Topic:
In early 2013, Edward Snowden, an employee of an American defense contractor, leaked a trove of classified documents to the media regarding a massive surveillance program run by the National Security Agency. The leaks sparked national and international debates about the powers of the NSA and numerous lawsuits were filed challenging the constitutionality of the surveillance.
Snowden has been charged by the DOJ with theft of government property and violating the Espionage Act of 1917 by communicating national defense information to unauthorized persons. Snowden is currently in Russia pursuant to a temporary grant of asylum.
Snowden has been called a “traitor,” a “hero,” a “whistleblower” and a “common criminal.” The U.S. public seems split on whether he should be praised or condemned.
Blog Post:
Edward Snowden: Patriot or Traitor?
In June 2013, The Guardian reported on leaked information about a mass surveillance program orchestrated by the United States NSA known as PRISM. the PRISM program began in 2007 under President George W. Bush under the passage of the Protect America Act, a controversial amendment to FISA that removed the warrant requirement for government surveillance targets reasonably believed to be outside the United States. However, Edward Snowden's justification for leaking the PRISM program was that its extent was far greater than what the public knew. The leak began on June 6, 2013, when The Guardian reported that Verizon had been court ordered, under PRISM, to hand over all its telephone data on an ongoing, daily basis.
The next day, The Guardian and The Washington Post reported in-depth on the PRISM program and the participants in it. The leaked documents identified several different technology corporations as participants in the PRISM program, such as Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, Youtube, Skype, and Apple. However, the report stated that 98% of information came from Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft.
Snowden, knowing that his disclosure of this information was highly illegal, flew to Hong Kong in May 2013 before leaking the information. He was charged with two counts of violating the Espionage Act and theft of government property. His passport was also revoked. He now lives at an undisclosed location in Moscow, Russia, where he has been permitted by the Russian government to stay until at least 2020.
Privacy Concerns Regarding PRISM and its Leak
Many see the PRISM program as a vast overreach of government surveillance, especially since the Protect America Act on which PRISM was built only allows for the warrantless surveillance of foreign targets. However, as The Verge states, "the basic idea [of PRISM] is that it allows the NSA to request data on specific people from major technology companies like Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, and others. The US government insists that it is only allowed to collect data when given permission by the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court."However, this creates several issues. Essentially, the NSA has the ability to collect data on anybody, including Americans. This was largely confirmed by James Clapper in 2014. This obviously creates countless privacy concerns among Americans regarding their technology and exposure to the NSA. Another issue is the government's own secrecy about PRISM. The FISA Court is extremely secretive and classified, so Americans have little to no way of knowing if it actually serves as a check or balance on the NSA.
However, many government officials, including most members of Congress, seem more worried about the secrets of the United States Government being released to potential adverseries than the privacy of its own citizens. Many have called Snowden's actions treasonout and have branded him a traitor.
Benefits of PRISM and its Leak
Still, many would say that in this Post-9/11 world, the PRISM program is essential to national security. The argument typically made in defense of government surveillance is that in order to live in a safer world, we must give up some of our privacy rights. This defense was used by President Obama immediately following the leaks.Still, one could argue that in order to defend one's own privacy, or to even have privacy in the first place, one must know the parameters of it. It could be said that Edward Snowden gave privacy rights back to the American people when he leaked this information and it became public knowledge.
My opinion is completely parallel to yours. I think It was very well stated and thought up. It's hard for me to pick one side because I think what he did was both good and bad. As an American citizen I appreciate the knowledge that he gave us. It's important to realize the government obviously has a ridiculous amount of power over the people. The government sometimes needs to realize that they can't just bully its people around. At the same time however, he was under contract just like you said. He signed secrecy papers and all of that was important. It was his job to keep quiet and he went against all of that. He's obviously a man who can't be trusted and needs some form of punishment. As a citizen though, once again I'm grateful. He's in a very hard situation and I feel bad for him. He did what he thought was right and I respect him for that. In days like this it's nice to see people stick up for what they believe in. Not many people do that.
ReplyDeleteThis question has always been so difficult for me (along with the question of all whistleblowers). I understand what Snowden did was legally wrong, and I know why the government would have ire with Snowden's release of top secret information. But alongside the knowledge that he broke the law is a sense of awe and gratitude that he would be willing to sacrifice what he did for me, a member of an unsuspecting public, to be informed of what was being done with my information. Like a police officer who maybe admires the person they are chasing, my emotions toward Snowden are complex. I am angry he betrayed his country - for which I harbor a great deal of love. And I feel I'm in his debt for showing me what my government was doing. In the end, perhaps I'm merely happy someone dared to forfeit the life they had to protect their fellow citizens.
ReplyDeleteI too, think Snowden did the right thing. To me, his decision to expose the NSA's actions gives Americans the power to at least choose if they accept the privacy violations or not, rather than have their information collected and analyzed by the government without any knowledge of it happening. I think his duty as a human to do what he thought was right outweighs his duty as a government employee. This being said, I am not opposed to him being punished by the government, because that will cause future whistleblowers to carefully balance exposure of classified information that could endanger the public with the need to keep the public informed.
ReplyDeleteLike the others who have commented so far, I agree with Ian's sentiment and feel that Snowden's actions were justified. He gave power to the American people in the form of knowledge, and at least started making steps toward holding the government accountable and forcing an open discourse. I don't think the open discourse and accountability have come to full fruition yet, but I think we are still in the process of reaching those goals.
ReplyDeleteVery loosely related, but I'd like to recommend "Single Point of Failure: The (Fictional) Day Google Forgot To Check Passwords" by Tom Scott (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4GB_NDU43Q) if you find this topic interesting
ReplyDeleteI personally find consent to be the most important aspect of privacy, and consent becomes meaningless without a reasonable amount of transparency. I understand that, in order to take part in a society, one must give up some of their natural rights in exchange for protection/security--however, I believe that the governing body should make the loss of those rights public knowledge/easily accessible. Otherwise, citizens aren't actually "consenting" to take part in society, but rather they are being deceived through a lack of communication.
If we are labeling Edward Snowden, I’d also say he is a whistleblower. I think that Wikipedia, defined it best, “A whistleblower is a person who exposes any kind of information or activity that is deemed illegal, unethical, or not correct within an organization that is either private or public.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower) I think that he shouldn’t be painted as a hero but I do believe that Snowden did the American citizens a great service. Ian, I agree with your conclusion. It’s a difficult issue to be categorized in the right or wrong when there is so much that remains unknown. I think the Snowden revelations allow us to be more aware of the limitations of privacy we have and the importance of privacy for the public and the individual. I do believe Snowden should be held accountable, in what sense I do not know.
ReplyDeleteI believe the American people should have been made aware of the data collection taking place by the NSA. It is unfortunate that this information had to be release by a "whistle blower", but since that was the situation I would agree with the other posts that it was the right thing to do. His actions at least forced a discourse on the matter.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Edward Snowden leaking information was for the best. The PRISM program was used to gain a person's records from multiple companies for use by the NSA, although the general public was unaware of the true scale of the program. There can be many debates on whether the PRISM program should even be allowed, as it has many supporters and opponents. The main issue is about the secrecy the NSA used regarding the program. While people may disagree about PRISM's application, the general public should have know about the scope of the program right away instead of being kept in the dark until information was leaked. I would consider Snowden a whistleblower, as he revealed information that the public was unaware of, sparking a debate to help improve the country's privacy. What Snowden did was ultimately against the law, but the reason he leaked the information was most likely because of the government's own lack of transparency. Hopefully enough backlash and discourse has resulted from the leaks that it will convince the government to remain truthful about its programs.
ReplyDeleteAlong with most previous comments, I also believe that it is important that this information was disclosed. Even if citizens don't agree with a reduction of privacy by the government, they should at least be made aware that the reduction is happening. It is important so that people are able to consent to the collection of information, or if the majority don't consent then the policy may be changed in the next democratic cycle.
ReplyDeleteI am also in agreement with Ian and the rest of my classmates that have commented so far. I believe that this is a situation where the line between right and wrong is incredibly blurred. Leaking the information was a very selfless act on Snowden's part, he gave up everything and will have to flee the U.S. government for the rest of his life in order to call to light something he believed the American people needed to be aware of. However, what he did was still illegal and can easily be considered traitorous. Ultimately, I applaud Snowden but also understand the government's position. Balancing national security and personal privacy is an incredibly difficult task and I do not envy those who have to decide where the line is drawn.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that what Edward Snowden did was wrong. I agree that he put privacy back in the hands of the US people by uncovering a plot that the United States government was using to essentially spy on people without warrants. However, I do believe that the government was acting in a way that they thought was most beneficial to the safety of the American public. I believe that people may not have had as much of a problem with this PRISM program if the United States had been upfront about what they were doing. Overall, I think that Edward Snowden will serve some form of punishment when caught because he did commit crimes against the government, but I don't belive that it will be too harsh because of the backlash from the public that would come if they were to jail him for life due to some people seeing him as a hero.
ReplyDelete