$60 - NON NEGOITABLE - 10 PAGES - DUE IN 7 DAYS

The Ethics of Whistle-Blowing: A Case Study of the NSA and Snowden

The right to privacy is an emotive aspect of public life across American society. The significance of the right gained added importance in the face of the government crackdown on terrorism. The so-called War on Terror that began in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States included government collection of massive information relating to its citizens and abroad. The global surveillance adopted by U.S security agents permeated the private sphere of American citizens raising a critical question on government overreach in the fight against terrorism. While the essence of privacy was not in question, the debate has often surrounded the ethics of collecting private data on millions of Americans without their knowledge. The 2013 global surveillance disclosures by Edward Snowden, a former employee of the NSA raised fundamental ethical questions on the role of whistle blowing and its implications for the whistle blower. Equally important is the conflicting view on the morality of Snowden’s action given the security implications for disclosing such a large amount of information touching on the country’s security. Although the United States Constitution does not expressly state the right to privacy, the Fourth Amendment alludes to this fact stating:

“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" [CITE]

Whistle blowing refers to the decision to call attention to misconduct within an organization by its current or former employee. The Government Accountability Project elaborates on the different ways an employee can whistle-blow. An employee may choose to report the wrong doing directly to state authorities. Alternatively, employees may report misconduct to a superior or refuse to participate in the unethical behavior. Snowden discovered that the Unites States government was actively engaged in activities that grossly violated ethical and legal provisions. The former employee decided to leak the massive information to the media creating unprecedented domestic and diplomatic crisis that threatened to injure the standing of the country in the international community. Although the U.S government termed the action of Snowden as an illegality and opened criminal proceedings against him, many have termed the act as appropriate because it reflected the interests of the public.

The government procedure on reporting unethical behavior requires employees to first report suspected misconduct to their superiors. The government accused Snowden of failing to follow the laid-down procedures for reporting the illegal mining of private citizen’s personal data. However, Snowden disputes the claims asserting that his attempts to raise the issue internally in the organization was thwarted more than ten times before he decided to leak the information to the public media.

Whistle blowing in the public sector faces unique challenges. The likelihood of disclosure constituting a crime is real. It creates an ethical dilemma particularly given the severity of government actions on civil liberties. Faced with limited prospect that the vice was going to stop in the foreseeable future, leaking the information should be considered acceptable. However, the appropriateness of the decision is based on the assumption that the whistle blower had exhausted all available internal mechanisms for addressing the problem before going public. The government, by virtue of it being the custodian of law and ethical conduct is supposed to be open and promote ethical behavior more than any other body. The disclosure of an organization’s unethical behavior into the public domain is particularly important. According to Cho and Song (2015), the decision to disclose highly sensitive information that compromises the national security should be weighed against potential benefits. Where there is no imminent danger to the public, the most appropriate decision to take is to follow international process for reporting potential unethical behavior. This process entails following the organization’s laid down procedure for addressing cases of unethical behavior.

Once internal conflict resolution mechanisms are exhausted, an individual is at liberty to air frustrations with the public through congressional committees or through the press. Crucial to this determination is the evaluation of the whistleblowers security. Whistle blowing carries inherent danger to the whistle blower. While many countries have elaborate laws on whistle blower protection, the threat to the informer’s life and their families cannot be underestimated. Snowden faced unique threats given the formidable resources the government was willing to engage to punish him for supposedly breaking the law. Before whistle blowing, Snowden was on a well-paying job estimated at $200,000. The loss of earnings had direct impact on his family and his own future prospects. It was essential that the decision to whistle blow be made in light of potential impact of that decision.

References

Cho, Y. J., & Song, H. J. (2015). Determinants of whistleblowing within government agencies. Public Personnel Management, 44(4), 450-472.

Renan, D. (2016). The Fourth Amendment as administrative governance. Stan. L. Rev., 68, 1039.