freer and safe world because of the revelations of mass surveillance.”

However, Snowden still faces U.S. criminal charges for violating the Espionage Act, despite the fact that such a prosecution is unconstitutional. The law is vague and over-broad with a long and sordid history of suppressing legitimate dissent. NWC co-founder and leading whistleblower attorney, Stephen M. Kohn, said of the Espionage Act in a 2010 Guardian article that “[t]here are responsible mechanisms policing truly abusive leaks. The Espionage Act is not such a tool.” With its broad language, the Espionage Act prohibits the publication of information by anyone to be used “to the injury of the United States.” As Kohn asks in that same article: what are the determinants of national security risk and an injury to the United States? Originally designed to prosecute spies bringing military secrets back home, this Act has been used against whistleblowers, not spies, who release information that they believe is in the American interest.

Without clear guidance on the matter, wielding the Espionage Act against Snowden seems to clash with the free speech protections in the First Amendment that Snowden is and was entitled to. However, this protection is not absolute – the benefit to the public from a disclosure must outweigh the government’s need for secrecy.

Additionally, at the time Snowden blew the whistle, U.S. law provided little to no whistleblower protection for employees and contractors of national security agencies, who are not covered by standard federal employee whistleblower protection laws.

In late 2012, President Obama signed the executive order, Presidential Policy Directive 19 or PPD-19, which created administrative procedures to protect whistleblowers who work for U.S. intelligence agencies, including the NSA, CIA, DNI and the Defense Intelligence Agency. President Obama leaned on this order in defense of his handling of Snowden saying, “I signed an executive order well before Mr. Snowden leaked this information that provided whistleblower protection to the intelligence community – for the first time. So, there were other avenues available for somebody whose conscience was stirred and thought that they needed to question government actions.”

However, this Directive fails to provide adequate protection for whistleblowers. Originally, it did not include national security contractors, like Snowden, despite the high number of contractors who work in the intelligence community. Additionally, it explicitly neglects to create any real legal protections: language in the PPD-19 states that, “This directive is not intended to and does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law.” In other words, an agency can violate any of the procedural or substantive rights laid out by the PPD-19, and the whistleblower is unable to oppose it. Finally, as Joe Davidson of the Washington Post noted , procedures for the directive were not implemented until July 2013 – after Snowden had made his disclosures.

These tenuous protections may have precipitated Snowden’s disclosure to the press. If whistleblowers must rely on an empty law with limited unassailable protections afforded by it, they may seek alternative avenues like the media. To stop leaks of sensitive information, strong legal avenues must be provided to these whistleblowers.

With intelligence whistleblowers still facing retaliation from superiors and even from sitting presidents , their protection is paramount. Whistleblowers in the intelligence community must be afforded real protections and clear avenues of reporting in order to bring forth evidence of misconduct to appropriate authorities. Antiquated laws like the Espionage Act and ineffective protections like PPD-19 only serve to push whistleblowers with legitimate concerns for American safety away from proper channels.

The case of Edward Snowden exemplifies the many hurdles whistleblowers can face when stepping forward. The National Whistleblower Center is working tirelessly to make sure future whistleblowers who do report can do so safely and without fear of retaliation, because as Snowden said in a 2019 interview: “You have to be ready to stand for something if you want it to change.”

News & Press Releases

NWC Calls for Release of Binance Compliance Officer Detained in Nigeria

NWC Executive Director Siri Nelson Writes to Chairmen of the Senate Whistleblower Caucus on Tax Whistleblower Reward Delays

NWC to Participate in the 21st Annual Georgetown French Market

• In the News

Home — Essay Samples — Law, Crime & Punishment — Legal Cases — Edward Snowden

Essays on Edward Snowden

Edward snowden, edward snowden and his revolutionary impact on digital privacy, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Edward Snowden’s Betray Against The United States

The controversial personality of edward snowden, the impact of defense information systems, analyzing government scandals during the presidency of richard nixon and edward snowden, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Relevant topics

• Plessy vs Ferguson
• Tinker V Des Moines
• Domestic Violence
• Child Abuse
• Drunk Driving
• Identity Theft

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Home / Essay Samples / Law / Edward Snowden / Edward Snowden And NSA’s Unethical Practices

Edward Snowden And NSA’s Unethical Practices

• Category: Law
• Topic: Edward Snowden

Pages: 2 (905 words)

• Downloads: -->

Works Cited

• Geller, Eric, and Jason Schwartz. “Trump Scraps Obama Rules on Cyberattacks, Giving Military Freer Hand.” POLITICO, 16 Aug. 2018, www.politico.com/story/2018/08/16/trump-cybersecurity-cyberattack-hacking-military-742095.
• Poitras, Laura, director. Citizenfour. Citizenfour, HBO Films, 2014, citizenfourfilm.com.
• “Privacy and Freedom Is More Important Than Security.” DebateWise, debatewise.org/debates/3040-privacy-vs-security/. 

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

First Amendment Essays

Justice Essays

Second Amendment Essays

Marijuana Legalization Essays

Roe V Wade Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service  and  Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->