Ethical Issues Raised by Edward Snowden’s Whistleblowing Coursework

Introduction

Whistleblowing is defined as the act of an employee or a former employee disclosing sensitive information about the employer, which he/she believes is unethical, to the public. Whistleblowing happens in cases where an individual feels that an employer or organization is engaging in activities that are wrong or which may cause harm to others. In such cases, the whistleblower feels that he or she has an obligation to disclose this information to the public to resolve the issue. It is important to note that not everyone agrees that whistleblowing is right and some people condemn whistleblowers even branding them as traitors. Whistleblowing is, therefore, characterized by two opposing sides that both argue about the ethical lines on whether the practice is right or wrong (Grant, 2002).

The ethical perspective of Edward Snowden’s Whistleblowing activities

In his whistleblowing initiatives, Edward Snowden revealed that the government of the United States was carrying out illegal surveillance activities on private information of both US citizens and non-US citizens. He revealed that under the NSA surveillance program, the government of the US as a data collection and spying network in place which is responsible for collecting data regarding the private communication of non-US citizens through their mobile phones, emails, and social networks. The NSA program also collects private communication data of some US citizens who are of interest to the government (O’Neill, 2013).

The program collects private data without any warrants to do so and does not need to provide any reason as to why the government targets a particular individual whose communication data is collected. The NSA surveillance program is, however, given legality by a clandestine court that hears government requests and then gives a go-ahead to carry out the mass surveillance without considering any arguments from other non-governmental parties. The problem with this program is that it infringes on the privacy rights of individuals since all individuals are guaranteed the right to privacy by the Constitution (O’Neill, 2013).

Whistleblowing is an issue that revolves around ethics due to the fact that it involves an individual’s deep conviction that what the organization is doing is wrong and is an infringement of other people’s rights. This means that the individual feels morally obligated to expose the wrongdoing of the organization so as to prevent the results of such activities from harming others or from interfering with their values and beliefs. Another issue is that for a person to decide to blow the whistle on their organization, he/she must be morally upright and possess good virtues. This is due to the fact that whistleblowing requires a person to have the courage to stand up to the organization for the common good of the society even if the results will not be favorable for them as individuals (Grant, 2002).

It is important to note that even though some organizations support whistleblowing and laws have been formulated and implemented to protect whistleblowers, there are cases where the whistleblower ends up being punished for their actions (Oliver, 2003). For example, in the case of Edward Snowden, he ran into problems with the US government after the release of the damaging information. This means that even though he felt that it was morally correct to expose the activities that the government was engaged in as it was infringing on peoples’ right to privacy, the government thought otherwise and held the view that it was a wrongful act, which amounted to treason, and that Snowden should be held accountable for his actions under the law (O’Neill, 2013).

When companies, governments, and even individuals are designing information systems, they do so with careful consideration of the security of the information that is to be stored in their systems. Most organizations guarantee the privacy of any personal information that individuals store in their systems. Mobile companies and internet provision companies, for example, guarantee that the information of users will not be disclosed to third parties and also, it will not be used for any purposes, for which it was not intended. However, the action by the United States government clearly indicates that it is not safe to store personal data in any information system, as safety cannot be guaranteed (O’Neill, 2013).

Another angle to this discussion is that the possibility that an individual can hack into a government system and access unauthorized information with disregard to the law and to the effect this has on individuals means that information systems have failed in their duty to protect user information. The fact that Snowden was able to access such confidential information is a matter that raises a lot of concern for the safety of individuals in relation to the private data that they store in information systems over the internet (O’Neill, 2013).

Edward Snowden was a government contractor and that is how he was able to access the documents that exposed the activities that the NSA surveillance program was carried out without the knowledge of the world. This raises the question of whether private data collected legitimately by the government to enable it to provide essential services to its citizens is safe. The fact that a government employee can misuse data accessed without authority means that the private data of citizens can be misused by anyone who can access it to their detriment. This means that even the government cannot guarantee the safety and security of data that is in their systems (O’Neill, 2013).

It is, however, important to note that the information Snowden leaked was accessed from government records without authority, the government did not have the right nor legal authority to collect the same data from individuals. Spying on private communications of individuals without any legal right is an infringement of their privacy and is morally wrong. The government or any other person, therefore, had no right to claim that it was not ethical for Snowden to access the documents that he did and proceed to reveal them to the public. The fact that the government collected this data secretly and without any authority also makes it unethical for it to question the actions of Snowden (O’Neill, 2013).

When deciding to blow the whistle on the actions of an employer or the government, it is critical for the potential whistleblower to evaluate whether their choices have any moral legitimacy or they are just doing it for personal gain. A lot of government information is labeled as classified and government employees are required to keep this information secret. It is, therefore, important for an individual to be able to tell when making the information available for the public is appropriate. It is only appropriate to go public with such information when one’s grievances have not been listened to and resolved internally and when releasing such information to the public will be beneficial to the greater society rather than detrimental (Near & Miceli, 1996).

In most cases, whistleblowers release information to the public in the belief that they are helping the people and that they are morally obligated to do so. When Snowden was being questioned about why he collected information illegally, he responded that his reason for seeking employment from the government was so that he could expose the wrongdoings of the US government for the greater good of its citizens as well as of the world in general. It is, as a result, clear that his intentions were to help people and to force the government to stop spying on people illegally and without any real reason to do so. The law, however, allows the government to spy on individuals suspected of terrorism activities and who have the intention and ability to cause public harm (Near & Miceli, 1996).

In a situation where the whistleblowing activities involve the release of documents or information which relates to activities carried out illegally such as in the case of Snowden, it means that the whistleblower has not broken any law and that they are within their legal rights to do so. Even if the whistleblower has executed his intentions and breached a confidentiality agreement signed prior to the disclosure, it means that they are not liable to be charged in a court of law for their activities. Such a person is actually considered a hero since it is assumed that his intentions were in the best interest of the public. It is also assumed that only persons with high moral fiber can carry out such activities thereby supporting the fact that some cases of whistleblowing are ethically correct (Near & Miceli, 1996).

The fact that it is possible to access information from information systems that purport to guarantee privacy and security to users such as mobile service providers, internet companies, and even social media means that it is not possible to completely protect private information from misuse by unauthorized persons. It means that the privacy issue has not been addressed effectively and companies need to work more to institute better security measures against unauthorized access to information in their systems. Whether this information is accessed for ethically correct purposes or not is not important, the most important issue is that unauthorized persons should not be able to access it (Gunsalus,1998).

Conclusion

The discussion above has focused on the ethical issues of whistleblowing and specifically on the case of Edward Snowden. It is clear that there are two opposing factions when it comes to whether whistleblowing is ethically correct or not. One side argues that it is ethical to engage in whistleblowing since it is for the greater good of the people while the other faction believes that it is wrong. The case of whistleblowing involves exposing the government, the act is considered to be an act of treason and is punishable by law. Edward Snowden ended up seeking asylum after the release of the information since the US government declared him a wanted person. The discussion, however, tends to lean on the argument that where the activity is carried out in the best interest of the people, it is ethically correct (O’Neill, 2013).

References

Grant, C 2002, ‘Whistle blowers: Saints of secular culture’, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 39, no. 1, Pp. 391–399.

Gunsalus, C. K 1998, ‘How to blow the whistle and still have a career afterwards’, Science and Engineering Ethics, vol. 4, no. 1, Pp. 51–64.

Near, J. P & Miceli, M. P 1996, ‘Whistle-blowing: Myth and reality’, Journal of Management, vol. 22, no. 1, Pp. 507–526.

O’Neill, B 2013, The Ethics of Whistleblowing. Web.

Oliver, D 2003, ‘Whistle-blowing engineer’, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, vol. 129, no. 2, Pp. 246–256.