Why the world needs Edward Snowden

The case of Edward Snowden – Hero or Traitor

I believe that Edward Snowden was justified in disclosing the activities of NSA. Further I would argue that when the state becomes all too powerful versus the individual to the point of being unaccountable then we need disrupters like Edward Snowden to restore the balance of power and instill accountability in the system.

In this blog I will outline the reasons behind my position as well as examine the counter arguments that might be presented

The reasons why I took the position above are as below:

In every society there is a need for whistle blowers, in every system, and especially in the case of U.S., which has, capabilities much more advanced than any other contemporary nation and as the only superpower in the world, responsibilities that far exceed other nations.

I believe the William E. Scheuerman article on the Snowden leaks is very insightful in this regard where Rahul Sagar in his book outlines certain criterions, which need to be kept in mind while considering whistle blowing. They are:

1. A clear and demonstrable evidence of public wrongdoing and executive over-reach, which is against public interest. This may be construed in the domestic as well as the larger international interest and wider interests of humanity
2. Selective disclosure of the leaks ensuring there is no harm to national security or to security of innocent individuals
3. Personal disclosure of identity and willingness to undergo public scrutiny and debate on the merits and motivations behind the leaks

To this list I would like to add a few points that I consider important. They are:

1. All legal options available to the whistle blower have been exhausted or have been proven to be ineffective
2. The act should not be for private gain or on behalf of foreign powers, but instead so that potentially egregious violations of the law would gain overdue public attention
3. The whistle blower should be driven by right motive and not by personal gratification or a sense of vendetta. The goal of whistle blowing should always be to simply put an end to actions, which harm others; i.e., our motive should always be merely to prevent immoral and/or illegal activities. Self-aggrandizement may be a consequence but not the driving force

Although this is a formidable list of criterion, I believe that Snowden met all these criterions. I will go ahead and present my arguments on every point.

1. I believe that there was clear and demonstrable evidence of public wrongdoing and executive over-reach, which was against the public interest. The NSA was violating the rights and collecting data of American as well as non-American citizens in the name of national security. This was violation of privacy rights of citizens, against Internet liberty and was also detrimental to U.S. allies who had stood by them in times good and bad.
2. Snowden also ensured that his disclosures did not put the U.S. government in any form of risk both external and internal. This was ensured through selective disclosure of material instead of a mass dump. He also ensured an external verification by handing over the documents to two acclaimed journalists who were known for their journalistic integrity and ability to take a stand. He also did not put any particular individual at risk and in fact early on in his career he had an opportunity to expose CIA documents but did not do so for the very reason that it would have put many CIA personnel in harm’s way.
3. On the criterion for public disclosure, Snowden himself from the outset insisted that he be identified so that a proper public debate can ensue and is not sidetracked by any innuendo around witch hunting of the whistle blower.

Besides the points listed by Rahul Sagar, I would also like to examine Mr. Snowden on the points I have listed.

4. Mr. Snowden in my opinion had exhausted all legal options as under the Intelligence  Community  Whistleblower  Protection  Act  (ICWPA),  he had the option to either meet the  either  the  inspector  general  of a  federal  agency  or  a  member  of  a  congressional  intelligence  committee. He was disillusioned with both the options once he saw that the National Intelligence director, Mr. James Clapper lied before the Senate intelligence committee and the Congress members were themselves unable to get access to details about the NSA’s surveillance programs.  In addition the way previous whistleblowers were treated by the U.S. administration was a good indicator of the fact that if Snowden first went to either the federal agency or the Congress, then there would be little that would be achieved in terms of the main goal of starting a public debate around the issue.
5. Till date, it has not been proven that Mr. Snowden acted on the behest of any country, organization or individual other than his own sense of right and wrong. It is also apparent that he did so at great personal and professional cost and till date no personal benefits have accrued to him.
6. On the count of motivation, I again side with Mr. Snowden as if we read the chat transcripts from a few years back; we realize that Snowden is not in favor of public disclosure. In fact he waited for the President Obama’s elections as he felt that the Obama administration would roll back some of these regressive surveillance policies but they did not. Then he desisted from disclosing CIA secrets as he felt that the act would put both individuals and the nation in danger and finally when being disappointed with the fact that even Senators were stone walled by NSA and federal directors lying to Senators, he still exercised prudence through selective disclosure when he could have just dumped all the information indiscriminately. That too he revealed it too journalists whom he thought could stand up to government pressure and report in a nonpartisan manner.

An interesting aspect that seems to get lost in the debate is about the fact that in the long run the Snowden leaks would benefit not only the U.S. state as a whole but also U.S. society at large which cherishes the value of personal Freedom BUT most importantly would also check and initiate reviews of similar outreach anywhere in the world.

The counter arguments

The Snowden disclosures puts forth many interesting arguments and counter arguments. While it is important to state my views, it is equally important to examine on merit, the most common counter arguments. They are stated below:

1. He was motivated by personal aggrandizement
2. He did not take the specified route for redressal as specified under ICWPA
3. The data that was taken by NSA was only meta-data, hence it was not really spying
4. The NSA was not really causing harm to citizens, maybe violation of rights but not harm
5. He intentionally took a job at Booz and Allen to gather data
6. He broke an oath
7. He actually did cause harm to U.S. national security
8. Other nations spy on U.S. so U.S. is also entitled to do the same

We will examine each of these arguments below:

1. He was motivated by personal aggrandizement: It has been argued in many critiques that Snowden was driven by a desire to see himself as a hero and that was the true reason for the disclosures and not anything else hence it was ethically and morally wrong. While earlier in the paper I have already argued that there is enough reason to suggest that he was driven by a sense of public justice. I would like to argue here that in fact it is not morally or ethically wrong to enjoy the attention that Mr. Snowden got. I am not sure whether there is any act that is 100% altruistic in nature. Even in acts of kindness, we do it also because it makes us feel good about ourselves. Hence my argument to this point is that it is entirely natural that Snowden knew that he will get a lot of attention post the disclosures and that he will be hailed as hero by some and branded as traitor by some and the fact made him feel good about himself. There is nothing wrong about it in my view as long as that is not the sole or the overriding reason but is a known consequence.
2. He did not take the specified route for redressal as specified under ICWPA: I have also addressed this point in detail in point 4 on page 2.  I have clearly established that Snowden had good reason to be convinced that going through official channels would only work to subvert or suppress the cause hence there was no point in going through official channels just to follow the letter of the law when he knew the spirit of the law was already subverted and there was no credible oversight and redressal mechanism available to him which would allow him to present his cause in a free and fair manner.
3. The data that was taken by NSA was only metadata, hence it was not really spying: Some quarters argue that meta data is data about data and not the real data so it was not really spying. There are two issues at work here. Firstly at the heart of it is the issue of collecting ANY data about citizens without permission from the citizen and without a demonstrable threat or need is a violation of the law as well as personal liberty enshrined in U.S. constitution. Today it was meta-data and if not checked, tomorrow it could easily be actual data. Secondly the data being collected was descriptive meta-data and not just structural which means that it told NSA quite a lot about the details of the data but also gave an indication about the content of the data. In some cases like spying on Indian political parties actual data was also collected like phone records and transcripts of conversations.
4. The NSA was not really causing harm to citizens, maybe violation of rights but not harm: I submit to this argument that there is a fine distinction between injustice and harm and as of now the NSA was doing injustice and violating rights but was not really harming anyone BUT it could also be reasonably argued that the NSA was also opening up the citizens to potential harm by prying in their private matters without sufficient justification. Just the conception of an all-powerful agency without proper oversight or redressal mechanism collecting data about individuals opens up avenues of causing future harm based on whims and fancies of individuals. Also just the knowledge that nothing is really secure and that someone is always watching is a stressful thought in itself.
5. He intentionally took a job at Booz and Allen to gather data: By the time Mr. Snowden took a job at Booz and Allen, he had probably already decided to disclose about the NSA overreach. In order to be able to present credible data which could not be refuted and which was selective enough so that it does not do harm to the nation or individuals, he had to have access to the data source which in this case was Booz and Allen as a contractor to NSA. I would argue that I see nothing wrong in taking this step as far from being deceitful; I believe it was required to present credible data for public disclosure, which was the goal of the disclosure in the first place.
6. He broke an oath: I do not believe that a personal who believes that he is morally justified and is acting in the interests of larger good should be constrained by some oath, especially when the person believes that the oath is preventing him from disclosing information on some issue which is causing widespread violation of liberties and is a case of gross overreach. This is the same as someone holding me to an oath of secrecy and then confessing murder. I for one will not be constrained by such an oath.
7. He actually did cause harm to U.S. national security: The jury is still out on this one. It has not been proven conclusively in the lawsuits against Mr. Snowden as to how and if he actually did cause harm to the country. On the other hand it is clear that he did not cause harm to any individual and some will argue that his disclosures have done good for U.S. society as a whole and for U.S. national security as a whole as it has brought under scrutiny an issue which was lacking proper oversight and could tomorrow in itself become a threat to national security and to the security of U.S. allies as is highlighted by the fact that NSA was spying on heads of state of NATO allies without any obvious sanction. President Obama also admitted in his address that there was overreach and lack of oversight, which needed to be corrected with immediate effect.
8. Other nations spy on U.S. so U.S. is also entitled to do the same: Well that is the same argument that other nations use terrorism as proxy war hence we should also. I reject such a regressive argument as in the world of global cooperation and interoperability against terrorism and other global threats, there is a dire need to cooperate as no one nation can fight the rise of global terror. Cooperation cannot be built without trust and trust is not built by covertly spying on allies, citizens and adversaries alike without discrimination. While we can understand taking measures against electronic spying by hostile nations and even initiating sanctioned spying programs against hostile nations, blanket spying can never be justified on grounds that other nations also do it.

Snowden in a framework

As the concluding piece I would like to examine Snowden’s actions under the lens of the individual himself. In his interview to Alan Rusbridger, Snowden in his mind was morally and ethically right as he thought that he was acting for the larger public good, that he was justified in his belief as according to him clear injustice was being done and I would argue that while he was aware of breaking the legal statutes under ICWPA, he was justified in doing so as according to him the acts of NSA were against the constitution itself which gave sanction to ICWPA and which was above all laws.

Examining the actions of Mr. Snowden under the personal ethical framework of Arthur Applbaum  framework:

He thought he was doing good: Mr. Snowden certainly believed that he was acting in the larger public good as his actions would enlighten the public about a gross infringement on their rights as well as protect the U.S. society as a whole and the U.S. state from degenerating into a surveillance state. He also believed that he had taken enough care and applied enough filters including external filters of upright journalists to ensure that his disclosures will do no harm to the nation as well as any particular individual.

He thought he was justified: Edward Snowden believed he was justified in his actions as he believed that NSA actions were equivalent to overstepping on personal liberty, internet freedom and a threat to democracy itself. He felt compelled to act to prevent U.S.A from becoming surveillance state and prevent the NSA actions before they became irreversible.

He thought his actions were legal: Snowden believed that he was acting as per the spirit of U.S. Law. While I am sure he was aware that he was acting against the provisions of the ICWPA and that his actions would mean a breach of law at some level but he made his choice based on his belief that he was protecting the basic tenets of liberty which were enshrined in the U.S. constitution which was above any other law that was derived from the very same constitution.  

He also invoked the basic tenet based  on  basic  theories  of  civil  disobedience:  that  those  who  control  the  law  have  become  corrupt,  that  the  law  in  this  case  (by  concealing  the  actions  of  government  officials  in  building  this  massive  spying  apparatus  in  secret)  is  a  tool  of  injustice,  and  that  he  felt  compelled  to  act  in  violation  of  it  in  order to  expose  these  official  bad  acts  and  enable  debate and reform (source: HKS Case of Edward Snowden) I would go even further and argue that he might have even felt legally justified in going against the ICWPA in this particular case as according to him the acts of NSA were against the constitution itself which gave sanction to ICWPA and which was above all laws. This was also supported by the decision of a U.S.  Federal district court judge that ruled that  the  NSA  program  that  collected  metadata  on  telephone  calls  in  the  United  States  was  likely  unconstitutional,  potentially  constituting  unreasonable  search  under  the  Fourth  Amendment.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I strongly believe that Edward Snowden was justified morally and in his act of public disclosure of NSA activities. 

Every time the state becomes overbearing and less and less accountable, I believe that there is a need to restore the balance of power and accountability. For that we need the Edward Snowden’s of the world. While I agree that whistle blowing is not the best way to restore accountability and may cause much disruption in its wake, BUT the onus for preventing more Snowden’s is on the moral leadership of the powers to be that there is no need of an Edwar