Genuine Whistle-Blowing: Snowden - Essay Example

Genuine Whistle-Blowing: Snowden Whistle-blowing has a far reaching implication to both the whistle-blower and the concerned institution. In this essay, I present arguments that prove Snowden had a genuine case of whistle-blowing especially based on the fact that the documents released had been found to contain accurate information. It is also my argument that Snowden had the right and obligation to blow the whistle based on the fact that private communication by innocent people both in the US and outside were being monitored by the NSA. The objections to these arguments are presented based on the argument that Snowden had not followed the right mechanisms for whistle-blowing and that he was working with foreign states which makes his action treasonous. In countering the view that Snowden did not follow the right channel in his complaints, the example of Drake who tried to complain through these channels but failed is given to indicate that taking that route would have ended the same way as it did for other whistle-blowers. The justification of Snowden’s actions should commence with an understanding of what whistle-blowing means. According to Alavudeen, Rahman, and Jayakumaran the act of whistle-blowing aims to expose “negligence, abuses, or dangers” (220) within an organization especially when these actions pose a threat to public interest. A key characteristic of a whistle-blower is the possession of expertise or inside knowledge from within the organization. Some authors have identified a whistle-blower as an employee who feels the activities performed by their employer can potentially harm a third party, violate human rights or is against the law which established such institutions and who therefore proceeds to inform the public of this fact (Duska 147). What arises from the above characteristics and motivations behind whistle-blowing is that the actions are deliberate, done by insiders with knowledge and expertise to assess the information, the information concerns actions that threatens citizens’ rights. The information is such that the public wants to know and that such information is given out as petition to for the wrongs to be corrected through public pressure. Based on the definition, Snowden fits the characteristics of a whistle blower given that he had gained insider knowledge about US and European telephone data and Internet surveillance programs by the National Security Agency (NSA) while working as a contractor. Further, the information provided concerned the privacy of the people, which means they would want to know if their communications were being intercepted. Having knowledge and insider details about wrong doings helps to ensure the legitimacy of the whistle-blower’s claim concerning reported immoral or illegal actions. Being in possession of actual NSA records made Snowden’s action legitimate since the data presented were accurate. Snowden’s obligation to blow the whistle about US and European telephone data and Internet surveillance can be addressed based on the assessment of the boundaries of confidentiality contracts and how to legitimately expose unlawful conducts of employers. Snowden’ status as a contractor with the NSA meant he was under confidentiality contract that restricts his access and communication of classified information from NSA to outside parties. However, there is a limitation to the extent that confidentiality contract can be protected especially when the conduct of either an employee or the employer engages in actions that are either ethically or legally unlawful. In the case of US and European telephone data and Internet surveillance programs by NSA Snowden had the obligation to bring to public attention actions that went against the law. Despite the usual contractual obligations that Snowden’s work as a contractor with the NSA would impose, the classified information made public by Snowden indicates a substantial level of wrongdoings and illegality by NSA to such extend that it gives rise to legitimate public concerns of despotic control. The leaked report presents a level of government surveillance programme that can only be executed in authoritarian states and not one whose pride is on promotion of democracy and liberal ideals. Whether Snowden had a right depends on his moral reasoning and responsibility of concerned officials at the time of blowing the whistle on NSA’s US and European telephone data and Internet surveillance programs (Grace and Cohen 157). A genuine whistle blowing should be based on the motive of ascribing responsibility either to individuals or to institutions. This action is because of a process of self-reflection and reasoning that is a consequence of a moral commitment to social good. On this basis leaking of information can be divided based on where one undertakes it to satisfy a personal goal or it is for public interest. Snowden has in a number of forums repeated that his intentions were to make public the ongoing surveillance of private communication by the US government, which affected both citizens and noncitizens. Snowden’s private motive cannot be questioned due to lack of evidence that will contradict his stand. Taking the reason for leaking classified NSA information as making public what he considers as unconstitutional, actions was a genuine endeavor. Snowden fulfilled his role as a conscious citizen by providing information so to the public that presented a chance to other public officials and civil society groups to demand more transparency or enforce culpability for the wrongs. However, leaking in itself does not mean guaranteed changes in the conduct of institutions and its officials; as such, changes have to be conducted by a conscious deliberate political action by those the information is targeting. Those who are against Snowden’s action argue that he should haves followed available internal channels for whistle-blowing before going public (Grace and Cohen 149). The US constitution provides legal options to disgruntled employees and contractors to seek redress on what they see as unlawful conduct by their employer or institutions they were work for. Consequently, it is argued by some that Snowden should have taken advantage of federal whistleblower laws, take complaints to Congress or since he was a contractor, he could have reported the matter through the management of Booz Allen who are his original employers. Although these avenues are supposedly part of the channels for whistle-blowers to bring attention to illegal or immoral conducts by institutions, Snowden could not have achieved anything through these means due to several factors. Snowden’s actions can be justified because had he complained through Booz Allen, the management would not have called for the termination of the surveillance since the two institutions were heavily linked. The first reason why Booz Allen would not have taken Snowden’s questioning of the surveillance seriously can be based on the reaction of the company after the information was leaked. The company condemned Snowden’s action and terminated his employment contract. Secondly, the Guardian reports a number of executives have held various positions in the two organizations at different times of their careers. For instance, James Clapper, the director of national intelligence (DNI) at the time of whistle-blowing had previously worked as with Booz Allen as an executive officer. The company’s vice-chairman Mike McConnell also had a stint as the DNI before going back to Booz Allen where he had also had an official position. This means there was no chance that the US and European telephone data and Internet surveillance programs would have been made public by Booz Allen as the company has close connections with the National Intelligence which means Booz Allen executives might have been aware of what was going on at the time (Borger). Another basis that Snowden’ actions can be defended is by assessing the previous reaction of the NSA towards, internal whistle-blowing. Before, Snowden come up with his allegations, there was a past accusation about the conduct of NSA by Thomas Drake. Before deciding to blow the whistle on his employers, Drake claim to have raised internal complaints within the NSA concerning the high level of public resource wastage in the organization during the implementation of a data project known as “Trailblazer”. Drake is reported to have followed the government-sanctioned channels for over five years but no move was made towards investigating the claims. The whistle-blower went to the media after he had exhausted all the avenues available including his superiors, inspectors general and Congress without any success (Nakashima). The lack of action and vilifying whistle-blowers might have played a part in Snowden’s decision to choose to go straight to the media with the realization that just like previous complaints, his would not be handled by the NSA executives. There has been the questioning of Snowden’s right to leak classified government information especially based on the security risk that such action presents. Information leaked by Snowden has great implications top both the domestic enforcement of law and order and the US government war on terrorism as well the country’s state of international relations. Further, the fact that Snowden first ran to China and then Russia might be translated as treason since some of his leaks were about the US surveillance on these states (Ackerman). However, considering Snowden’s motive as being making information on surveillance public and consequences of his action being court orders for illegal possession of government properly, he is justified to seek asylum since his return will definitely lead to his arrest. This essay has argued that Snowden had a genuine case of whistle-blowing based on the fact that his accusations were true. Snowden had accused the NSA of taking part in telephone data and Internet surveillance programs that affected both the US citizens and those of other countries. The US government therefore making Snowden’s claim legitimate confirmed this information. Working as a contractor for the NSA meant Snowden had a chance to acquire expertise or inside knowledge about the conduct of the organization. Although Snowden might have had a confidentiality contract, which prohibits the release of, secrete information, this contract ceased to be binding when the surveillance breached the constitution meaning as a conscious citizen, he had the obligation to inform them on the actions, which breached their rights privacy. His motive was also right since Snowden’s concern was to make the public are of the surveillance. Consequently, objections to Snowden’s whistle-blowing action based on the argument that he did not follow the right channels do stand. This is especially true considering others such as Drake had tried to call for change but were not successful. Works Cited Ackerman, Spencer. US warns Moscow not to let Edward Snowden escape Russia. The Guardian, 24 June 2013. Web. 07 April 2014. From Alavudeen, A., R. Kalil Rahman, and M. Jayakumaran. Professional ethics and human values. New Delhi: Firewall Media, 2008. Print. Duska, Ronald F. Contemporary reflections on business ethics. New Mexico: Springer, 2007. Borger, Julian. Booz Allen Hamilton: Edward Snowdens US contracting firm $6bn company that employed the NSA whistleblower is closely connected to US intelligence community and its leaders. The Guardian, 9 June 2013. Web. 07 April 2014. From Nakashima, Ellen. Former NSA executive Thomas A. Drake may pay high price for media leak. The Washington Post, 14 July 2010. Web. 07 April 2014. From Grace, Damian. Business ethics: Australian problems and cases. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1998. Print. Read More