Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Snowden
Snowden
Student’s Name
Institution Name
EDWARD SNOWDEN 2
Background
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
In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the American public was ready to make
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
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.
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
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
Ethical Theories
The three key ethical theories that apply in Snowden’s case are deontology,
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
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
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
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
c. Consequentialism
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
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
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
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
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
Professional Considerations
EDWARD SNOWDEN 12
Another pressing ethical concern in Snowden’s case pertains to the question of whether
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
Conclusion
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
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
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
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,
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
Qin, J. (2015). Hero on Twitter, traitor on news: How social media and legacy news frame
Nakashima, E. (2020, September 5). FBI and NSA violated surveillance law or privacy rules, a
Scheuerman, W. E. (2016). What Edward Snowden can teach theorists of conscientious law
Verble, J. (2014). The NSA and Edward Snowden: surveillance in the 21st century. ACM