Running head: EDWARD SNOWDEN 1

Edward Snowden: Ethical Hero or Unethical Traitor?

Student’s Name

Institution Name
EDWARD SNOWDEN 2

Background

Edward Snowden is an American whistleblower who leaked troves of sensitive classified

information on government surveillance programs and national security operations. Snowden is a

highly divisive figure because while some people endorse his choices and laud him as an

American hero, others criticize him and deem him as a traitor. To understand the significance of

Snowden and the choices that he made, it is important to review major developments in

American government surveillance operations over the past two decades. One of the major points

of failure in national security that contributed to the 9/11 terror attacks was the lack of effective

surveillance apparatus within the U.S. government. While some pundits have suggested that

senior national security officials were aware of an impending terror attack but chose not to act on

the information, others assert that America’s national security apparatus was woefully

unprepared for an attack in the scope and scale that occurred on 9/11. Regardless, following the

attacks, critical agencies like the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, the NSA, and the

CIA all raised concerns about the need to have more authority to collect information covertly to

prevent a similar event from recurring.

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the American public was ready to make

unprecedented concessions regarding government authority in exchange for two implicit

guarantees. The first guarantee was that with their newfound authority, America’s national

security apparatus would act to bring everyone involved in the terrorist attacks to justice. The

second guarantee was that with their expanded mandate, agencies like the FBI, the NSA, and the

CIA would act resolutely to detect and prevent terror attacks on American soil, as well as on

other U.S. interests abroad. Measures like the Patriot Act of 2001 were tied directly to these

efforts by the American government to accrue more authority to act against America’s enemies
EDWARD SNOWDEN 3

and to prevent them from orchestrating similar attacks on the country in the future (Cole, et al.,

2015). For a while, the American public saw the results of the newfound mandate of the national

security apparatus. Through coordinated domestic and foreign collaboration, security agencies

captured and extradited many high profile individuals who were suspected of terror

involvements. In many cases, covert surveillance helped the agencies to locate the terror

suspects, to learn about their liaisons, and to recognize when and where they planned to attack

next. In this sense, it seemed as though U.S. security agencies had used the power that the public

had entrusted upon them responsibly.

However, as the threat of foreign terrorist actors became less apparent, more people

began to question the constitutionality of some of the methods that the FBI, CIA, and NSA were

implementing. During the 2000s, information became an increasingly critical resource in major

industries around the world. During the information age, people generated plenty of private data

through routine activities like using their cellphones. Since security agencies had developed the

power and authority to collect, analyze, and interpret this data, it became impossible to overlook

the potential for malicious expropriation (Cole, et al., 2015). It became increasingly conceivable

that with their authority, agencies like the NSA could target individuals and corporations for

political reasons, rather than for purposes of national security. Powerful individuals who could

tap into the capabilities of the NSA had the potential to accrue significant political power (Chen,

2017). However, the national security apparatus continued to insist that it needed its surveillance

authority to protect the interests of the American public and to keep the country safe.

Edward Snowden began working as a private contractor for the NSA and CIA in 2013.

Snowden was involved in overseeing various surveillance programs at lower administrative

levels. He had a high security clearance that enabled him to access highly classified documents
EDWARD SNOWDEN 4

and information. Over the course of his work, Snowden grew disillusioned with the reality of

how the security agencies were using their surveillance measures. He developed the conviction

that rather than acting in the best interests of the American public, as the NSA, CIA, and FBI

claimed, the agencies actually misused their immense surveillance capabilities to spy on

American citizens for political and economic reasons. Snowden initially tried to raise his

concerns about the ethicality of the surveillance programs and operations, but no one took up the

matter. Before leaving his job in May 2013, Snowden gathered a trove of sensitive material that

provided in-depth revelations regarding the misuse of surveillance authority among America’s

major security agencies (Epstein, 2017). Snowden then travelled to Hong Kong and leaked the

documents to journalists at major global newspapers (Epstein, 2017).

In the aftermath of Snowden’s leaks, the government and the American public reacted in

various ways. Government authorities moved to file charges against Snowden for theft of

government property and espionage. The government revoked his passport and sought to have

him extradited first from Hong Kong and later from Russia, where he eventually sought asylum.

Some commentators posited that Snowden’s apparent efforts to seek protection from China and

Russia confirmed that he was working against U.S. interests (Finn & Horwitz, 2013). Some

officials termed Snowden’s revelations as treasonous. Many members of the public criticized

Snowden’s revelations because they provided America’s enemies with information about how

the country’s security apparatus works, which damaged America’s capacity for surveillance in

various capacities. On the other hand, Snowden’s revelations endorsed the suspicions that many

critics had regarding the misuse of authority within the NSA and other security agencies. Some

pundits lauded Snowden as a hero for sacrificing his own wellbeing and leaving everything

behind to stand for the truth. Over the next seven years, Snowden’s case would endure in the
EDWARD SNOWDEN 5

court of public opinion as people grappled with the question of whether or not he had acted

ethically.

In September 2020, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) ruled that U.S.

security agencies flouted civil rights and the Constitution when gathering information on the

American public (Nakashima, 2020). This ruling seemed like a moral exoneration for Snowden

in the sense that it confirmed that his concerns about the misappropriation of surveillance

authority at the NSA were justified. Even so, questions still linger over whether Snowden acted

ethically by neglecting his duty as a citizen and as a government worker, and whether the long

term harm that the leaks did to America’s national security apparatus were justified.

Ethical Issues

Several ethical issues arise from Snowden’s case. When reviewing these issues and

evaluating how they impacted Snowden’s decision, it is important to understand the duties and

obligations that Snowden had, the possible motivations for his actions, and the outcomes of his

actions. In terms of the agent’s duties, it is important to recognize the individuals and groups that

had a stake in Snowden’s decision, since his choices impacted them in one way or another. The

first stakeholder in the issue is the American public, whose interests Snowden allegedly acted to

protect. The second group is the U.S. government, which claimed that Snowden’s actions

hindered their ability to act in the interests of the nation’s security. The third stakeholder group

constitutes foreign agents who had a lot to gain from the leak and were willing to accommodate

Snowden in exchange for various implicit or explicit expectations of cooperation. The fourth

stakeholder is Snowden himself, who had various things to gain or lose in whichever decision he

made.
EDWARD SNOWDEN 6

Besides reviewing the stakes that various individuals and groups had in the issue, it is

also necessary to consider what motivated Snowden to leak the documents. If his motivations

were purely in the interests of the American public, then one could interpret his choices

differently than if he had other underlying motivations for his actions. It is also important to

review the outcomes of Snowden’s actions, and to determine whether he caused more harm than

good with the leak. All of these factors play into a normative ethical analysis of Snowden’s

actions and decisions.

Ethical Theories

The three key ethical theories that apply in Snowden’s case are deontology,

utilitarianism, and consequentialism.

a. Deontology

Deontology posits that when adjudging the morality of an agent, one ought to consider

whether the person conformed to rules that dictate behavior in such circumstances. In Snowden’s

case, there are two ways of interpreting the agent’s actions based on two sets of rules. The first

set of rules applies to expected behavior for government employees and public officials. Public

officials are generally sworn to uphold the Constitution, to act justly, to preserve the interests of

the people that they serve in a public office capacity. Even though the NSA initially hired

Snowden as a private contractor for a government agency, his mandate expanded rapidly to the

extent that he was effectively a civil servant by the time he quit his job. In this sense, Snowden

had an implicit duty to uphold all the obligations of civil servants to the public.

The second set of rules applies to the obligations that civil servants have to the

government. Civil servants are expected to adhere to the law, to act professionally, and to make

substantial efforts to improve the structures and operations of the departments in which they
EDWARD SNOWDEN 7

work. For example, a public official is expected to address inefficiencies in the department that

cost taxpayers a lot of money. Likewise, civil servants who notice unethical practices in their

departments are expected to take the initiative to address those issue and to prevent their

agencies from becoming detrimental influences.

From a deontological perspective, Snowden acted ethically in certain ways but also acted

unethically in other regards. By becoming a whistleblower, Snowden revealed the truth about

how national security agencies were misusing their acquired mandates to collect private

information and to abuse the Constitutional rights and liberties of American citizens. In this

sense, Snowden fulfilled his obligations as a civil servant to the American people by ensuring

that their welfare was protected from exploitation and manipulation by the government agencies.

At the same time, Snowden contravened his agency obligations to the government agencies that

employed him. By leaking sensitive information, Snowden forewent his duties to act

professionally and preserve the integrity of the institutions that hired him. Even so, Snowden

apparently tried to have the issues that he was concerned about addressed internally before

partaking in the leak. He only leaked the sensitive documents when it became clear that the

government would not act to resolve the misappropriation of surveillance authority that had

become rampant across agencies like the CIA and NSA. Therefore, considering the agency

obligations that Snowden had to the government and the American public, it is clear that he

ultimately acted ethically because it was clear that the security bodies had failed in their own

obligations to the American people.

b. Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism broadly posits that actions are ethically good if they promote the best

interests of the greatest number of people, and they are ethically bad if they undermine the
EDWARD SNOWDEN 8

interests of the greatest number of people. To gauge the ethicality of Snowden’s choice from a

utilitarian perspective, one needs to evaluate how his decisions could have affected people either

way. Assuming Snowden had opted not to leak the documents revealing covert government

surveillance on the American public, the American people would certainly have had their

liberties undermined. First, the NSA, CIA, and other security apparatus could have continued to

misuse their power in favor of political and economic interests. Meanwhile, Americans would

have had their private information manipulated by a few people who wanted to exploit them for

political purposes. If this were the case, then the interests of a few powerful people would have

prevailed over the welfare of the American people. Therefore, Snowden’s choice to remain silent

would have been unequivocally unethical from a utilitarian perspective.

On the contrary, reviewing Snowden’s choice to leak the documents shows a different

utilitarian outcome. By revealing the truth about the corruption of authority in America’s security

agencies, Snowden acted to promote and preserve the rights and liberties of the American public.

People became aware that contrary to what the national security advisors had informed them, the

CIA, NSA, and FBI were not actually using their authority to uphold the security interests of the

American citizens. Instead, the agencies were using their covert systems and tools to gather

information on citizens unlawfully. Snowden’s revelations put the interests of the majority

American public over those of the few bureaucrats who ran the country’s national security

apparatus. Therefore, from a utilitarian perspective, Snowden acted ethically in choosing to leak

the sensitive documents rather than stay silent.

c. Consequentialism

Consequentialism evaluates the morality of an action or decision purely on its aggregate

outcomes. It is harder to adjudge Snowden’s actions because the leak had some major long-term
EDWARD SNOWDEN 9

implications, some of which are still unfolding to date. On one hand, one could argue that

Snowden’s leaks did more harm than good to the U.S. as a country. The leaks curtailed the

covert surveillance operations of agencies like the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA on dangerous

criminal and terrorist actors. This could make it harder for the security agencies to track terrorists

and other people who have nefarious missions against the American people. Moreover, one of

the main criticisms against Snowden was that his leaks aided foreign rivals of the United States,

such as China and Russia (Verble, 2014). It is telling that the two countries that are most

antagonistic towards America were the most eager to accommodate Snowden and shield him

from extradition. Russia eventually offered Snowden permanent residency in their country after

hosting him for years. Clearly, America’s enemies gained a lot of insights into the clandestine

operations of the country’s national security apparatus. In this sense, one could argue that

America’s enemies gained more from the leak, and while the American public may have gained

in the short term, they may be victimized by malicious foreign actors who exploit the

information from Snowden’s leaks.

An alternative consequentialist viewpoint suggests that aggregately, Snowden’s actions

resulted in greater accountability and scrutiny within America’s powerful national security

agencies. People became more suspicious of the CIA and NSA and their commitment to act

genuinely in the interests of the American citizens. One of the major repercussions from

Snowden’s leak is that other bodies within the U.S. government are far more cautious of the

kinds of authority that they bestow upon agencies. The American public is warier of efforts by

agencies like the NSA to expand their power of surveillance. All of this means that well-meaning

courts, elected officials, and bureaucrats are more likely to act to keep rogue agents and agencies

in check while preserving the best interests, freedoms, and liberties of American citizens (Verble,
EDWARD SNOWDEN 10

2014). Rather than being curtailed from performing their duties as they wish, agencies like the

CIA will now have to justify and legitimize the need for expanded authority before getting

approval from other bodies of government and the public. In this sense, Snowden’s actions were

ethical from a consequentialist outcome.

Legal Issues

Snowden broke several laws in the course of obtaining and leaking secret government

documents. Shortly after the leak in 2013, federal prosecutors charged Snowden with willfully

communicating classified information to unauthorized people, theft, and unauthorized

communication of national defense information. The prosecutors raised the charges under the

Espionage Act of 1917. Interestingly, the prosecutors initially sealed the charges, but the courts

had to unseal them following pressure from elected officials and journalists (Poitras &

Greenwald, 2013). The lack of transparency in the initial criminal filings against Snowden

suggests that the government actors who initiated litigation against the whistleblower knew that

their actions would be unpopular. In turn, this gives further credence to the idea that Snowden

acted in the best interests of the public, even though he ultimately broke the law while doing so.

In the September 2020 FISA ruling that described the surveillance activities of American

security agencies as illegal, the court noted that the FBI had overstepped its mandate to collect

private information that was pertinent to national security (Nakashima, 2020). The court

explained that in several instances, the FBI had spied on citizens in ways that did not provide

reasonable justifications for the promotion of the interests of the American public. Considering

that the FBI, CIA, and NSA were breaking the law themselves, it seems unjust to hold Snowden

accountable for breaking the law while decision makers at the three agencies never bore legal

retribution for flouting the law.

EDWARD SNOWDEN 11

There have been several instances in the past whereby the government set aside the rule

of law for the apparent best interest of the American public. Some notable examples over the

past decade include the holding of suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay and covert

surveillance of American politicians to ascertain whether they were under the influence of

foreign governments. In both cases, the government agencies provided reasonable justifications

for their actions. For example, when the government held suspected terrorists at Guantanamo

Bay, the justification was that the location prevented bureaucratic hindrances that tend to make

investigative procedures slow. Therefore, by holding the prisoners away from official U.S.

jurisdictions, the security apparatus could obtain information from them quickly and act

promptly to prevent incidents that could harm American citizens. However, a separate leak

revealed that the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay were treated inhumanely and deprived of basic

rights that they would have been accorded if they were held in official U.S. jurisdiction.

In the case of alleged covert surveillance of high profile U.S. politicians, security

agencies gave the justification that such action was necessary to ensure that no elected politician

had questionable ties to foreign countries. Ostensibly, such ties could lead an elected official to

be compromised into making decisions that went against the interests of the U.S. However,

critics of the surveillance activities argued that they served more as tools for political spying than

as operations in the genuine interest of American people. These examples show how government

agencies that are entrusted with unique legal authority and responsibility can use their mandates

to act against the wellbeing of ordinary American citizens. As such, when deciding whether

Snowden is liable for legal action, one must consider whether the agencies misused their own

legal authority and responsibilities.

Professional Considerations
EDWARD SNOWDEN 12

Another pressing ethical concern in Snowden’s case pertains to the question of whether

or not he acted professionally in choosing to leak the sensitive documents. Typically,

whistleblowers are expected to exhaust all reasonable avenues for resolving issues internally. It

is only if all avenues for internal resolution fail that a person may be justified in revealing

sensitive information (Qin, 2015). A special exception exists in cases where a person’s wellbeing

may be undermined if he or she tries to use internal mechanisms to resolve a pressing issue. For

example, in Snowden’s case, such a justification would arise if he felt that he was at risk of

getting fired or victimized on some other way if he persisted on raising his concerns about the

misappropriation of surveillance authority. Even so, Snowden still made reasonable efforts to try

and have the authorities at the NSA and CIA address the problems that he has witnessed

(Scheuerman, 2014).

Even though he had some conviction to reveal the truth about government surveillance

for at least five years prior to 2013, Snowden held back on this decision in the belief that

administrative changes would usher in better transparency and accountability at the agencies.

Snowden ultimately decided to make his revelations when he witnessed Jack Clapper, the

director of National Intelligence, lying under oath to Congress (Scheuerman, 2016). Considering

the amount of restraint that Snowden seemingly exercised before coming forward with the

information, it is clear that he acted professionally within reasonable expectations.

Conclusion

Snowden’s case represents an ethical confluence and contradiction of obligations,

personal interests, duties, and outcomes. It is difficult to conclusively evaluate Snowden’s

motivations for leaking the sensitive government information on covert surveillance operations.

Snowden has always insisted that he only acted in the best interests of the American public, and
EDWARD SNOWDEN 13

that he wanted to see more accountability and justice in the way the CIA, NSA, and FBI used

their surveillance authority. Snowden’s critics point to the fact that Russia hosted him as

evidence that he acted in the interests of antagonistic foreign governments. From a deontological

perspective, Snowden fulfilled his duty to the American people while abdicating his duty to the

government. However, it is clear that the government agencies involved in the case abdicated

their own moral duties and obligations to protect the American public. Instead, the security

apparatus seemingly acted to promote the selfish interests of minority political and economic

entities in the U.S. government.

Crucially, the sheer legal and bureaucratic retribution that the U.S. government leveraged

against Snowden prevented other would-be whistleblowers from coming forward to mount an

even stronger case in his defense. Considering the consistency of Snowden’s position over time,

and the amount of personal sacrifice that he made in leaking the documents, it is clear that he

paid a huge price in revealing the truth and trying to preserve the integrity of America’s

government institutions. Snowden’s leaks ultimately led to greater scrutiny of the American

security apparatus and their covert activities. Courts and Congress now have a greater mandate to

hold the NSA, CIA, and FBI accountable for their operations, including the ones that they claim

are in the interests of national security.

As a law enforcement officer, I would have asked Snowden to seek assistance from other

government officials before opting to leak the documents. At the time, several high profile

congressmen and senators were already suspicious of the FBI and CIA’s domestic surveillance

operations. I would have advised Snowden to approach these individuals and provide the

documents to them if they could guarantee his protection. However, there was the inherent risk

that even such powerful elected officials would not do enough to shield Snowden against the
EDWARD SNOWDEN 14

might of the national security apparatus. Considering all these possibilities, Snowden’s choice to

leak the documents to journalists at a huge personal cost is ethically justifiable.

EDWARD SNOWDEN 15

References

Chen, K. (2017). No place to hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the US surveillance state.

Cole, D. D., Blanton, T., Wasserman, E., & Mills, J. (2015). After Snowden: privacy, secrecy,

and security in the information age. Macmillan.

Epstein, E. J. (2017). How America lost its secrets: Edward Snowden, the man and the theft.

Vintage.

Finn, P., & Horwitz, S. (2013, June 21). U.S. charges Snowden with espionage. The Washington

Post.

Poitras, L., & Greenwald, G. (2013). NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden:“I don’t want to live

in a society that does these sort of things”[Video]. The Guardian.

Qin, J. (2015). Hero on Twitter, traitor on news: How social media and legacy news frame

Snowden. The international journal of press/politics, 20(2), 166-184.

Nakashima, E. (2020, September 5). FBI and NSA violated surveillance law or privacy rules, a

federal judge found. The Washington Post.

Scheuerman, W. E. (2014). Whistleblowing as civil disobedience: The case of Edward Snowden.

Philosophy & Social Criticism, 40(7), 609-628.

Scheuerman, W. E. (2016). What Edward Snowden can teach theorists of conscientious law

breaking. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 42(10), 958-964.

Verble, J. (2014). The NSA and Edward Snowden: surveillance in the 21st century. ACM

SIGCAS Computers and Society, 44(3), 14-20.