April Littrell
Citizenfour
Edward Snowden broke the law. He broke the ethical code of his employer, government contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, as well as the National Security Agency, for whom he was working under contract. He leaked secrets that cost him his personal freedom to assure the freedom of the general public. Were his actions justified? Though Snowden was disloyal to his company, his ultimate duty was to serve the citizens of the United States, which he did successfully by informing on issues of privacy. Accountability is key here. The federal government is accountable to the state government, the state to local governments, and all ultimately to the people of the United States. While this concept is not quite so linear in actuality, it is clear to see that citizens rest on the bottom of the breakdown—or perhaps the middle of the web—meaning everyone is accountable to the public in some form or another. Political Scientist Donald F. Kettl brings up an important point, which is “Who is to watch the watchers? […] There is no absolute standard for accountability, and a large number of hands tussle over what it ought to look like.”1 While no absolute standard exists, representative democracy does cater to we the people and it would be impossible to make an informed vote if information were being withheld, as in the case of Snowden. Snowden’s actions were completely justified and indeed professionally ethical due to his ultimate goal of serving the public and watching the watchers by keeping the triad of governmental branches in check.
Professors Cox, Buck, and Morgan quote Verne B. Lewis, asserting that “The ideal of democracy is that the desires of the people, no matter how they are arrived at or how unwise they may be, should control the actions of the government.”2 How can the desires of the people be wholly expressed with the fear of violated privacy? At minute 00:38:09 of the documentary Citizenfour, Snowden covers himself with a blanket to block the view of potentially snooping image-capture devices.3 Journalist Glenn Greenwald remarks he has been bitten by the paranoia bug and is disturbed by the capabilities of modern surveillance technologies. In the Hong Kong hotel room, the people being filmed acknowledged that everything said between them would eventually become public record—but what of everyone else? What of protest planners, business leaders, ideological dissenters? Even the kid updating her Instagram in the local coffee shop deserves privacy.
What is truly immoral about the events leading up to the Snowden leaks are the lies that were told on public record. If Snowden did wrong, his actions were a trifle compared to the wrongdoing and corruption within the federal government. At minute 00:10:11, a clip shows Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper testifying before Congress on March 12, 2013, regarding the NSA’s data collection practices. When asked by Senator Ron Wyden, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” Clapper responded, “No, sir.” Upon further questioning, he added, “Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly.”4 Clapper later stated that he gave the least untruthful answer he could, as the bulk collection of metadata (rather than call content) was classified at the time. Again, it is impossible to make an informed decision to vote or deliberate otherwise without being properly informed. Perjury is a basic immoral principle which undermines one’s ability to assess a situation and act accordingly. Kettl brings up the Rule of Law5 which holds every member of society accountable under a mutually agreed upon code of regulations—this assures that the government does not overpower the people. Through his leaks, Snowden exposed Clapper’s lie, doing so with a modesty that framed his actions as morally permissible rather than an act of martyrdom.
Snowden had plenty of options when it came to whistleblowing. He could have chosen the dissension tactics of exit, voice, disloyalty, or a combination thereof. Since he remained an employee of Booz Allen but shared confidential information in a public forum, it is quite obvious that a combination of voice and disloyalty had been achieved, the result of which being leaks.6 He did not take the confidential files and email them out to people or send them to a news outlet or recite them on television or a personal blog. Instead, he used encrypted communications and secure storage to transfer classified documents, later meeting with Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras in Hong Kong to facilitate responsible disclosure. He left the discernment of presentation to the journalists while keeping his personal story to a minimum to avoid bias. If there is a respectful way to break the law, he has accomplished it—though he did not see himself as a criminal, but as a whistleblower acting in the public interest. Being a government contractor does not mean he is any less obligated than a public servant to protect the privacy of the public. A counterargument may be that Snowden was unethical because he failed to uphold his company’s code of ethics. Perhaps it is not he who failed the company but rather the company who has failed him. At minute 01:07:53, Snowden explains that typical NSA employees have access to TS, SI, TK, or Gamma classified documents (or a combination thereof). As a contractor, he held a Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) clearance, a designation within the broader Top Secret category. Over 1.4 million individuals held Top Secret clearance as of 2012, though fewer had SCI access. This included viewing classified intelligence reports and live drone feeds across the globe. While not unique to him, this level of access raised concerns about the extent of classified information available to government contractors compared to full-time NSA employees. This disparity in access challenges the very framework of governmental accountability.
While Snowden did break the law and violate Booz Allen’s ethical code, his actions were justified in pursuit of the greater good. He risked his personal freedom to inform the world about the unjust covert actions of the US federal government and, as a result, spurred a global conversation on privacy issues in regards to advancing technology and terrorism. While some government documents must be kept private for national security, those concerning governmental processes that directly affect citizens should be open to public debate and revision. Bureaucrats, as well as elected officials, are morally fallible. This is why it is imperative that the handful of policymakers, executive actors, and judicial authorities be checked by outside forces—and what better force than a contractor who is being paid and granted express security access to the dirty truth.
Written for Dr. Michele Deegan’s Public Administration at Muhlenberg College.
Donald F. Kettl, Politics of the Administrative Process, 6th ed. (Los Angeles: CQ Press, 2015), 8.↩︎
Raymond W. Cox III, Susan J. Buck, and Betty N. Morgan, Public Administration in Theory and Practice (Boston: Longman, 2011).↩︎
Citizenfour, directed by Laura Poitras (Praxis Films, 2014), featuring Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald. iTunes Movie.↩︎
Citizenfour, directed by Laura Poitras (Praxis Films, 2014), featuring Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald. iTunes Movie.↩︎
Donald F. Kettl, Politics of the Administrative Process, 6th ed. (Los Angeles: CQ Press, 2015), 8.↩︎
Albert O. Hirschman, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970), 50.↩︎