Edward Snowden: Hero Or Traitor?

History/background: What is the issue at hand?

The revelations about the massive espionage of the US National Security Agency, made by former CIA employee Edward Snowden, have been a shock to the international community. The author of the leaks has been labeled a “traitor” in his country. A large part of the international community considers him a hero. Among his revelations, the espionage carried out by the US to several European leaders through their mobile phones.

According to Steffen Schmidt, professor of political science at Iowa State University, with his revelation, Snowden has exposed “a great weakness” in the security of the American spy systems “and in that sense he did a service to the nation.” However, if he has any truly important knowledge of intelligence operations “and shares it with the Russians and the Chinese or makes it available to the public” then “he will become an enemy,” Schimdt argued (Vanden Heuvel & Cohen, 2014).

Several congressmen, among them the president of the House of Representatives, the Republican John Boehner, have not hesitated to describe the young person as “a traitor” for revealing the existence of two programs that, according to the Government, are protected by the Constitution and American laws. Along the same lines, the influential Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein has branded Snowden’s actions as an “act of treason”. “I think (Snowden) should be prosecuted,” Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said this week at a news conference (Hertsgaard, 2016 p. 29).

Snowden is in Hong Kong, where he wants to stay and fight against any request for extradition by the US, as stated. The public opinion US remains very divided about what you should expect the young and whether acted correctly by filtering the two newspapers secret information, according to a survey by the Times Magazine. The survey shows that for 54% of those interviewed Snowden did “something good”, while 30% disagree about it, but 53% think it should be processed. Up to 70% of young people between 18 and 34 years of age view the filtering of the CIA technician with good eyes, but that percentage drops to 47% in the group of people over 55 years of age (Berman, 2016 p.773). Meanwhile, Daniel Ellsberg, the military analyst who in 1971 leaked the so-called ‘Pentagon Papers’ about the Vietnam War, has declared himself “impressed” by the attitude of Snowden, who in his opinion has rendered “an incalculable service” to the citizens. If he had known the secret programs “I would have done exactly what (Snowden) has done,” admitted Ellsberg, responsible for filtering the documents that revealed the real situation of the Vietnam War and what the Defense Department thought about that conflict. The founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, who claims to have had contact with Snowden, described as “hero” the young man and said he has revealed “one of the most serious events of the decade” (Scherer & Shuster, 2013 p. 78) Assange, refugee in the embassy of Ecuador in London to avoid his extradition to Sweden, also recommended Snowden to seek asylum in a Latin American country. The big question is: Who is right between those who consider Snowden a hero and those who consider him a traitor? To answer this, the next section of this paper will analyze Snowden’s case and apply deontological and utilitarianism ethics to decide whether he is a hero or traitor.

I will demonstrate that although Snowden’s action unleashed a worldwide debate that changed the laws and helped protect our privacy, he acted unethically by releasing such sensitive information that can interfere with the American security.

From deontological ethical perspective, Snowden can be treated as a traitor. This is because he violated many rules and laws. Regardless of the reasons that, on international, ethical, moral and even ideological, could be argued against the intentions of the United States to prosecute in the courts of his country a former contractor of the National Security Agency (NSA) and Central of American Intelligence (CIA), it is not right for a person who served for the company hired by the government to leak confidential information that harms the client for which he compromised his ethics and professionalism. Confidentiality is at the heart of ethical issues in the ICT world. Industry professionals are called upon to manipulate masses of data, some of which may be sensitive (Nolan, 2017, p. 293).

This code, which is online, stipulates, for example, that the self-employed worker must ensure that his contractual situation with his clients is clear and communicated, and carry out his mandates with a high level of moral responsibility, integrity and respect (Scherer & Shuster, 2013, p. 78).

It is not good that Snowden has spent a reasonable time having access to confidential information and then go out and disclose it. If indeed the United States could be missing from its citizens and the countries with which it has diplomatic relations, neither did Snowden act responsibly, since it was supposed to know the type of work that the company for which it worked would do, and to whom that work would be . He did not act in accordance with the deontological codes that protect his profession, which he was obliged to comply with. If it could certainly be argued that Snowden acted freely, on the other hand it would be affirmed that he did not do so responsibly. To be a free man, you must first be responsible (Scheuerman, 2016 p. 959).

When flying from China to Russia, Snowden has generated a diplomatic flicker between the three great powers and Ecuador. China, accused by the United States for letting it escape; Russia, which does not decide to deliver it on the grounds that it has not crossed the border, and Ecuador dragged into the dispute because the young American would have sought asylum from that South American nation, which already have the precedent of protecting Julian Assange for more than a year, the founder of Wikileaks, persecuted for similar reasons (Friedman, 2015).

Snowden’s revelations and the international community’s response

The Snowden case has geopolitical implications. China acted with intelligence to remove that Snowden. Russia could have other reasons to keep the young person in “limbo”, because it could serve to pressure him in order to talk with the US government to make his position in the region more flexible, especially in relation to Syria and Iran (Radack, 2013). We know the role that the Kremlin has played in international organizations with respect to the governments of Damascus and Tehran. It is not fortuitous that at the end of last week, and while touring Africa, tarnished by this case, the president of the United States, Barak Obama, has removed pressure from the Snowden case, so as not to turn it into the stone in the shoe, having other more relevant issues such as those that have to do with the territorial control of the area (Shuster, 2017, p. 9).

Consequently, given that Snowden’s move after revealing the secrets about NSA is likely to result in geopolitical implication, the issue can be considered a form of espionage. One of the most widespread crimes on the Internet is the spying of information, which is nothing else, than the secret obtaining of information from a source that does not want to reveal it. According to international law, espionage is a criminal activity, and is usually defined as a crime of special gravity deserving maximum penalties, especially when it affects the security of the states (Rae, 2016 p. 337). The vast majority of countries have official bodies responsible for obtaining valuable information for their governments, which are often referred to as state intelligence services. The states, on the other hand, have the obligation to promote and defend the right to information, to guarantee that their citizens have access to it in a complete, integral and timely manner, as well as to regulate those factors that may hinder or violate the exercise to this fundamental right. The role of the state in this field also includes generating or producing that information that citizens need and can not obtain by other means. Logically, to guarantee the right to information, states must make adjustments or transformations in almost all fields of social development (Brownlee, 2016 p. 569).

In networks, espionage is a common action, linked indissolubly to deception, fraud and, frequently, violence; Sometimes, it requires the disloyalty of those who have privileged information. In many cases, greed or financial needs are the main motivation, but there may be others: ambition, ideology, terrorism, as well as the need to obtain secret information to make decisions in commercial or industrial matters. Competitors are often interested in the strategies of their opponents and seek information that may discredit them. Some qualify virtual spies as computer criminals; they, without any scruple, become cybercriminals, totally dehumanized, constantly lurking in search of new opportunities to commit a crime (Stein, 2013 p. 3).

The big question: Is Snowden a hero or a traitor?

The construction of an ethical framework in the cybersociety can only be carried out based on the recognition and respect of the right of access to information and the right to privacy. And among the elements to consider for their importance when creating an ethical model and access to information, are: to promote mechanisms that respect copyright, without distinction of type of medium or means of transmission of information ; respect the right of access to information and the right to privacy, which are not conflicting; establish the limits between the boundary of the general and private interest, as well as the public or private nature of the information; support the formation of entities that regulate and control the transmission and use of data in computer networks; develop strategies to protect the privacy or privacy of individuals and organizations; to train and train, at different educational levels, the common citizen in the basic concepts of the process of information management, with the aim of creating an awareness of the benefits and risks of these new tools; as well as defining the values ??by which the digital society will be governed. Consequently, if deontological ethics are considered, Snowden is a traitor (Epstein, 2017, p. 23).

The other ethical principle that is applicable is utilitarianism principle. Utilitarianism is a philosophical doctrine that places the utility as a principle of morality. It is a teleological ethical system that determines the moral conception based on the final result. For Snowden’s case, we need to understand all the parties affected by the revelation. The first party is the Americans. According to utilitarianism, we need to ask question such as: Does the Snowden’s action benefits the public? There is no absolute answer to this question. In fact, the chances of citizens benefiting from Snowden’s action is low because they will not have any economic or social benefits. The only benefit they will get is that they will be aware of what is going on (O’Neill, 2016 p. 67). In addition, by deciding to share this information, Edward Snowden unleashed a worldwide debate that changed the laws and helped protect our privacy. For the first time in almost 40 years, the United States passed laws to restrict government oversight, and technology companies such as Apple and WhatsApp are striving more to protect our personal information in the world.

The second party affected is the United States Security department. Here, we ask ourselves: Will the Snowden’s action hinder the security department from achieving its mission of addressing security issues? The answer is that the security department would be significantly affected. Considering the fact that terrorists can be detected through communication channels, it is clear that the move taken by Snowden would make potential terrorists invent new tactics and reduce the effectiveness of the United States defense against terrorists (Scherer, Kelley, Miller & Newton-Small, 2013 p. 22).

Deontological ethics: A traitor’s perspective

Conclusion

Edward Snowden’s case is one of the cases that put to test the ethics and professionalism. It is one of the cases that cannot be resolved easily unless the bigger picture of the whole issue is considered. Although I supported the fact that Snowden violated ethical and professional expectation, my arguments are debatable because if the issue is considered from different angle, he will be regarded as a hero.

References

Nolan, C 2017, ‘The Edward Snowden Case and the Morality of Secrecy’, Catholic Social Science Review, 22, pp. 291-310, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 9 September 2018.

Scherer, M, & Shuster, S 2013, ‘Number Two Edward Snowden The Dark Prophet’, Time, 182, 26, p. 78, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 9 September 2018.

Friedman, M 2015, ‘Edward Snowden: Hero Or Traitor? Considering The Implications For Canadian National Security And Whistleblower Law’, Dalhousie Journal Of Legal Studies, 24, pp. 1-23, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 9 September 2018.

Epstein, EJ 2017, ‘The Edward Snowden Files’, Newsweek Global, 167, 26, pp. 20-31, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 9 September 2018.

Scheuerman, WE 2016, ‘What Edward Snowden can teach theorists of conscientious law-breaking’, Philosophy & Social Criticism, vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 958-964. Available from: 10.1177/0191453716631169. [9 September 2018].

Shuster, S 2017, ‘Denied Clemency, Snowden Remains Trapped In Putin’s Game’, Time, 189, 3, pp. 7-9, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 9 September 2018.

O’Neill, J 2016, ‘Pardon Edward Snowden’, New Yorker, 92, 41, pp. 64-69, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 9 September 2018.

Rae, P 2016, ‘Lawful Espials? Edward Snowden’s Hamlet’, Theatre Journal, 68, 3, pp. 335-355, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 9 September 2018.

Brownlee, K 2016, ‘The civil disobedience of Edward Snowden’, Philosophy & Social Criticism, vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 965-970. Available from: 10.1177/0191453716631167. [9 September 2018].

Hertsgaard, M 2016, ‘A New Chapter In The Snowden Story’, Nation, 302, 25/26, pp. 29-31, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 9 September 2018.

Scherer, M, & Shuster, S 2013, ‘Number Two Edward Snowden The Dark Prophet’, Time International (Atlantic Edition), 182, 26, p. 78, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 9 September 2018.

Vanden Heuvel, K, & Cohen, S 2014, ‘Snowden in Exile’, Nation, 299, 20, pp. 12-26, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 9 September 2018.

Stein, J 2013, ‘Edward Snowden On Line Two’, Newsweek Global, 161, 38, pp. 1-4, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 9 September 2018.

Berman, E 2016, ‘Quasi-Constitutional Protections and Government Surveillance’, Brigham Young University Law Review, 2016, 3, pp. 771-836, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 9 September 2018.

Scherer, M, Kelley, C, Miller, Z, & Newton-Small, J 2013, ‘The Geeks Who Leak’, Time, 181, 24, p. 22, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 9 September 2018.

Radack, J 2013, ‘Snowden’s Courage’, Nation, 297, 19, pp. 4-8, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 9 September 2018.