ICT710 Professional Ethics: Analyzing Snowden Case - US Perspective

This case study delves into the ethical implications of Edward Snowden's leak of classified information from the US National Security Agency (NSA). It analyzes the situation from the perspective of a United States citizen, utilizing the "Doing Ethics" framework and the ACS (Australian Computer Society) Code of Ethics. The analysis covers various aspects, including the facts of the case, the ethical issues involved (such as privacy violations and professional obligations), and the potential solutions. It considers the impact on different stakeholders, including US citizens, the government, and terrorist groups. The study also evaluates Snowden's actions in terms of his moral obligations versus his legal and professional duties, concluding with a discussion of potential remedies and the need for apologies from both Snowden and the US government. Desklib provides students access to similar case studies and solved assignments.

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE AND ETHICS 1
ICT710 PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE AND ETHICS
By
Institution
Date
Course

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE AND ETHICS 2
Executive Summary
Edward Snowden was a former employee of US National Security Agency responsible
for the most significant leak of government information in history. He became a household name
in 2013 after making revelation about the Agency’s activities of spying on private data. In this I
take the position of a United State citizen to analyze the case of Edward from the perspective of
Doing ethics and ASC code of ethics point of view. The report concludes with an analysis
bringing together the two perspectives.

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE AND ETHICS 3
Contents
Executive Summary................................................................................................... 2
List of Abbreviations................................................................................................... 4
Introduction.................................................................................................................... 6
Analysis of the Situation using Doing Ethics...........................................................................7
Q1. What's going on?..................................................................................................... 7
Q2. What are the facts?.................................................................................................. 7
Q3. What are the issues?................................................................................................. 8
Q4. Who is affected?..................................................................................................... 8
Q5. What are the ethical issues and implications?..................................................................9
Q6. What can be done about it?...................................................................................... 10
Q7. What are the options?............................................................................................. 11
Q8. Which option is best - and why?................................................................................11
Analysis of the situation from the point of view of an ICT Professional using the ACS Code of Ethics. 12
The primacy of the public interest................................................................................... 12
Honesty................................................................................................................... 12
Professionalism.......................................................................................................... 12
Competence.............................................................................................................. 13
Enhancement of quality of life........................................................................................ 13
Conclusion................................................................................................................ 13
References............................................................................................................... 14
List of Abbreviations
ICT- Information Communication Technology
IT- Information Technology
NSA- National Security Agency
U.S- United States

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE AND ETHICS 4
ACS - Australian Computer Society
Introduction
Privacy and data security for both individuals and organizations is an area of great
concern in the recent times. Different countries have passed legislation that governs the right to
privacy. Such legislation are meant to guide private citizens and professionals who may have

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE AND ETHICS 5
access to personal information. Apart from legislation, such people are also guided by
professional ethics and codes of conduct.ICT professional is majorly responsible for data
processing and just like any other professionals are required in a morally acceptable way as per
their professional ethics and code of conduct. Ethics refers to the norms that differentiate
between unacceptable and acceptable behavior.ICT ethics is, therefore, is the branch of
knowledge that makes a distinction between acceptable and unacceptable behavior among ICT
professionals. The fact that Edward Snowden worked as a structural analyst means that he had a
moral responsibility to conform to the ICT professional codes that require ICT experts to observe
data security, integrity and Privacy (Branum and Charteris-Black, 2015. National security
Agency is majorly involved in the collection, monitoring, and processing of data and information
both for overseas intelligence and counterintelligence reasons. Due to the crucial nature of the
data that the Agency deals with, data security, integrity and privacy should be highly prioritized.
This report presents an analysis of the ethical issues involved in the leakage of crucial
information from the agency by its former employee Edward Snowden from the perspective of
United States Citizen.
Analysis of the Situation using Doing Ethics
Q1. What's going on?
Back in 2013 while working National Security Agency leaked crucial information
contained in confidential documents to Western Post and the Guardian Reporters in what has
been described as the most significant leak of government information in the US history
(Delmas, 2015). According to him, his action of leaking governments classified was informed by
his moral obligation and desire to inform the public of the existence of government’s

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE AND ETHICS 6
surveillance programs and demonstrate how the US government was willingly and knowingly
breaching individual’s rights to privacy in its surveillance aimed at identifying potential links to
Terrorists. Immediately after this act which drew mixed reactions, Edward fled the country to
seek asylum in Russia. He argued that he had a duty to the public and hand to inform them about
what is done not in favor of them and in their name. For legal experts, this act went against the
tenets of the Espionage Act 1997, according to which, any leakage of Government’s secrets
should be treated as Treason. On other quarters he was viewed as a hero for exposing the
violations of the constitution and civil rights by NSA through its surveillance programs
(Wemple, 2013). There were arguments that his actions were not in good faith and therefore he
ought to be viewed as a traitor who needed to be prosecuted.
Q2. What are the facts?
There are multiple facts present in the case. First, there was actual leakage of stated
documents. This fact is supported by the evidence presented by Edward when in 2013 he
acknowledged that indeed he was responsible for the leaking of information on government
surveillance programs. While speaking to Greenwald in 2013 Snowden stated that he had no
intentions of hiding his identity because he was doing the right thing. He also said that he was
willing to risk everything he had because his conscience did not allow him to watch as the
government destroyed fundamental liberties, internet freedom and privacy for populace around
the globe in secrecy (Greenwald, MacAskill & Poitras, 2013). The second evidence is presented
by the fact that h actually fled the country after the leakage of the documents. In addition, the
ensuing tensions including the tension between the US and the Russian government, which saw
the cancellation of Obama’s state visit to Russia, is also an evidence to support this case. The

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE AND ETHICS 7
cancellation was necessitated by the fact that Russia offered asylum to a man responsible for the
most significant leak of government information in US History (Wu and Chan, 2015).
Q3. What are the issues?
From the Snowden’s case, a number of issues can be identified.First is the secret
surveillance on private on domestic and international information by the US government,
secondly is the leakage of crucial government information by Snowden, acceptance of a job that
he knew would require him to violate some fundamental privacy principles by collecting private
information, fleeing the country instead of confronting the aftermath of his revelations, collection
of information by the Government in secrecy, labeling of Snowden as a criminal by the
Government for his role in the Revelation (Greenwald,2014).
Q4. Who is affected?
The secret surveillance on private data and information being carried out on individuals
was intended to aid the fight against global terrorism through identification of possible links to
terrorist groups. This, therefore, means that there were their groups of people affected. These are
US and citizens from other countries whose data was being spied on, The US Government which
was the major player in the secret surveillance, Global and US terrorist groups which were the
main targets in this surveillance. At the individual level, we have Edward Snowden who was
responsible for making public the secret endeavors of National security Agency where he
worked before fleeing the country (Landau, 2013). Citizens are negatively affected by the fact
that their private information is being spied on. They are also positively affected by the fact that
trough the surveillance program, their security is being upheld.For the Government, it is
negatively affected because it private endeavors have been made known to the public including
the targeted terrorist groups. The terrorist groups can be said to have been affected positively in

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE AND ETHICS 8
that by knowing government’s plans, it is easy for them to change their operation tactics (Lucas,
2014). Finally, for Edward, the impact is both positive and negative. It is positive in that he has
been viewed as hero responsible for revealing violations being carried out by the Security
agency. He is also negatively affected because through his revelation he has been labeled as a
criminal and been forced to flee his home country leaving behind his loved ones (Scheuerman,
2014).
Q5. What are the ethical issues and implications?
There are major ethical issues raised in the case. First, by accessing his colleague’s codes,
he fails to respect their privacy and autonomy. His action does not conform to morally acceptable
professional behavior. He also lies about his reason for seeking leave from his employer and fails
to defend his actions by seeking Asylum in Russia. The implication for this act was the launch of
investigations by the UN on the US government violations of basic human rights through their
surveillance program (Lustgarten, 2015).
His actions can also be interpreted as ethical in that he was acting for the good of the
public. Through his exposition, he wanted to inform the public how their rights were being
violated by the US government. As a professional, he had a moral obligation of acting in
accordance with the interests of the public. He was not ethically culpable because the actions of
the government violated both the constitution and individual’s right to privacy (Lyon, 2014). The
implication for this was Edwards being seen as a Hero by the Public.
As an employee who had sworn allegiance to his employer.It was his moral obligation to
act in the best interest of his employer. By leaking crucial information against the knowledge of
his employer Snowden did not act in good faith and failed to observe his legal obligation as an
employee. But a dilemma arises between protecting the rights of the public and remaining true to

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE AND ETHICS 9
his employer. Through his breach of confidentiality, Edward tarnished the reputation of NSA,
and therefore possible consequences would have been termination of his employment contract,
initiation of criminal charges against him and possible lawsuit damages (Lyon, 2014).
Q6. What can be done about it?
Public apology. Both Snowden and the US Government need to come out and apologize
for their respective roles in the. The government needs to apologize to the citizenry for spying on
their private information without their knowledge. For Jayden, he also needs to apologize to his
employer for not acting in good faith and violating his obligation s an employee. He also needs
to apologize for accepting a job that he was aware would lead him to violate other people’s
privacy (Murata, Adams and Palma,2017). He also needs to apologize for not raising his
concerns with his employer before making public his revelations, and for consequently failing to
take responsibility for his actions.
In addition, the US government should be obligated seek legal warrant or permission, or
to withdraw its surveillance program because it did not act as per the provisions of the
constitution. By spying on private emails and phone calls they failed to uphold individual’s right
to privacy (Crawford, Gray, and Miltner, 2014). It also needs to present its account of why it had
to carry out its surveillance in private and what it intended to achieve by doing it in privacy.
Q7. What are the options?
Withdrawing the private surveillance program
This option would serve to uphold the right of the citizenry to have their right to privacy
upheld. It will also make the Agency live to its ethical obligations. A possible advantage of this
option is that it will remove the threat posed by spying on private information and data (Watts,

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE AND ETHICS 10
2016). On the negative side, it might lead to an escalation of cases of terrorism because of
reduced monitoring of terrorist activities.
Obtaining of a warrant to access private data and information
This option requires that the government does not do it surveillance in privacy. It means
that before it can access any private emails or phone data from private companies it will be
required to obtain a warrant (Walsh and Miller, 2016). The advantage of this is that it will uphold
the rights of the involved parties because they will be included in the operation. It will also
ensure that its efforts to counter terrorism are not affected.
Apology
This option will require that both the National Security Agency and the whistleblower
offer an apology for their respective roles in the case. The advantage of this is that it will
eliminate the frosty relationship between the US Government and Edward Snowden. It will also
resolve the issue of lost trust in the Security Agency. On the negative side, however, this will
only be a temporary solution; it will not solve future breaches.
Q8. Which option is best - and why?
It can be argued that although the approach of the Government was negative, its intention
of regulating Terrorist activities was for the best interest of the public. The best option for this
case would, therefore, be regulation through a warrant of access. I have settled on this because
the US public which I speak for needs to be protected from terrorist activities and at the same
time have their privacy upheld. This is the only option that will guarantee these two outcomes

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE AND ETHICS 11
Analysis of the situation from the point of view of an ICT Professional using the ACS Code
of Ethics
The primacy of the public interest
By making revelations of the violations being carried out by the National security
Agency, Edward acted as per the provisions of this code which requires professionals to put
public above individual, sectional or business interests (Qin, 2015). By spying on private
information the government confirmed to this act and violated it at the same time. It conformed
to the provisions of the act in that its surveillance on terrorism was for the public good. On the
contrary, it violated it by not considering the wishes of the public regarding their action to spy on
private data.
Honesty
By choosing to expose the unlawful intentions of the government, Edward acted with
utmost honesty as per his profession. On the contrary, by choosing to do their surveillance
without the knowledge of the public, the Security Agency acted in violation of this code.
Professionalism
Through his action of creating public awareness, Snowden acted as per the provisions of
this act which require ICT professionals to enhance the respect and integrity of the members of
the society. He put their aspirations and rights above everything else. This act has however been
violated by NSA.

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE AND ETHICS 12
Competence
Through its surveillance the National security Agency was working diligently for the US
government. In the same case, through his revelations, Snowden showed competence in
safeguarding the interests of the public (Tavani and Grodzinsky, 2014).
Enhancement of quality of life
According to this code, professionals are required to ensure that their work does not have
any detrimental impact on the life of the people affected by their work (Verble, 2014). Spying on
people’s private information can have a negative impact on their lives. Therefore by spying on
people’s private information, the Security Agency acted in violation of this code.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the case involving Edward Snowden and the US National security agency
can be analyzed from multiple perspectives. Snowden’s action can be interpreted both positively
and negatively. It can be said that by making public crucial information, he failed to conform to
his professional obligation of remaining true to his employer. It can also be argued that he acted
in good faith and according to his professional code requiring him to prioritize what is good for
the public. For the government, this can also be interpreted positively in that the government was
playing its role of protecting the public from terrorists. The facts are that there was an actual leak
of crucial information touching on the government, Terrorists, and members of the public as per
the publications of the Guardian and Western Post. The main ethical issues revolve around the
right to privacy, observance of the professional code of conduct and obligation to the public.
There were violations and conformity to the ACS Professional code of ethics. By carrying out its
operations in privacy NSA acted in violation of this code, through their private surveillance they