Society is structured in such a way that individuals are usually divided into heroes or traitors, depending on the civil effect their actions have had. As a rule, any historical figure is viewed only through this paradigm of uniqueness, and the attempt to recognize dualism proves unsuccessful. However, such judgments are not only characteristic of descriptions of distant events of the past but are also applicable to the contemporary agenda. From the moral positions of good and evil, society can judge a person for their deeds, and based on these judgments, build models of punishment or encouragement. The situation is more intriguing when states act as judges, treating the same offense differently. This essay raises the issue of Edward Snowden being recognized as a public hero who declassified U.S. state secrets in favor of protecting the anonymity and privacy of citizens. Recognizing all motives and operating with such philosophical categories as human counsel, social responsibility, and an act of peacemaking, it is appropriate to call the American a hero rather than a traitor. This academic essay seeks to elaborate on the author’s opinion regarding this thesis.
As part of the discourse on Snowden’s social responsibility, one of the central themes of the essay is to determine the moral background of the government’s actions in collecting personal data. It is no secret that virtually everyone today uses electronic devices, whether a smartphone or a computer, for personal purposes. Ideally, private communication in a virtual environment should be built on security and cybersecurity principles so that users are sure of data privacy (Soken-Huberty, 2017). It is enough to imagine the magnitude of personal correspondence online to understand how critical a well-functioning mechanism for its protection is. The problem lies in the fact that citizens must trust the government and national security measures. Nevertheless, the intrusion into the privacy of individuals is morally completely unjustifiable, which means that a government that decides to take this measure will one day lose its legitimacy.
Such reasoning is necessary when attempting to justify Edward Snowden’s actions. For a brief explanation, it is essential to clarify that the American had seriously violated U.S. laws regarding the disclosure of state secrets and NSA procedural regulations when, in 2013, he disclosed to the world information about how authorities monitor Americans’ correspondence (Burrough et al., 2014). There is no doubt about the seriousness of this offense performed by Snowden, and according to existing legal principles, he should be sentenced to punishment. Nevertheless, the secret he revealed raises a significant ethical dilemma as to whether a person can be forgiven if he has committed a public good in circumvention of the law. Moreover, the question can be considered from the perspective of not only forgiveness but even the conferral of the title of hero.
In fact, it can be safely argued that Snowden is a public hero because his actions to declassify useful information are of high importance to civil society. Every individual seeks to protect their interests and privacy, and there is nothing unnatural about this. A citizen who pays their taxes diligently and contributes daily to society has a right to expect that the intelligence services will not investigate their private life. At least, that is what most citizens who assess personal space and the public interest think (Geiger, 2018). However, this issue is somewhat different when discussing national security philosophy. It is the government’s responsibility to provide a level of protection for the public in which living conditions are as comfortable and unhindered as possible. In turn, the logic of the CIA or the NSA comes down to the fact that total surveillance and reading the electronic commerce of citizens is one of the measures that contribute to this protection.
Such judgments have a right to exist, especially in the context of increased threats to public security. Since the 2001 terrorist attack, the U.S. government has recognized how vital citizen surveillance is (Pope, 2017). Elaborating on this thought, it might seem that such an NSA program is not something unconstitutional, as it is fully justified by the protection of the national interest. The before-mentioned views have been repeatedly stated by the U.S. jurisdiction, and as a result, the surveillance program has even been partially approved at the federal level (Pope, 2017). However, such reforms are expected to generate public outrage, initiated by the conflict between the personal and the public.
Edward Snowden is a public hero because he showed incredible courage. From the government’s perspective, such an episode in which an NSA employee with the highest level of access to classified data becomes an informant and reveals state secrets to the world is unfavorable. Nevertheless, guided by the principle of human conscience, Snowden took a severe risk that proved justified. The result of his actions was a public recognition of the former NSA agent and open discussions on the scope of application of anti-terrorism laws.
However, an attempt to study statistical surveys regarding Snowden’s heroism led the author to unexpected results. In particular, the initial hypothesis that his actions are perceived positively is only partially confirmed. Thus, about 64% of Americans did not fully support the agent’s actions and treated him negatively (Nelson, 2015). On the other hand, similar figures for other states are much lower, which means it is appropriate to conclude that Edward Snowden is very popular as a hero abroad, but not among his compatriots. An attempt to interpret such intriguing data could lead to the view that the publication of U.S. secrets has become an important occasion for political and cultural grievances against America. Many U.S. geopolitical rivals have spoken negatively about such an NSA program, and Russia has even granted Snowden political asylum (Burrough et al., 2017). Taken together, this leads to the conclusion that the former NSA agent is being recognized as a hero wherever it is expressly approved.
The consequences of such courageous actions by Snowden may also be evidence of his heroism. In the case of an individual revealing a minor secret of no social significance, state authorities are hardly interested in arresting them. However, an event as grandiose as the leak of intelligence data has clearly motivated the government’s interest in punishing Snowden. Looking at the argument from the other side, the man understood precisely what the consequences of his decision would be, and was willing to go along with it. Now it is only possible to imagine what his motives were — conscience, morality, or social responsibility — but regardless of the reason, Snowden took severe risks for the sake of society. That is enough to give him the title of a public hero, if not for most Americans, but for the world.
Moreover, there is no doubt about the significance of such a meaningful data breach. In fact, from a legal point of view, Snowden’s actions did not lead to any major reforms or changes, but they did shed light on the sensitive data collection programs initiated by the NSA. However, for 2013, this news was incredibly relevant and debated, and there were two reasons for this. First of all, the European world was experiencing severe crisis times caused by the intensification of the flow of migrants and the uprisings in Ukraine. Consequently, any reason to blame the U.S. was appropriate. On the other hand, thanks to Edward Snowden, the whole world became aware of states spying on citizens. Even individuals who only suspected surveillance were able to see for themselves. It follows that the former agent’s actions have a new connotation: profound public awareness and an increase in virtual culture. To summarize, it is appropriate to reiterate that Snowden’s figure must be viewed from the perspective of a public hero and a courageous man who tried to change the world.
Alternative views also have the right to exist, but they turn out to be untenable when analyzed in detail. In particular, as mentioned above, the government has an interest in protecting the public by any means necessary, and reading personal correspondence, which the First Amendment prohibits, is not an obstacle to this. As Geiger (2018) has shown, most people approve of such measures, which means there is no apparent problem for democracy. Authorities read people’s correspondence, and people confident in such an action’s necessity turn out to be okay with it. In this harmonious paradigm, Edward Snowden, who has broken the constructed bond, appears to be a public traitor worthy of just punishment. By breaking U.S. laws and displaying classified government data in front of the world, Snowden leads to serious pressure on America. In response, many U.S. citizens are legitimately unhappy with such behavior by the agent and brand him a traitor, which is especially relevant for such a militarized power.
In reality, however, such reasoning hides a possible threat to personal security that has the potential to become a more severe problem. By recognizing the need for total surveillance, Americans are voluntarily consenting to the public nature of their personal data. Even if such a policy is appropriate in the case of anti-terrorism measures, there is no guarantee that the authorities will not go further. Having developed tools for surveillance and having eliminated all terrorists, it is possible that the government will continue to conduct surveillance for its own purposes. In that case, personal correspondence would no longer serve the national interest and could become a mechanism in the hands of corrupt officials and criminals operating at the federal level. In addition, the thesis that Snowden is a traitor may be motivated by a deep resentment of Americans against the United States’ public humiliation. At the same time, it is well known that emotional decisions cannot be regarded as credible.
To summarize this essay, the philosophy of peace is built on an unambiguous view of events as strictly positive or negative. In Edward Snowden’s case, these reflections lead to the conclusion that he is an agenda-changing public hero. Through the declassification of the NSA’s unconstitutional program, the whole world and the United States have learned that their personal data is not actually personal. Furthermore, knowing the sanctions that awaited him, Edward Snowden voluntarily decided to act to the end, which demonstrates bravery and courage for the public good. Attempts to identify the man as a traitor prove untenable, as the fact that the authorities violated personal boundaries is difficult to ignore. Considering all of the above, Edward Snowden is a hero.
References
Burrough, B., Ellison, S., & Andrews, S. (2014). The Snowden saga: A shadowland of secrets and light. Vanity Fair.
Geiger, A.W. (2018). How Americans have viewed government surveillance and privacy since Snowden leaks. PRC.
Nelson, S. (2015). Edward Snowden unpopular at home, a hero abroad, poll finds. US News.
Pope, P. (2017). Surveillance and wiretapping. The First Amendment Encyclopedia.
Soken-Huberty, E. (2017). 10 reasons why privacy rights are important. HRC.