Security Vs. Privacy : Should Edward Snowden Be Pardoned For Leaking

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?

The Patriot Act was hastily passed just a month later October and it severely limited the privacy of Americans and gave unprecedented power to the government and private agencies to track innocent Americans, turning regular citizens into suspects.5 In addition, the great technological evolution and emerged of social media that occurred round the same time, and shortly thereafter, created the perfect storm for the emergence of the largely unregulated surveillance society that we live in today.6 The result is digitization of people’s personal and professional lives so that every single digital trace that people leave can be identified, stored, and aggregated to constitute a composite sketch of ourselves and its only getting worse. In 2008, passed the FISA Amendments Act, which expands the government’s authority to monitor Americans’ international communications, in addition to domestic communications.7 In short, after 9/11 the U.S is left with a national surveillance state, in which “the proliferation of government technology and bureaucracies that are able to acquire vast and detailed amounts of digital information about individuals with minimal or no judicial supervision and often in complete secrecy,” giving the government and corporations with access to the data that the government compiles the ability to single

Edward Snowden isn’t the only person who believes what the U.S. had done was wrong, but also many American leaders, and other nations around the world. The United States had not only been collecting data on their own citizens, but also of other countries leaders and citizens. The release of these documents had strained political relationships between the U.S. and other allied nations. The knowledge and truth other leaders and nations had gained

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.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 devastated the United States people. As they mourned over the deaths caused by the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York City, Americans began looking for a way to prevent anything like this from happening again. Consequently, an act known as the USA PATRIOT act was passed by Congress. This act opened up many doors previously closed to law enforcement and intelligence agencies. With these new opportunities available to them, they have the capability to obtain information about specific individuals believed to be involved in terrorist activities and organizations. Very beneficial to the United States, the Patriot Act provides easier access for different government law enforcement agencies to share information, allows government agencies investigative tools that non-terrorist crimes already use, and helps to dismantle the terrorist financial network. Although many people claim that the Patriot Act violates the United States Constitution and the freedoms of the American people, it contains many elaborate safeguards to fight against such abuse.

After the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001 the United States became a very different place. This drastic change was caused by the initial emotional reactions that American citizens, as well as government leaders had towards the tragic event. The government, in an effort to assure that these events never happen again passed the USA PATRIOT Act, which is an acronym that stands for the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. The major goal of this act is to combat terrorism by giving the government more leeway in what areas they are allowed to use their surveillance tools and also to what circumstances these tools can be used. The major issue that arise with this act are the fact that many of the act can be seen as unconstitutional.

The threat of terrorism creates a fear that allows government agencies to subvert the United States Constitution and common morals out of the threat that they will be unable to combat terrorism without performing these rights violations. After the attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. on September 11th, 2001, the United States Congress passed the USA PATRIOT (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act (“NSA Surveillance Programs”). This act essentially gives a blank check of domestic and foreign rights violations to the federal government, specifically the National Security Agency, as long as the violation is done in the name of fighting terrorism. Reports came out numerous times over the next decade, specifically December 2005, May 2006, and March 2012, detailing how the National Security Agency was able to stretch its powers, even beyond this liberal and controversial bill, to surveil its citizens’ private phone conversations with neither warrants nor provable suspicion of a crime taking or about to take place (“NSA Surveillance Programs”). The former of these reports was by the New York Times, which had known for nearly a year about this program but

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.

The PATRIOT Act abuses the privacy of American citizens. It has denied the nationals of this nation of a portion of the essential rights that were guaranteed to them in the Constitution. The rights that the PATRIOT Act puts into jeopardy are intrinsic and it is the responsibility to secure our inherent rights. The USA PATRIOT Act is an Act of Congress that was marked into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. Its title is a ten-letter acronym (USA PATRIOT) that stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. After the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon the United States has created relief controls

Ever since the cloudy day on September 11, 2001, when two planes crashed into the twin towers, the United States government has been cracking down on security. The Patriot Act, passed October 26, 2001, was an effort by the United States government to ‘crack down’ on terrorism. The act removed several legal barriers that blocked or restricted law enforcement, intelligence, and defense agencies from storing data about possible terrorist threats and collaborating together to respond to them. The Patriot Act was supposed to make United States citizens feel more secure but in reality it had the opposite effect. Around 2013, when confidential NSA documents were leaked it was found that several government agencies had used the guise of the Patriot Act to monitor millions of United States citizens. In fact, it was found out by several civil liberties groups that the Patriot Act applies to more than just terrorist acts. For example, Title II of the Patriot Act allows government agencies to tap telephone lines and permits the interception of messages that may be relevant to a criminal investigation. Further, the act allows authorities to provide access to any tangible thing(books, records, papers, etc). Today, March 2, 2016, fifteen years after the government was given permission to spy on most of its citizens, the government is trying to spy on all Apple iPhones through the use of a code cracking software.

Essentially, the Patriot Act gave the government and the National Security Administration (NSA) more power to tap American citizens phones, and to monitor cellular and internet data without probable cause in the name of preventing terrorism.

The Patriot Act was signed into law on October 26, 2001 by President George W. Bush. The act expanded the surveillance capability of both domestic law enforcement and international intelligence agencies. When this law was passed it was under the assumption “to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes” (The USA Patriot). The Patriot Act has given the government the power to spy on the average American through monitoring phone records and calls, gaining banking and credit information, and even track a person’s internet activity. This is an unbelievable amount of power intelligence agencies wield all under the umbrella of national security. This power has gone too far, is unjustified, unconstitutional, and infringes on the privacy of the

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.

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,”

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