Edward Snowden and the NSA Leaks
Part 1: Objective Summary On June 6th of 2013 The Guardian reported on a classified U.S. surveillance network called PRISM. This information was given to them by former Booz Allen Hamilton employee Edward Snowden. Snowden obtained this information by secretly gathering files and documents regarding the program and others while working for the government contracted Booz Allen Hamilton in Hawaii.
On May 20 2013, Snowden had traveled to Hong Kong to meet with Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, journalists for The Guardian, in order to turn over NSA documents revealing various U.S. surveillance programs and tactics that are used on their citizens and on citizens in other countries. Snowden had also given
…show more content…
Ruth Marcus said in her entry, “Snowden knowingly gave information to a foreign source that put our country at risk, and that is unforgivable”. At another newspaper in the US, The Seattle Times Mark Weisbrot holds the complete opposite view to Marcus, saying, like Toobin, that Snowden is a hero that should be praised, not slandered. He makes his case on the basis that the data collected by the NSA had “over exceeded the power given to it” and that what the government was doing was “not acceptable.” Weisbrot believes in an individual’s right to say what is wrong with the country, and supports Snowden and whistleblowers for doing so. This issue also does not have party specific views as majority of the conflicts that arise in the United States do. There are democrats for Snowden as well as against him, the same views are split among republicans. In a speech at the University Of Connecticut Hillary Clinton of the Democratic Party talked about how she felt that the information Snowden released was helping terrorist organizations. (Roller)
Part 3: An argument in response
Edward Snowden has gone on record and said that what he intended to do was to help the American public realize a wrong that had been done against them. What he failed to realize ahead of time were the awful consequences that would arise as a result of his
Edward Snowden and the PRISM leak: On June 6, 2013, The Guardian broke the news that the U.S. National Security
Claiming its actions are related to the War on Terror, the NSA has insisted that these programs are legal, have not been abused, and are vital to preventing terror attacks. The leaked programs have not only created domestic furor, but also put U.S. diplomatic relations with its allies in jeopardy. With the overthrow of the Ukrainian government creating tension between the U.S. and Russia, Snowden's asylum in Russia is a political and diplomatic blow to U.S. prestige and moral authority. And with the threat of further Snowden leaks looming, future U.S. intelligence operations may hinge on the willingness of Washington to alter its policies.
On June 6, 2013 the details of the National Security Agency’s (NSA) surveillance activities where given by Edward Snowden to the public; raising concerns of Americans about their privacy. Edward Snowden, a former employee of the NSA, gave the alarming details of surveillance programs in his interview on how the NSA accesses our emails, calls, internet activity, and anything else that is related to technology. In this system of surveillance the NSA can gather data from companies and tap the cables that are vital for moving around information from technological devices, they may also use their relationships with technology companies to get emails or information straight from U.S. servers. (Cawley, Kiss, Boyd, Ball) Nevertheless, the claim is
After reading the article, "Why Edward Snowden is a Hero," by John Cassidy, it brings a new
While working for the NSA, Snowden became aware of their extensive trespasses against the privacy of U.S. and international citizens alike. Upon considering the extent of these trespasses, Snowden felt that it was his moral duty, as he stated, “to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them”. His provided information showed the use of Internet surveillance programs, and the evaluation of phone records in the form of “metadata”. Many argue that Snowden’s leaking of information has hindered our government’s ability to intercept terrorist plots, by informing the world of the NSA’s capabilities, and therefore allowing terrorist groups to plot attacks beyond the reach of U.S. surveillance. In light of this, Snowden’s leak has indeed made us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, but does this justify the NSA’s chosen use of power? Since Snowden’s revelations, it has become evident that the NSA consistently uses their surveillance abilities to unjustified ends. One function of the NSA’s electronic data analysis is to find targets for the military’s Joint Special Operations Command to strike with lethal drone attacks. Many innocent civilians in middle-eastern countries have lost their lives as a result of this military sect’s reliance on the NSA’s data, rather than human correspondence. According to an anonymous former drone-operator, the victims of these attacks “might have been terrorists, or they could have been
Critics of Edward Snowden label him a traitor and a coward. They condemn him for irreparably harming government security operations and setting of a worldwide chain of events that weakened the American position on the world stage. While America now has blight on its records due to the leaks, the topic that should be addressed is should the whistle-blower, the man who uncovered and exposed the questionable and wrong activities, be blamed or should those who allowed the illegal and immoral activities be held accountable for what they started. Edward Snowden had the justification and conviction to do the correct thing and present the incriminating evidence straight to the public. When one takes in consideration everything that Snowden has lost because of his decision, there was little gain for him to make the immoral activities public. Snowden’s crime is breaching the trust of his government contract to expose egregious monitoring by the government on the American public. In an interview conducted by the Washington Post, Snowden speaks out about his goal in releasing the files: “All I wanted was for the public to be able to have a say in how they are governed,”
Edward Snowden. This is a name that will be in the history books for ages. He will be branded a traitor or a whistleblower depending on where you look. Many Americans feel that Edward Snowden is a traitor who sold the United States’ secrets aiming to harm the nation. Others believe that he was simply a citizen of the United States who exercised his right to expose the government for their unconstitutional actions. It is important to not only know the two sides to the argument of friend or foe, but to also know the facts as well. My goal in this paper is to present the facts without bias and to adequately portray the two sides of the argument.
In early 2013 a man by the name of Edward Joseph Snowden began leaking classified National Security Agency (NSA) documents to media outlets, which in turn ended up in public ears. These documents, mainly involving intelligence Snowden acquired while working as an NSA contractor, are mostly related to global surveillance programs run by the NSA. This has raised multiple ethical issues ranging from national security, information privacy and the ethics behind whistleblowing in general. The reach and impact of these leaks have gone global and have put in question the very government that protects us as well as the extent of the public’s rights on privacy. Various foreign
After September 11th, Americans looked to the government for protection and reassurance. However, they did not expect to find out thirteen years later that the government did this by using technology to spy on Americans, as well as other countries. George W. Bush began the policy shortly after the terrorist attack and Barack Obama continued it. There have been many confrontations over the years about the extent of the N.S.A.’s spying; however, the most recent whistle-blower, Edward Snowden, leaked information that caused much upset throughout America (EFF). It has also brought many people to question: is he a hero or a traitor?
Edward Snowden is considered by many to be a criminal, but there are others who firmly believe that Edward Snowden is a patriot, and rightfully so Edward Snowden is a hero to the American people and many abroad. The United States government has the responsibility to serve, protect and aid the American people, but sometimes the government and some of its classified documents every now and then get published and criticized. Edward Snowden had worked for multiple government agencies such as the CIA, NSA and prior to that an American contractor as a computer professional, and during his tenure at the NSA he had realized the grotesque and unprofessional ethics and violations of privacy against the American people, and so many innocent citizens
Ever since the American public was made aware of the United States government’s surveillance policies, it has been a hotly debated issue across the nation. In 2013, it was revealed that the NSA had, for some time, been collecting data on American citizens, in terms of everything from their Internet history to their phone records. When the story broke, it was a huge talking point, not only across the country, but also throughout the world. The man who introduced Americans to this idea was Edward Snowden.
The ethical issues involving Edward Snowden’s case encompass key issues of morality. Snowden’s actions are to be interpreted as right or wrong based on the circumstances and personal reasoning. The preceding interpretation is this case in every ethical quandary. Once these issues are assimilated to the affected parties we begin to understand the larger picture of morality and ethical reasoning in Snowden’s case.
Data used in the article retrieved from the Washington Times, Snowden has been called more of a traitor instead of the whistle-blower. The author has written different articles before, and is reliable. Information used in the article does seem a little biased towards the author’s personal point of view
Edward Snowden broke the agreement he marked after working for the NSA when he chose to release the private data to people in general. There is an incredible worry among political authorities that the data spilled could be utilized by foes of the United states and furthermore uncovering legislative methodology exceeds the advantages since it prompts an absence of trust between the administration and its natives. [4] The way he released the data was questionable. -
What does he have to gain? Some of Snowden’s enemies say that he did this for personal benefit but Snowden says that if he did not want to gain something out of this leak of information he could have leaked the info to Russia if he really wanted to but Snowden is not trying to hurt America. With Snowden’s level of access he could have shut down the NSA temporarily if he wanted to hurt the agency. But he didn’t because he believes that the NSA still does things that need to be done and that are good for the public. There are just certain issues that need to be addressed when it comes to the NSA’s recent policies and programs (). Snowden says that he doesn’t matter at all when it comes to the issues that he has presented to the US public. What matters is that these issues needed to be addressed because most of these policies were not decided by public elected officials, they were decided by judges he were not elected by the public but in secret. This is the FISA court. They decide on what is lawful and what is not without the public’s consent