The main issue in the Snowden controversy is the conflicting rights of private individuals and the US government with regard to the use of telecommunications and the internet. There are ethical issues surrounding this controversy and the most applicable ethical approach for this case is “Ethics by Rights Approach”.
As a background, the reason why US government had declared Edward Snowden a traitor is his involvement in the leaking of about 1.7 million confidential US documents, 15,000 Australian intelligence files and 58,000 British intelligence files from the National Security Agency (or NSA) to the public. These confidential information were acquired by the NSA through the PRISM program by collaborating with big internet companies such
…show more content…
He put his whole life and career at risk by being a whistleblower. He was able to divulge to the public the illegal activities of the NSA in the collection of many private information transmitted through the internet. His intention was to inform everyone about the violation of the NSA in the rights of every internet user for freedom. This so-called “internet- and telecommunications-liberty” was deprived when the US government launched the PRISM …show more content…
Snowden’s actions proved his incompetence as a professional. He basically took all the files and dumped them on newspapers doorsteps. If his intentions were for the government to reform the NSA activities so they protected civil liberties more, he would have stayed at the agency longer and collected more information and carefully presented it to the people who do the changes, not to the public.
2. Snowden harmed the relationship between the US and its allies.
Snowden first leaked the documents in June 2013. Some documents included information on American espionage efforts against enemies. Others revealed how the NSA was spying on its allies as well. When Snowden leaked the information, it didn’t just make the enemies hate the US further, but it also harmed the relationship it had with its ally countries. Aside from that, terrorist groups already have an idea on how the intelligence activities were performed, not only by the US, but also its ally countries such as Australia and UK. Details will be discussed further in the next argument.
3. The leaking of NSA information made terrorists informed of the counter terrorism measures of the United States of
Without the Espionage and Sedition Acts, the United States’s national security might have been threatened, and the United States might have never won the war.
The case against Edward Snowden is strong. He acted with recklessness and possible self-serving convenience; even so, by shedding light on the invasive government actions taken to deal with terrorism, Snowden did his country a service, demanding accountability from a branch of the government that has been given free reign because of our post-9/11 fears. Still the fear persists that a society that accepts challenges to laws also insights anarchy (Leibman). This argument quickly falls flat: civil disobedience is action taken to fulfill a worthy higher principle, not just a means to benefit oneself. The intricacies of this were exposed when the acting Attorney General refused to allow the Justice Department to defend President Trump’s travel ban until its constitutionality could be affirmed.
His purpose was to let the detractors know Snowden’s exact motive. Because the government constantly looks over ones’ shoulder, they have to constantly be mindful of their online activity and their online footprint. The Constitution was founded upon the principles of freedom from fear of the government, but this is not the case today. Edward Snowden’s views are reciprocated by the general US population. According to the Pew Research Center, 81% of people find it unacceptable for the US to monitor citizens of their countries, 73% finds it unacceptable to monitor leaders of their country, 62% finds it unacceptable to monitor American citizens, and 64% finds it acceptable to monitor terrorist suspects (Document 5).
The moment that the Twin Towers fell in New York, America became destined for change. In the wake of these attacks, the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 was quickly passed through congress, and signed by then-president, George W. Bush. The act itself gives the FBI and other government agencies the ability to do and use certain methods, many of which are already used by other law enforcement organizations, to help prevent future terrorist attacks. Since then, this piece of legislation has been the center of much debate and controversy. But, there is ample reason to believe that the Patriot Act is needed and effective.
Since September 11th, fear connected with national security threats has shifted to fear of the federal government. The U.S.A. Patriot Act certainly caused much anxiety amongst society. Signed by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001, this act increased law enforcement’s surveillance and investigative powers, “The purpose of the USA PATRIOT Act is to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and other purposes.” Clearly, federal agents have abused their power, as personal information, telephone calls, and Internet searches were and are being recorded and saved. A recent news article, posted in The Guardian, fully elucidates the intrusive government spying of American citizens, “the watchlist tracks ‘known’ and ‘suspected’ terrorists and includes both foreigners and Americans.
For example, Edward Snowden exposed the National Security Agency for eavesdropping on Americans and people around the world, despite the possibility of being arrested and charged with heavy crimes. " So, what did the leaks tell us? First, they confirmed that the U.S. government, without obtaining any court warrants, routinely collects the phone logs of tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of Americans, who have no links to terrorism whatsoever,"(Source 3). The question is who is truly at fault? The government for doing that or Snowden for ratting them out to the public about
With Edward Snowden's NSA leaks, this issue was brought into relief. Was he full of moral superiority over a gray issue, or was he "that most awkward and infuriating of creatures-- a man of conscience," as John Cassidy wrote in his article "Why Edward Snowden is a Hero." Because, while Jeffrey Toobin wrote in "Edward Snowden is No Hero" that Snowden's leak was cemented in grandiose narcissism over an issue American citizens should have already digested, wasn't it after his leak that there arose an uproar over the NSA activities, which inevitably placed a modicum of agency back in the hands of the American people? I still wonder whether my perspective would be the same had Snowden released files which did more lasting harm to national security. But in that case, would that activism now be violent, instead of
It is impossible to discuss civil liberties and security without talking about 9/11 and the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was passed almost immediately after 9/11, hugely expanding intelligence agencies ability to investigate potential terrorism. However, critics of the law say that it infringed on the civil liberties of the innocent and did not guarantee proper oversight of law enforcement agencies in their execution and use of these newfound powers. I agree that as war and violence evolve, so must our methods of preventing them. In this digital age preventing such violence means monitoring information channels and being able to respond to leads rapidly and subtly.
This paper will discuss how to balance out civil liberties and security in intelligence activities; mainly surrounding the topic of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2002. With this topic and its perceived downfalls, identifying how to make both sides work efficiently will be discussed. Discussion When asked the question of “how can the United States balance civil liberties and security in intelligence activities?” the thought of the USA PATRIOT Act comes into mind; for two reasons. The first one is it caused a enormous uproar in the community after it was enacted based upon the fact it was perceived to infringe on civil liberties.
The government debated about Snowden being considered a traitor or patriot of the country. The definition of a traitor is a person who is guilty of treason or treachery in betraying friends, country, family, etc. Definition of Treason is the crime of betraying one's country, by attempting to kill, sovereign, overthrow the government, or giving aid and/or comfort to the enemies government. Snowden was not giving aid or comfort to America’s enemies, unless the citizens of America are considered the enemy to the
After the gruesome attacks of 9/11, the United States government passed a legislation called the Patriot Act in attempt to cut down on the terror attacks. This act gives the NSA, or National Security Agency, the ability to oversee our actions. The NSA’s approach to surveilling the population is obtaining the information by tapping into technology, such as phone calls, internet pages and searches, and viewing emails and texts. Thus, controversy has triggered due to the fact that these actions are unconstitutional, and much terrorism that remains. The NSA should be greatly altered because they invade the privacy of Americans, unlawfully goes against the constitution, and we lose our rights.
Snowden was committed to doing the right thing so he revealed the different spying operations that were going on within the N.S.A. He became a whistleblower who rescued American citizens from being monitored through illegal surveillance and was looked upon as a
Civil liberties are rights guaranteed to citizens in the Constitution that the government cannot interfere with, however, in the name of national security, they do. The government sometimes finds it necessary for Americans to give up some of their basic rights to keep the nation protected, but many people find this unnecessary. A law-abiding citizen’s extremely personal information should not be essential to finding terroristic threats within this society. Under no circumstances should an American citizen’s civil liberties be violated in a time of war or crisis, because those are assured rights that are most valuable to their freedom during national conflicts.
A few weeks later, these documents were released by The Guardian, and Edward Snowden was the reliable source. Now, people all over knew that the United States Government was spying on its own people through messages, internet searches, browser history, smart T.V’s and many many more. This case is ongoing, as he seeks asylum in other countries. This newfound information raises the question, is Mr. Snowden a traitor, or did he save us all by “blowing the whistle” to warn us about the unconstitutional collection of our private possessions protected by
On September 11, 2001 the world came to a stand still as a terroristic attack targeting our country killed 2,977 people. As fear ran high in every American house hold, the government quickly acted and on October 26 President George W. Bush passed the USA PATRIOT Act. The full title, "Uniting and Strenghtening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act", suggest how the government quickly acted in response to the new threat that we were experianceing. Although some may argue that it violates our civil liberties, the Patriot Act serves as an asset to help protect U.S. citizens by stopping terrorist attacks, giving the law enforcement tools to make investigations easier, and increases national security.