Whistleblowers Compared to Edward Snowden

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 responsible for exposing these government secrets. Many call this an act of treason, but it can also be seen as an act of civil disobedience. The most peaceful nature of his rebellion, and the unconstitutional behavior that it consequentially exposed qualify his actions. Although it was wrong of him to escape the consequences of his actions by fleeing to Hong Kong, his actions were ultimately beneficial to the American public. Being spied upon by the government is a direct violation of our right to privacy, and hiding it from the public is wrong as well. From John Cassidy’s article, “Why Edward Snowden is a hero,” he quotes Ellsberg; “‘This wholesale invasion of Americans and foreign citizens’ privacy does not contribute to our security; it puts in danger the very liberties we are trying to protect.’” The act of bringing these facts to light is an act of trying to preserve our liberty, and that’s what civil disobedience is all about.

The French Revolution is arguably the bloodiest period in French history, with men such as Maximilien Robespierre leading the country into a situation of state sponsored terror. Originally being quite a liberal thinker inspired by the works of Rousseau, Robespierre quickly gained a reputation for being a radical throughout the course of the Revolution, especially during the Terror. Early on terror was justified as a means to root out foreign and domestic enemies of the Revolution, however; once the foreign threat had been taken care of it became increasingly difficult for Robespierre to rationalize his use of terror to bring about a supposed Republic of Virtue. In his speech, the “Justification of the use of Terror” which he presented to

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.

Robespierre believed that there could not be virtue without terror. Violence is the only way to achieve virtue. "If the driving force of popular government in peacetime is virtue, that of popular government during a revolution is both virtue and terror: virtue, without which terror is

It has been more than seventy years since the release of George Orwell’s 1984, a novel that imparts a lesson on the consequences of government overreach. However, today that novel reads like an exposé of government surveillance. Privacy and national security are two ideas competing for value on a balance; if one is more highly valued, the other carries less weight. Government desire to bolster national security by spying on its own citizens-- even the law abiding ones-- is what leads to the inverse relationship between civil liberties and security. In times of a perceived threat to the nation, national security becomes highly prized and people lose privacy. One case is terrorist attacks. 9/11 caused an understandable kneejerk reaction in Americans to bolster protection. Some of the the measures taken were observable, like greater security at airports, but others attempted to increase national security in a more intrusive way. Privacy should be more highly valued than national security, and America has reached a point where that is no longer true.

Edward Snowden’s disclosures about the National Intelligence Agency surveillance extension is some of the most comprehensive news in recent history. It has incited a ferocious debate over national security and information privacy. As the U.S government deliberates various reform proposals, arguments continue on whether Snowden is a hero or a traitor (Simcox, 2015).

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.

Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency (N.S.A) subcontractor turned whistle-blower is nothing short of a hero. His controversial decision to release information detailing the highly illegal ‘data mining’ practices of the N.S.A have caused shockwaves throughout the world and have raised important questions concerning how much the government actually monitors its people without their consent or knowledge. Comparable to Mark Felt in the Watergate scandals, Daniel Ellsberg with the Pentagon Papers, Edward Snowden joins the rank of infamous whistleblowers who gave up their jobs, livelihood, and forever will live under scrutiny of the public all in the service to the American people. Edward Snowden released information detailing the

“The consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival” (Orwell). The world today is full of many dangers domestic and abroad. It has become a routine in the news to report on the daily mass shooting or update with the war on terror. We live in a world where being worried is justified; however, we should not give up our constitutional rights in the face of fear. The NSA’s dragnet surveillance programs, such as PRISM, are both ineffective and are surpassed by less questionable national security programs. The FISA court's’ approval of NSA actions are not only illegal, but exist as an embarrassing formality. Surveillance is a necessary

Privacy has endured throughout human history as the pillar upon which our authentic nature rests. Yet, in an age darkened by the looming shadow of terrorism, another force threatens to dominate the skyline and obscure the light of liberty behind promises of safety and security: government surveillance. As an employee of the NSA, Edward Snowden broke his vow of secrecy to inform the public of our government’s furtive surveillance acts, but does this render him traitorous? To answer this, we must first ask ourselves, traitorous to whom? When the very institution established to protect our fundamental liberties intrudes on our privacy from behind a veil of secrecy, should such informed individuals resign from judicious autonomy and

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

“You can't have 100% security and then also have 100% privacy and zero inconvenience. Society had to make choices” said President Obama. It has become a given in society that it is on the government’s agenda to procure its nation’s safety in exchange of the privacy or freedom of the people. Edward Snowden, a paladin of social justice, has now come to light with outstanding facts as for what specifically it is that the National Security Agency (NSA) is able and willing to do for the country’s sake. Snowden, a 29-year-old NSA ex-employee, worked from Hawaii on his computer support for the recollection of data in bulk from the whole nation . Under the name of Verax, which means truth teller in Latin, he

Place yourself in the safety and comfort of your home, under the belief that “everyone has the right to the use and enjoyment of his property” (Department of International Law), searching, emailing, and talking about things that may be frowned upon by others. Now imagine the raw feelings of fear and deception that would wash over you upon seeing Edward Snowden’s statement on how “the U.S. government is destroying privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they 're secretly building.” You may initially feel betrayed, but Obama formally announced that the NSA acts solely in the name of safety right? Have we begun to sacrifice the freedom and

Edward Snowden is a United States citizen and former employee of the National Security Agency (NSA). Snowden leaked information about the NSA to the media in 2013 and is now in Russia where he was recently granted three years of asylum. The NSA uses cryptology and others forms of information gathering to enable various networks to make advantageous decisions for the Nation and our allies under all circumstances. The NSA operates undetected by civilians, and uses global monitoring so broadly defined that it has allowed for unscrupulous behavior that was witnessed by contracted employee, Edward Snowden. Snowden believed that as the public gained knowledge of the illegal intelligence gathering by the government of domestic citizens, and abroad, he would gain protection from the public. Snowden did receive protection from people including powerful lawyers, journalists, and privacy advocates. Analysis of the Edward Snowden case