Edward Snowden, a computer expert and former CIA systems administrator, released confidential Government documents to the press about the existence of Government surveillance programmes. According to many legal experts and the US Government, his actions violated the Espionage Act of 1917, which identified the leak of State secrets as an act of treason. Yet, despite the fact that he broke the law, Snowden argued that he had a moral obligation to act. He gave a justification for his “whistle blowing” by stating that he had a duty “to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them.” According to Snowden, the Government’s violation of privacy had to be exposed regardless of legality since more substantive issues of social action and public morality were involved here. Many agreed with Snowden. Few argued that he broke the law and compromised national security, for which he should be held accountable.

a. Do you agree that Snowden’s actions were ethically justified even if legally prohibited? Why or why not?

b. Make an argument by weighing the competing values in this case. (250 words) [UPSC 2018]

Roadmap for Answer Writing

1. Introduction

• Context: Introduce Edward Snowden and his role in leaking government documents related to surveillance programs.
• Problem Statement: Highlight the legal implications of his actions under the Espionage Act and the ethical debate surrounding whistleblowing.

2. Assessment of Ethical Justification

• Ethical Argument for Justification:
  • Moral Obligation: Discuss Snowden’s belief in his duty to inform the public about government actions.
  • Public Interest: Emphasize the importance of transparency and the right to know about government surveillance (Source: ACLU).
• Counterarguments Against Justification:
  • Legal Breach: Address the violation of the law and its implications for the rule of law (Source: Brookings Institution).
  • National Security Risks: Highlight concerns that his actions compromised national security and intelligence operations.

3. Weighing Competing Values

• Privacy vs. National Security:
  • Discuss the balance between individual privacy rights and the need for national security. Reference the tension between security measures and civil liberties (Source: Human Rights Watch).
• Government Transparency vs. Legal Compliance:
  • Evaluate the necessity of government transparency in a democracy against adherence to legal frameworks.
• Public Morality vs. Legal Consequences:
  • Consider the ethical implications of acting on moral grounds versus the potential legal repercussions of such actions.

4. Relevant Facts for Use in Answers

• Public Perception of Whistleblowers: “Whistleblowers often face significant personal and professional risks, yet they play a crucial role in exposing government misconduct.” (Source: Government Accountability Project).
• Impact of Surveillance: “Government surveillance can lead to significant violations of privacy rights, affecting civil liberties.”.
• Legal Framework: “The Espionage Act of 1917 was designed to protect national security, but its application has raised concerns about chilling effects on free speech.”.

5. Conclusion

• Summary of Position: Reiterate whether Snowden’s actions are seen as ethically justified while acknowledging the legal consequences.
• Final Thoughts: Emphasize the importance of balancing ethical considerations with legal frameworks in discussions about government transparency and individual rights.

This roadmap provides a structured approach to analyzing the ethical and legal complexities of Edward Snowden’s actions, facilitating a balanced discussion on the competing values at play.