Background
On
May 20, 2013, Edward Joseph Snowden left his job working as a contractor for
the National Security Agency and flew to Hong Kong. On June 5 of that same year,
Snowden released tens of thousands of classified NSA documents to journalists,
who then proceeded to publicize that information to the public. The information
Snowden leaked revealed that the NSA was collecting vast amounts of private information
from American citizens. Everything from Google
and Yahoo accounts, to phone
records, to cell
phone locations was being recorded and collected by the NSA, without
consent from the American people. Snowden claimed that NSA surveillance was so
widespread and pervasive that "I, sitting at my desk [could] wiretap
anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the president,
if I had a personal email." The revealed documents also included
information concerning the tracking and monitoring of terrorist threats, which
according to government and military officials damaged
their ability to effectively detect potential terror threats, as many
terrorists changed tactics in order to avoid detection.
After
releasing this information, Snowden flew to Russia and was granted asylum,
where he has remained to this day. The United States government has called for
his extradition on two counts of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 and one
count of theft of government property, while many in the US have called for
Snowden to be pardoned for his actions on the grounds that his actions were
ultimately in the country’s best interest.
Public Reaction
Public
opinion on Snowden has remained mixed in the United States, with some viewing
him as hero and a patriot for uncovering privacy violations, while others view
him as a traitor and a criminal for revealing sensitive information concerning terrorist
operations. Many prominent figures, such as Hillary
Clinton and John
Kerry, called for Snowden to return
and face trial in a court of law. Others, such as Former U.S. Attorney General Eric
Holder and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi
Pillay, have commended Snowden’s actions. Looking at public opinion, the
reaction to Snowden’s actions has remained divided, with roughly 40%
of Americans supporting him in 2013, 39% opposed, and 21% no opinion.
In
terms of impact Snowden’s actions have shaped both legal and political
responses towards NSA surveillance. The court ruling by Judge Richard J. Leon
in Klayman v. Obama found the bulk of the NSA’s collection of phone records "probably
unconstitutional". The USA Freedom Act, passed on June 2 2015, placed limits
on the bulk collection of telecommunication data on U.S. citizens by American
intelligence agencies, a change that has largely been viewed as a consequence
of Snowden's
actions. Going beyond that, the debate concerning mass surveillance in America has shifted from the realm of "Is it real?" to "It's real. What do we do about it?" As Snowden himself said,
Personal Response
Personally, my thoughts
and feelings concerning Snowden’s actions are mixed. Overall I feel he provided
a net positive service in shining a light on the NSA, even considering the fact that there
is an argument to be made that his actions made it more difficult for American
intelligence agencies to detect and respond to potential terror threats. As to
the question of whether or not Snowden should return home to stand trial or be
pardoned, I feel that while Snowden’s actions did break the law, they ultimately
served a greater purpose in exposing unconstitutional government behavior. The
matter of precedence cannot be ignored here; so long as technology continues to
improve and becomes an increasingly bigger part of our lives, digital surveillance
is going to become an even bigger issue than it is today. The whistleblowers of
tomorrow need to know that their actions will protected, and that they will not
be punished for challenging unconstitutional behavior. While there are
certainly justified reasons for Snowden to stand trial, the effect of pardoning
him would send the message that not only does the United States not condone unprovoked
mass surveillance on its citizenry, but also that it supports the efforts of
those who seek to expose those who would.
I do think that it is important that there is transparency and oversight in the government. I don't think that the government should be able to violate citizens' Constitutional rights. The thought of the massive privacy invasions that occur with mass-surveillance are startling. I think that the government should respect people's rights to privacy. I do wonder if Snowden went about bringing up the concerns with invasions of privacy in the correct way, though. I don't know all the procedures for how things work, but I wonder if there was a way Snowden could have brought problems to light without releasing a lot of classified documents to the media.
ReplyDeleteTo definitively say whether or not Snowden is a traitor values public safety on one end and personal privacy on the other. I wonder about the statistics behind the mass surveillance the NSA is using. Did they find many terrorists or stop many terrorist threats/attempts? Did they target/arrest/convict/kill anyone who was a presumed terrorist but was innocent? Why were they monitoring all citizens? Are there "watch lists" for people to "keep an eye on"? What puts a person on that list? What are the benefits of keeping it a secret? Who benefits most from this program, in terms of numbers? I think I would need answers to these questions to come up with a clear decision about Snowden. However, the fact that I can ask these questions is because of Snowden. He was interested in transparency, which is a common theme when talking about privacy, especially in terms of the relationship between government and citizens.
ReplyDeleteSnowden should be prosecuted for his crimes. While he did reveal issues of privacy in the NSA, he released sensitive information and put the country at risk. Those involved in our government's intelligence agency should prioritize safety. If they find an issue with privacy or other methods of conduct in the agency, they could bring that concern to the public, but without releasing the actual information. If anyone in the NSA was able to release information when they were concerned, there would be no security.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Snowden's exposure of the government's extensive surveillance into American lives is more than justifiable. The government was engaging in illegal practices under the pretense of discovering terrorist threats. That being said, I believe that Snowden could have released the information about the government's invasion into the privacy of its citizens without exposing sensitive information concerning the tracking and monitoring of terrorist threats. Of course there could have been overlap, but I believe Snowden could have exposed a sufficient amount of the government's overreach without hurting efforts to track terrorists.
ReplyDeleteA few weeks ago I watched a documentary on Edward Snowden. I think it worked well with this post. My feelings are similar to Christian's. I can't seem to justify either side of this argument. Part of me is grateful that he exposed the unconstitutional behavior of the government because I think that the public has a right to know when their privacy is being invaded. However, Snowden exposed a large portion of possible terrorist threats, which have made it harder to track terrorists. I want to think that there could have been a better way to expose this information but I can't think of a logical way that could happen. At the end of the day I think it comes down to what we value most. Do we as a country care more about our privacy or our public safety?
ReplyDeleteI, too, have mixed feelings on this issue. I agree with Hannah. I have to applaud anyone who keeps the government accountable to the Constitution, but I don't think it was right to expose sensitive information regarding terrorist tracking to another country. I think if Snowden has to be put on trial, representatives from the NSA should also be put on trial for their privacy violations.
ReplyDeleteI think that the last point that you made, Christian, was the most important. We need to protect whistleblowers. Snowden revealed a lot of things that shouldn't be happening, as well as a number of things that probably shouldn't have been revealed. But in so doing, he has given we the people the ability to decide what sorts of information should and should not be shared; taking that power away from the government. As Thomas Jefferson said, "When governments fear the people, there is liberty."
ReplyDeleteI agree with Christian, in that I have mixed feelings about Snowden. It's hard to judge his actions either way because I do not know what I would have done in the same position. If he really was just trying to inform the public about the government then he knew he was risking his life to help the majority and try and change corrupt policies. If he had other intentions like trying to wearing the countries defenses then I don't think that he should be able to break the law and flee without punishment.
ReplyDeleteAs you mentioned in the background section, Snowden's leak had both good and bad results. The main positive result was the American (and international) public learning about all the information gathered and analyzed by the NSA. The negative result was potential terrorist groups learning to better avoid detection by the NSA and other government agencies.
ReplyDeleteFor me, the positives outweigh the negatives. I want to know what information the government is gathering, and what they're using it for. As for the downside, the government will always be in a race with terrorist groups to stay on top of tracking and neutralizing potential threats. So, I don't feel that Snowden's leak made much of a difference there.
This kind of action was appropriate in principle but not in practicality. I think what Snowden did confirmed what most of us believed the government was doing all along. I think in the name of creating transparency with the public he did two disservices to Americans. First, he created mass hysteria and outrage over something the American people are powerless to do anything about. Yes, the people should know that the government is invading their personal lives, but I believe in the current political climate the US government could justify the authorization of any privacy invading measure the NSA deems appropriate to use in the name of defense against terrorism. Second, he jeopardized national security by revealing to terrorists what the NSA was doing so now they can take measures to change their tactics. It defeats the purpose.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand I definitely think the NSA overstepped their bounds when they made it possible for them to access anyone's email and online footprint, and the necessity of this level of invasion should be reviewed and changed. Snowden's reveal gave Americans the chance to call into question the extent of the NSA's invasion. I also think there should be more protection for whistleblowers from retaliation by the agencies they expose.
I guess I'm saying Snowden's actions were good morally, but detrimental in execution.
I think that Alison made some great points. While it is valid and good to protect privacy, it may not have been the best choice in the situation. In my opinion, Snowden should definitely face trial, and was in the wrong with his actions. I believe that a large part of the government's job is to protect the people of our nation, and most of the time that may involve allowing safety to outweigh privacy.
ReplyDeleteI like Christian's statement that Snowden's actions brought about a "net positive" result. The illegal actions he took must be acknowledged but it seems as though this brought greater accountability to the NSA and the government as a whole. Our system was designed to have checks and balances, the largest of which is by the people (provided the intention of democracy, that's not to say anything about real implementation). I think it's easier for Americans to see Snowden as a vigilante. As has been previously stated, his "net positive" doesn't provide him exemption from trial. I'm grateful for the revelations Snowden and other whistleblowers give even if I disagree with the methods at times.
ReplyDelete