In June, 2013, Edward Snowden leaked top secret documents to the Washington Post and The Guardian which showed that the National Security Agency was conducting massive surveillance operations and was collecting information about U.S. citizens’ communications, emails, texts, and telephone records. This collection of data was authorized originally by President Bush pursuant to provisions of the Patriot Act.
Snowden’s disclosure fired off a national debate over the proper scope of the government’s surveillance powers, information privacy, and national security. Snowden himself has alternately been called a hero, a whistleblower, and a traitor.
On May 7, 2015, a federal court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, ruled that the National Security Agency’s collection of millions of Americans’ phone records violated the Patriot Act because the provision known as Section 215 could not reasonably be interpreted to mean that the collection of U.S. phone records was authorized in such a broad manner. The Court’s opinion reasoned that the Patriot Act gave the government the power to collect information relevant to counterterrorism investigations and not to collect bulk data on U.S. citizens’ phone records without a reasonable connection to a counterterrorism investigation.
On June 1, 2015, three sections of the Patriot Act are due to expire if not reauthorized by Congress. These are the provisions of the Act which have been used to allow the U.S. government to conduct roving wiretaps of suspected terrorists from phone to phone, to collect business records for counterterrorism investigations, and to tap so-called “lone wolf” suspects who are not a member of any known terrorist organization.
Was it ethical for Edward Snowden to reveal classified information?
Under what circumstances, if any, would it be ethical for the U.S. government to collect information about the private communications of its citizens?
#spcethics
Whether or not he thought what the government was doing was unfair, I do not believe Edward Snowden should have released classified information. People may say he did the right thing and he was a hero, but if he released that information, we have to think about what other information he could have released. This time is was a domestic problem, but what if one day he started sharing army secrets and caused a bigger problem on a global scale. That may be thinking a little dramatically, but it is possible.
I think the government collect private information is a little bit harder to pick a side on. I can understand the appeal of wanting to know things (terrorist attacks, school shootings, etc.) before they happen by listening to private conversations, but on the other hand, they are private conversations. I came from Illinois where the Rod Blagojevich scandal happened. I saw how much trouble that caused and I had to think is it really worth it?
I think it was completely ethical for Eric Snowden to reveal that type of classified information. It was only classified because the government was doing something wrong. Tapping phone lines of innocent people is what’s unethical. The government is, one, hiding things from us, and two, basically spying on us. That upsets me. The fact that Snowden had the guts to come up and say something makes me feel like there is humanity left in this world. He did the right thing.
I believe what Snowden did was completely ethical. In my mind this is no different than what Daniel Ellsberg did with the Pentagon Papers in 1971. The only way I would could see anything ethically correct would be if the government knew the people they were wiretapping were known terrorists.
I actually just wrote a paper on this subject last semester. . Americans who participated in a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center have varying opinions about this. According to this research 53% of Americans disapprove of the government collection of data. A person could argue that if you are doing nothing wrong then you have nothing to hide. The question at hand is not whether or not we have something to hide. The governments collection of information went way beyond anti terrorism efforts. What Edward Snowden did was completely ethical. He was functioning on Kohlbergs 5th possibly even sixth stage. HE stood up and spoke out about a issue that he knew was not right regardless of ramifications he might face. Unless there is reason to believe a person or persons are affiliated with terrorists they should not be monitored. I find it very counter productive and costly for the government to surveillance everyday citizens. The U.S. Constitution and its amendments were created to avoid a tyrannic government. A government that begins secretly recording all activities and conversations of its citizens could be up to something. What if anything could the government possibly gain from all this seemingly irrelevant data?
I do not think it was right for Edward Snowden to reveal the classified information to the public. As much as you may think something is wrong, if it is your job and responsibility to keep it classified, you should. Sadly, if the general public knew about everything the government was keeping classified there would be mass panic and people would get hurt. People looked at Snowden as a hero, but if someone is will to share one type of government secret, what would stop them from sharing others. There is a possibility he could share war secrets with other countries. That may be dramatic, but it is a very big possibility.
I can understand the governments desire to listen to conversations to try to learn things, and stop them before they happen. However, I do not think it is right to listen to personal conversations. I come from Illinois and was there when Rod Blagojevich was accused of tapping phones. I saw the problems it caused and thought it would not be worth it. The government may be trying to help, but I do not believe that is the right way to go about it.
One on hand, he breached security and released information that was not intended for public eyes and ears, so yes, he is a whistleblower. On the other hand, to confirm popular speculation and belief, it was revealed that the government had a bulk collection of wiretaps and recordings or scripts of millions of citizens private conversation, whether or not they related to terrorism. I think this is outrageous, many American’s already don’t trust their own government. This action of the government shows American’s that the government either doesn’t exactly trust us, just loves to be in control of everything we do indirectly, or actually wants and feels obligated to protect us. I don’t believe the American government should have access to listen to private conversations of the American citizens.
US Constitution 4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
When you read this it is pretty clear that Edward Snowden made an ethical decision in revealing the information regarding the government’s corrupt classified information. The federal government and in particular the president of the United States went way over their allotted boundaries in the name of the red herring of security to be able to collect information on each and every citizen of the population in which they swore to protect and serve. The collection/recording of multi-media data on anyone from a baby that is playing near their home television to a married couple having an intimate conversation in their bedroom, or a grandparent driving a long distance to see their grandchildren – nothing is sacred anymore. The worst part of this is that it all happened during a breakthrough era of technology with smart phone technology, could you imagine the smiles on the faces of government intelligence gatherers when they found out how easy it would be to collect anything they wanted from anyone they wanted. There is no ethics in the violation of American privacy for the red herring of security and this collection of data is clearly a violation of the United States founding and supreme law of the land. Full disclosure, I was a supporter of the Patriot Act when it came about and learned the hard way what a violation this was; and I was hoping that it would go away when it was up for renewal on the Congressional floor. The sunset on the mandate was renewed and made permanent by our current Congress and the President. I hope the next President and Congress can work together to eliminate this ugly violation of the privacy to American citizens.
His action represents a grave violation of code of conduct and core values for the firm. Still, it is a conflict of Ethic, because he held the phone records the government was working on. Violating this code of Ethic by providing us information about what the government is doing was unethical. I know is unethical from the government too. I don’t say the government wanted to cause harm to us, but we should be the one to provide permission from our own phone for their surveillance. Just think about that, I feel uncomfortable. They said, “people who are not doing anything wrong don’t have anything to fear”. But being watched and recorded, no, we expect the government to honor our privacy and also to protect us from terrorist attacks. Their is always a better way to do it, instead of controlling everyone’s phone.
I think it definitely was ethical for him to reveal what the government is doing if it violates any type of law others would not be able to break. He may have been considered a traitor to the government sector he was working for, but he was looking after the people of the country by informing them that their privacy might be compromised. I do feel that government should have some form of control over communications in a sense that cell phones, email, etc. are the easiest way for terrorists to communicate, however, I think their control went beyond that. I do not like the feeling of being watched or monitored and Edward Snowden was probably trying to stop that by making it known.
I think its ethical because the government’s scope was too wide. The don’t need to focus on everyones conversation’s due to many private things being said thru a text or call. They need to have a smaller focus point on the people that suspected of being involved in terrorism.
It would ethical for the government to listen to that conversation if the person that they are listening to is suspected in being involved in terrorism activities. Because then, that would make it an issue of national security. I could understand that the government that are trying to stop things before they happen but you can’t go over the line and invade someones privacy.
I have mixed feelings on Ed Snowden. If he revealed secrets that put our national security at stake, then he should be locked away. If he was a whistle blower on big government, then I applaud him. I’m not sure if we will ever know the real story. Ed Snowden has had time to craft a beautiful story about what he did. The United States Government has had time to delete emails, wipe servers and, destroy hard drives. I look forward to investigators and journalists doing their jobs and revealing what really happened. If the government was eavesdropping on average Americans, then shame on them for spying on their own people. Don’t we have enough evil bad guys around the world to spy on?
Why would it be unethical for Edward Snowden to reveal information about the government keeping phone records than any other whistleblower? Being part of the government does not put someone above doing what is right. If some other non-government company was keeping your phone records would this be okay, and would you want someone who knew about it to stand up and do what is right? Of course you would. The government does not have the right to do whatever they want just because someone says it is in our best interest.
The only time I feel it would be ethical for the U.S. government to collect information about the private communications about American citizens is if they were under investigation. There should have to be cause for the invasion into American’s personal lives. Allowing this type of invasion under the Patriot Act because of terrorism is just an excuse to gather data on law abiding citizens.
I do agree that the leaking needed to happen so that the American people could be aware of this problem, but I do not think it was ethical to reveal national secrets like that. I think it was very brave of him to do it and he should be considered a hero in time to come, but ethically I do not believe in it.
The only ethical way the government should be allowed to collect information of its citizens is if it endangers national security.
Was it ethical for Edward Snowden to reveal classified information?
I would say it was ethical, based on whose definition of ethical is a question. For me however, I believe there should be some sort of limitation to a persons privacy. Who dictates or defines what actions are deemed necessary for surveillance? If there is no leash on the government as to what they can potential do or not do. What would be the point of amendments, our personal liberties and freedoms. At some point it has to come to bursting point where not everyone employee will agree with what is being down. Hence Edward Snowden felt compelled to let the clueless citizens of the United States know what was really going on. From there a national debate began, with many opposing the surveillance.
Under what circumstances, if any, would it be ethical for the U.S. government to collect information about the private communications of its citizens? I would say that it has to be a documented known for the government to intervene. There is nothing wrong with general surveillance, now within that surveillance if tidbits of information warrants a deeper probe then so be it. However this is something that should be public knowledge meaning if you are knowingly participating in something that is illegal there is a great opportunity for you and those around you to become targets, more time than naught those around an individual that is doing illegal deeds are not completely unaware. If there was a way to state to the general public any activity that triggers these areas would be a person of interest. So at least that way we are in the know. However keep in mind that is not what happened in this case. The government for years were tapping phones, emails, messages, etc. without public consent. Hidden from the eyes of the people that vote these actions into laws. That is unforgivable, many Americans have no issues with this as long as it is presented as such.
I am not sure that he was a hero…. I am leaning toward him being the unethical one, not the U.S. government. I do not keep up with the news as of late, nor did I ever really, but it seems to be the prudent thing to do as a student. That being said, I have no real facts to justify my feeling that the government is not wrong in using the Patriot Act to monitor what they monitor. I do know that 911 was a bad thing, and that in this day and age much damage can be done by a small number of people… I am amazed that more acts of terrorism have not occurred than have, and feel that our government must have something to do with that, i.e. the Patriot act may be doing much more good than we know. Also, to go old school, my Mother used to say about “Big Brother” type things, “If you have nothing to hide, I don’t care if I am being watched.” I really agree with her, but on the other hand my Father was against Big Brother, and I agreed with his feelings of privacy was a freedom he fought for too…. I guess I am torn on the whole Patriot Act thing, but if I have to choose, I choose in favor of our government.
Edward Snowden should not have released that information. From my point of view, I see it as something that is protecting the people. No, I may not be happy about this going on without my knowledge, but this is for my protection. People who are so worried about it may have something to hide. If you have something to hide or worry about, then maybe you are doing something wrong. I feel that them watching or listening to possible terrorists that they have gotten leads on is something that makes me feel safer and able to sleep a little better at night.
I think it was ethical for Edward Snowden to leak classified information to the government, because it can help our government a lot most of all for terrorism. But, listening to others personal conversation is what’s unethical. For me, I understand that the government was just doing their job to prevent something that they do not want to happen, but that doesn’t mean that they can do everything they want and watch people’s text, calls, emails, and other private stuffs. That is not their job anymore, nobody wants to watch or listen on their private conversation.
A part in being an ethical person is reporting something seen as wrong or harmful to individuals. Snowden did release classified information, I believe his action was ethical because abuse of power was at play over citizens’ privacy. The United States should be able to collect information and keep it classified only if it is gathered in an ethical way. Evidence to back suspicion would be ethical for the U.S. to collect private information if danger to the nation is suspected.
I think this problem lays half and half depending on Snowden’s position. If it was Snowden’s job to keep security information classified, I think the ethical thing to do was to follow his job’s rules. If we’re talking about fairness, and his part towards the community as a citizen, I’d say it’s also ethical to reveal information he himself would like to know if he wasn’t the one who knew the news already. I think his choice of spilling the truth or “whistleblowing” relied on how he thought it wasn’t fair for Americans to known the truth about private communication. I wouldn’t say he’s much of a hero but he was brave because I know he knew what the consequences were going to be for him. The consequence of being known as a traitor and maybe the guilt of I know ran through his head before making the choice of telling or not. I don’t think, under any circumstance is it ethical for the US government to collect information about private communication of citizens. I don’t think it should be anyone’s business to ease drop on someone’s calls furthermore, if it’s the government. I think the government would step its boundaries and lose citizens trust like this. How could citizens feel? Perhaps violated, paranoid and unsecure. I think it becomes acceptable for the government to collect private communications within the citizens if they know for a fact it will be a national threat. It’s like with warrants that polices officers attain in order to go into private property like a house. The citizen should be aware of the doing. It’s understandable as to why the government would have the right to collect communication information in the country, a lot of the times there job and worry is to protect the citizens from any harm from outside threat or inclusively inside the country threat.
I don’t think that it was ethical for Snowden to reveal classified information but someone had to be the whistleblower. Snowden knew of the consequences he was going to face when he decided to tell the public. The only time that the government should collect private information if it has to do with terrorism, criminal, sex trafficking or abduction. Anything other than that is none of the government business. When you hear that the government is listening into your conversations it makes you feel like your privacy is being invaded and you are scared to be yourself because anything you say can be taken as you not being patriotic. As far as, Snowden he did the right thing because he did not agree with what was going on even though he did take an oath but he also knew that the American citizens needed to know how much the government was listening to their personal conversations. There should be no reason for the government to go overboard and invade people’s personal conversations. My thing is do they stop after a while or are the waiting on you to say something incriminating? That makes absolutely no sense I like to feel as if I can have a conversation with someone without feeling as if someone is writing down every word that I say. At that point is not about protecting the citizens because they listening to everyday people carrying on with their lives. I understand that there are a lot of bad people out there and they need to focus on them and listen to their conversations. Unfortunately that is not the case they were listening to everyday people going to work or having intimate moments that is really outrageous. Being a whistleblower made Snowden and target but it also showed the American people that the government went too far once again.
When it comes to the matter of whether it was ethical for Edward Snowden to leak the documents, I think there are two trains of thought and in my opinion they are both equally correct. On one hand, you have people saying it was illegal and it was in the governments rights established by congess to spy on its citizens, and on the other hand you have the people who say what he did was absolutely the correct thing to do because the government was spying basically on everyone, and more than just US citizens. The Government was also caught spying on other countries as well. I think the Government does have a right to know a bit about its citizens, such as address name etc, but should not have the right to know every single detail about every citizen. If for some reason the government truly believes a citizen could be considered a terrorist or are involved in terrorist activities, then by all means I think they should have the right to spy and in some cases invade personal space, but the fact that they can and were doing it to basically everyone in my opinion is completely wrong. I personally think Edward Snowden should be considered a hero for coming out the way he did. Though he was extradited and some think of him as a betrayer of his country, I think that while he betrayed some parts of the government, he did the United States citizens a favor, which in my opinion is usually the more ethical thing to do. I think the good of the many over the good of a few applies in this situation. It is a sticky situation but I believe Edward to be in the right and the government to be in the wrong. If I were in his situation I’d like to think I would do the same.
I think it was ethical for Edward Snowden to reveal the classified information, simply because what the government has been doing was totally wrong. They violated the law and especially the Patriot Act based on the rule of the United States federal court. I understand that when people first heard about this they got very mad, because it was government classified information and he should have followed his job’s responsibility and kept it secret. Some people also started to question if Edward Snowden leaked more information about the army or war secrets, but nobody knows or can confirm that. I think most people would agree that no one is above the law, even the president. I think Edward Snowden is a hero and a whistleblower simply because he saw the government violating the law and he did not keep quiet. I hope the people who read and understand what he did also understand that whistleblowers never gain anything from what they do, but they actually lose so much of their personal life, so that the people are aware of what’s wrong and right and who is doing what. I think he is a hero and he did the right thing and for that I respect and appreciate him and what he did, because what is freedom without privacy? On the other hand, I completely understand that no one wants to see another 9/11 or any other terrorist attack. I think the government needs to learn things, so that they prevent terrorist attacks from happening. I also think that people are willing to give up some of their civil rights, so that they can live safely and enjoy their lives, but that doesn’t mean that the government should go ahead and break or violate the law. I would completely understand if there is a group of people that are suspicious or if they are running an investigation on someone that they think is a terrorist, but this time they just took it so far. They need to change the law if most of the people are willing to give up their rights instead of tapping and listening to innocent people’s conversations on the phone.
I believe it is ethical for Edward Snowden to reveal closed information once the government steps over the line and starts collecting information about the private communications of its citizens. The government’s national security agency can reach as much information as they like through their programs. Using a program called metadata, can reveal your phone number, the making and receiving calls, and the lengths of the calls. The government even keeps track of our social media usage such as facebook posts, email, and instant messaging. The excuse of these companies and the government is that the information is only released in response for court order. I that the information is used beyond the courts. Why is it if I research a brand, or product I shortly receive ads on those things? The government controls more than people know.
Now is it ethical for the government to collect information about personal communications. Absolutely not, society would lose their rights and privacy. According to our 4th amendment no illegal search and seizure, so why shouldn’t this be the same for our technology. These actions go against our freedom and liberty, which is what this country was founded upon in the first place.
Any government should not spy on its own citizens, especially in a free society during peacetime. I understand spying as it occurs during a wartime situation where national security is supreme. In peacetime, there is no excuse for a government to spy on its own citizens in the name of security. Spying of government makes people feel insecure, and even angered with the government, because they should be able to trust it with their own dealings. If we give up our freedom in the name of security we will not have liberty, security or freedom.
A part in being an ethical person is reporting something seen as wrong or harmful to individuals. If information is negatively affecting a group of people, more than helping, the whistle needs to be blown. A whistle blower tends to have a strong personality with good ethics. Whistle blowers truly believe in workplace ethics and knowledge is powerful once a person is informed. Snowden did release classified information; I believe his action was ethical because abuse of power was at play over American citizens’ privacy. I think Snowden’s actions were heroic and he was brave to come forward with this sensitive information. The United States should be able to collect information for issues regarding national security and keep it classified only if it is gathered in an ethical way. Listening in on a civilian’s private phone conversation or hacking into an international leader’s phone does not help national security. Evidence to back suspicion would be ethical for the U.S. to collect private information if danger to the nation is suspected.
Only and I mean ONLY should they be in anybody’s information for ONLY serious reasons. All of our information should not be recorded and saved for the government to look at. This act is a violation of our privacy and freedom which is what AMERICA is supposed to be about. I do think that they have the right to look into a suspect’s information in regaurds to a crime or suspicion of a unethical act or plan. I do believe in protection, but I also believe in freedom. Our information and private phone calls, texts, ect.. Should not be floating around. This is scary to know that something as unethical as this is even happening. Also, it threatens the government putting that law on everybody. Now everybody knows that you are listening and they are making sure they don’t say anything incriminating. The privacy of citizens should be valued and the secrecy of the governments investigations should be valued. If they know your watching, they will be on their best behavior. Do what makes sense, give us privacy and focus on important investigations.
I think it was ethical for Edward Snowden to release those secret files from the government. The Government was spying on the public and looking through people’s personal calls and texts. I don’t think it was ethical fro the government to spy on us through our phones especially with no explanation. I think that even though Edward Snowden undermined his authority, letting the public know about the spying was the right thing to do. I believe that the only way it would be ethical for the government to spy on the public is if they suspected American terrorists.
Although Snowden leaked the information because he thought he was doing the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people, it still put people in harm in jeopardy. I believe he should of consulted with someone about the information he came across and how to handle it first before threatening to expose it and then actually exposing/leaking the files.
i feel like him releasing the information was a little unethical but the government was doing something wrong. if the government was not doing anything wrong and he just released secrets then it could be a big ethical concern. i do not think the government has the right to invade any ones privacy for their own use. it should be asked before being allowed too. even though all of imessage on iphones is saved to a server does not mean that the government has the right to go through all of it.