Privacy and data security for both individuals and organizations is an area of great concern in the recent times. Different countries have passed legislation that governs the right to privacy. Such legislation are meant to guide private citizens and professionals who may have access to personal information. Apart from legislation, such people are also guided by professional ethics and codes of conduct.ICT professional is majorly responsible for data processing and just like any other professionals are required in a morally acceptable way as per their professional ethics and code of conduct. Ethics refers to the norms that differentiate between unacceptable and acceptable behavior.ICT ethics is, therefore, is the branch of knowledge that makes a distinction between acceptable and unacceptable behavior among ICT professionals. The fact that Edward Snowden worked as a structural analyst means that he had a moral responsibility to conform to the ICT professional codes that require ICT experts to observe data security, integrity and Privacy (Branum and Charteris-Black, 2015. National security Agency is majorly involved in the collection, monitoring, and processing of data and information both for overseas intelligence and counterintelligence reasons. Due to the crucial nature of the data that the Agency deals with, data security, integrity and privacy should be highly prioritized. This report presents an analysis of the ethical issues involved in the leakage of crucial information from the agency by its former employee Edward Snowden from the perspective of United States Citizen.
Q1. What’s going on?
Back in 2013 while working National Security Agency leaked crucial information contained in confidential documents to Western Post and the Guardian Reporters in what has been described as the most significant leak of government information in the US history (Delmas, 2015). According to him, his action of leaking governments classified was informed by his moral obligation and desire to inform the public of the existence of government’s surveillance programs and demonstrate how the US government was willingly and knowingly breaching individual’s rights to privacy in its surveillance aimed at identifying potential links to Terrorists. Immediately after this act which drew mixed reactions, Edward fled the country to seek asylum in Russia. He argued that he had a duty to the public and hand to inform them about what is done not in favor of them and in their name. For legal experts, this act went against the tenets of the Espionage Act 1997, according to which, any leakage of Government’s secrets should be treated as Treason. On other quarters he was viewed as a hero for exposing the violations of the constitution and civil rights by NSA through its surveillance programs (Wemple, 2013). There were arguments that his actions were not in good faith and therefore he ought to be viewed as a traitor who needed to be prosecuted.
Q2. What are the facts?
There are multiple facts present in the case. First, there was actual leakage of stated documents. This fact is supported by the evidence presented by Edward when in 2013 he acknowledged that indeed he was responsible for the leaking of information on government surveillance programs. While speaking to Greenwald in 2013 Snowden stated that he had no intentions of hiding his identity because he was doing the right thing. He also said that he was willing to risk everything he had because his conscience did not allow him to watch as the government destroyed fundamental liberties, internet freedom and privacy for populace around the globe in secrecy (Greenwald, MacAskill & Poitras, 2013). The second evidence is presented by the fact that h actually fled the country after the leakage of the documents. In addition, the ensuing tensions including the tension between the US and the Russian government, which saw the cancellation of Obama’s state visit to Russia, is also an evidence to support this case. The cancellation was necessitated by the fact that Russia offered asylum to a man responsible for the most significant leak of government information in US History (Wu and Chan, 2015).
Q3. What are the issues?
From the Snowden’s case, a number of issues can be identified.First is the secret surveillance on private on domestic and international information by the US government, secondly is the leakage of crucial government information by Snowden, acceptance of a job that he knew would require him to violate some fundamental privacy principles by collecting private information, fleeing the country instead of confronting the aftermath of his revelations, collection of information by the Government in secrecy, labeling of Snowden as a criminal by the Government for his role in the Revelation (Greenwald,2014).
Q4. Who is affected?
The secret surveillance on private data and information being carried out on individuals was intended to aid the fight against global terrorism through identification of possible links to terrorist groups. This, therefore, means that there were their groups of people affected. These are US and citizens from other countries whose data was being spied on, The US Government which was the major player in the secret surveillance, Global and US terrorist groups which were the main targets in this surveillance. At the individual level, we have Edward Snowden who was responsible for making public the secret endeavors of National security Agency where he worked before fleeing the country (Landau, 2013). Citizens are negatively affected by the fact that their private information is being spied on. They are also positively affected by the fact that trough the surveillance program, their security is being upheld.For the Government, it is negatively affected because it private endeavors have been made known to the public including the targeted terrorist groups. The terrorist groups can be said to have been affected positively in that by knowing government’s plans, it is easy for them to change their operation tactics (Lucas, 2014). Finally, for Edward, the impact is both positive and negative. It is positive in that he has been viewed as hero responsible for revealing violations being carried out by the Security agency. He is also negatively affected because through his revelation he has been labeled as a criminal and been forced to flee his home country leaving behind his loved ones (Scheuerman, 2014).
Q5. What are the ethical issues and implications?
There are major ethical issues raised in the case. First, by accessing his colleague’s codes, he fails to respect their privacy and autonomy. His action does not conform to morally acceptable professional behavior. He also lies about his reason for seeking leave from his employer and fails to defend his actions by seeking Asylum in Russia. The implication for this act was the launch of investigations by the UN on the US government violations of basic human rights through their surveillance program (Lustgarten, 2015).
His actions can also be interpreted as ethical in that he was acting for the good of the public. Through his exposition, he wanted to inform the public how their rights were being violated by the US government. As a professional, he had a moral obligation of acting in accordance with the interests of the public. He was not ethically culpable because the actions of the government violated both the constitution and individual’s right to privacy (Lyon, 2014). The implication for this was Edwards being seen as a Hero by the Public.
As an employee who had sworn allegiance to his employer.It was his moral obligation to act in the best interest of his employer. By leaking crucial information against the knowledge of his employer Snowden did not act in good faith and failed to observe his legal obligation as an employee. But a dilemma arises between protecting the rights of the public and remaining true to his employer. Through his breach of confidentiality, Edward tarnished the reputation of NSA, and therefore possible consequences would have been termination of his employment contract, initiation of criminal charges against him and possible lawsuit damages (Lyon, 2014).
Q6. What can be done about it?
Public apology. Both Snowden and the US Government need to come out and apologize for their respective roles in the. The government needs to apologize to the citizenry for spying on their private information without their knowledge. For Jayden, he also needs to apologize to his employer for not acting in good faith and violating his obligation s an employee. He also needs to apologize for accepting a job that he was aware would lead him to violate other people’s privacy (Murata, Adams and Palma,2017). He also needs to apologize for not raising his concerns with his employer before making public his revelations, and for consequently failing to take responsibility for his actions.
In addition, the US government should be obligated seek legal warrant or permission, or to withdraw its surveillance program because it did not act as per the provisions of the constitution. By spying on private emails and phone calls they failed to uphold individual’s right to privacy (Crawford, Gray, and Miltner, 2014). It also needs to present its account of why it had to carry out its surveillance in private and what it intended to achieve by doing it in privacy.
Q7. What are the options?
Withdrawing the private surveillance program
This option would serve to uphold the right of the citizenry to have their right to privacy upheld. It will also make the Agency live to its ethical obligations. A possible advantage of this option is that it will remove the threat posed by spying on private information and data (Watts, 2016). On the negative side, it might lead to an escalation of cases of terrorism because of reduced monitoring of terrorist activities.
Obtaining of a warrant to access private data and information
This option requires that the government does not do it surveillance in privacy. It means that before it can access any private emails or phone data from private companies it will be required to obtain a warrant (Walsh and Miller, 2016). The advantage of this is that it will uphold the rights of the involved parties because they will be included in the operation. It will also ensure that its efforts to counter terrorism are not affected.
Apology
This option will require that both the National Security Agency and the whistleblower offer an apology for their respective roles in the case. The advantage of this is that it will eliminate the frosty relationship between the US Government and Edward Snowden. It will also resolve the issue of lost trust in the Security Agency. On the negative side, however, this will only be a temporary solution; it will not solve future breaches.
Q8. Which option is best – and why?
It can be argued that although the approach of the Government was negative, its intention of regulating Terrorist activities was for the best interest of the public. The best option for this case would, therefore, be regulation through a warrant of access. I have settled on this because the US public which I speak for needs to be protected from terrorist activities and at the same time have their privacy upheld. This is the only option that will guarantee these two outcomes
The primacy of the public interest
By making revelations of the violations being carried out by the National security Agency, Edward acted as per the provisions of this code which requires professionals to put public above individual, sectional or business interests (Qin, 2015). By spying on private information the government confirmed to this act and violated it at the same time. It conformed to the provisions of the act in that its surveillance on terrorism was for the public good. On the contrary, it violated it by not considering the wishes of the public regarding their action to spy on private data.
Honesty
By choosing to expose the unlawful intentions of the government, Edward acted with utmost honesty as per his profession. On the contrary, by choosing to do their surveillance without the knowledge of the public, the Security Agency acted in violation of this code.
Professionalism
Through his action of creating public awareness, Snowden acted as per the provisions of this act which require ICT professionals to enhance the respect and integrity of the members of the society. He put their aspirations and rights above everything else. This act has however been violated by NSA.
Competence
Through its surveillance the National security Agency was working diligently for the US government. In the same case, through his revelations, Snowden showed competence in safeguarding the interests of the public (Tavani and Grodzinsky, 2014).
Enhancement of quality of life
According to this code, professionals are required to ensure that their work does not have any detrimental impact on the life of the people affected by their work (Verble, 2014). Spying on people’s private information can have a negative impact on their lives. Therefore by spying on people’s private information, the Security Agency acted in violation of this code.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the case involving Edward Snowden and the US National security agency can be analyzed from multiple perspectives. Snowden’s action can be interpreted both positively and negatively. It can be said that by making public crucial information, he failed to conform to his professional obligation of remaining true to his employer. It can also be argued that he acted in good faith and according to his professional code requiring him to prioritize what is good for the public. For the government, this can also be interpreted positively in that the government was playing its role of protecting the public from terrorists. The facts are that there was an actual leak of crucial information touching on the government, Terrorists, and members of the public as per the publications of the Guardian and Western Post. The main ethical issues revolve around the right to privacy, observance of the professional code of conduct and obligation to the public. There were violations and conformity to the ACS Professional code of ethics. By carrying out its operations in privacy NSA acted in violation of this code, through their private surveillance they also did not enhance the quality of life for the people they were spying on. The Agency also failed to observe its professional obligation by denying the public their right to privacy. Their actions did not promote the interests of the public. On his side, Edward lived to his professional expectations, upheld the interests of the public, honesty, and competence
References
Branum, J. and Charteris-Black, J., 2015. The Edward Snowden affair: A corpus study of the British press. Discourse & Communication, 9(2), pp.199-220.
Crawford, K., Gray, M.L. and Miltner, K., 2014. Big Data| critiquing Big Data: Politics, ethics, epistemology| special section introduction. International Journal of Communication, 8, p.10.
Delmas, C., 2015. The ethics of government whistleblowing. Social Theory and Practice, pp.77-105.
Greenwald, G., MacAskill, E., & Poitras, L. (2013, June 11). Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations. Retrieved May 16, 2018, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance
Greenwald, G., 2014. No place to hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the US surveillance state. Macmillan.
Landau, S., 2013. Making sense from Snowden: What’s significant in the NSA surveillance revelations. IEEE Security & Privacy, 11(4), pp.54-63.
Lucas, G.R., 2014. NSA management directive# 424: Secrecy and privacy in the aftermath of Edward Snowden. Ethics & International Affairs, 28(1), pp.29-38.
Lustgarten, S.D., 2015. Emerging ethical threats to client privacy in cloud communication and data storage. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 46(3), p.154.
Lyon, D., 2014. Surveillance, Snowden, and big data: Capacities, consequences, critique. Big Data & Society, 1(2), p.2053951714541861.
Murata, K., Adams, A.A. and Lara Palma, A.M., 2017. Following Snowden: a cross-cultural study on the social impact of Snowden’s revelations. Journal of Information, Communication, and Ethics in Society, 15(3), pp.183-196.
Qin, J., 2015. Hero on Twitter, a traitor on news: How social media and legacy news frame Snowden. The international journal of press/politics, 20(2), pp.166-184.
Scheuerman, W.E., 2014. Whistleblowing as civil disobedience: The case of Edward Snowden. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 40(7), pp.609-628.
Verble, J., 2014. The NSA and Edward Snowden: surveillance in the 21st century. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 44(3), pp.14-20.
Tavani, H.T., and Grodzinsky, F.S., 2014. Trust, betrayal, and whistle-blowing: Reflections on the Edward Snowden case. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 44(3), pp.8-13.
Walsh, P.F. and Miller, S., 2016. Rethinking ‘Five Eyes’ security intelligence collection policies and practice post-Snowden. Intelligence and National Security, 31(3), pp.345-368.
Watts, R., 2016. Conclusion. In States of Violence and the Civilising Process (pp. 391-393). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Wemple, E. (2013, June 10). Edward Snowden: Leaker, Source or Whistleblower? The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-34770325.html?refid=easy_hf
Wu, A., Ma, W.W. and Chan, W.W., 2015. “Whistleblower or Leaker?” Examining the Portrayal and Characterization of Edward Snowden in USA, UK, and HK Posts. In New media, knowledge practices and multiliteracies (pp. 53-66). Springer, Singapore.
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download