Edward Snowden Case Study: Law, Ethics, and Whistleblowing

This case study examines the Edward Snowden case, focusing on the ethical and legal ramifications of his actions. The report delves into the conflict between individual rights and national security, exploring the values at odds in the case, the harm and benefits of Snowden's leaks, and whether his actions were ethically justified despite being legally prohibited. The analysis includes arguments supporting both Snowden and the government, considering the implications of his actions, particularly regarding national security and the protection of CIA operatives. The study also explores circumstances where whistleblowing might be considered ethically ideal or prohibited, drawing conclusions about the complex interplay of law, ethics, and public good in the context of government surveillance and data leaks. The case study uses the Espionage Act as a reference to evaluate the actions of Snowden.

Case study

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................3
MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................3
1. What values are in conflict in this case? What harm did Snowden cause? What benefits did
his actions bring?.........................................................................................................................3
2. Do you agree that Snowden’s actions were ethically justified even if legally prohibited?
Why or why not? Make an argument by weighing the competing values in this case...............3
3. If you were in Snowden’s position, what would you have done and why?............................4
4. Would you change your position if you knew that Snowden’s leak would lead to a loss of
life among CIA operatives? What about if it would save lives?.................................................4
5. Is there a circumstance in which you think whistle-blowing would be ethically ideal? How
about ethically prohibited?..........................................................................................................4
CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................................4
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................5

INTRODUCTION
The law of espionage is an act which is designed to punished the acts of the interference
with foreign relations, foreign commerce and the neutrality of USA. It punishes the espionage
and enforces other law of criminal of USA and for any other purpose (Furgang, 2018). This
report deals with the case study of Edward Snowden who has released the confidential
government documents to the press. The issue discussed in this report is relating to who is
ethically right, whether government or Edward Snowden.
MAIN BODY
1. What values are in conflict in this case? What harm did Snowden cause? What benefits did his
actions bring?
The individual rights and freedom are major source of conflict. There are two values
which creates dilemma, i.e. morality v. legality. The former is based on opinion and value of a
person and the latter is based on law system. In this case, Edward have violated the Espionage
Act but his action shows the intention to serve the public good.
Edward's leak have damaged the relationship of USA with corporate and foreign
stakeholders and restrained the budget resources and resulted in discontinuation of USA to
collect the intelligence on many targets thereby putting the country at risk.
The benefits drawn from action of Edward is that it brought assurance and the data in
order to support the conspiracy theorist that government is spying on people without the warrant.
His action is ethically correct but legally prohibited (Pozen, 2020).
2. Do you agree that Snowden’s actions were ethically justified even if legally prohibited? Why
or why not? Make an argument by weighing the competing values in this case.
Arguments supporting Edward-
 A person with high morality is mainly compelled to uphold its moral beliefs which may
involve going against the conventional logic thereby violating laws. If an individual feels that its actions are violating the core beliefs then it must resort to go
out of the boundary so that it can uphold its value.
Arguments supporting government-
 Every organisation have the rules and untold beliefs which are to be preserved so by
violating rules, Edward is liable to punishment.

 Organisations have many secrets which are to be kept protected from leaking. The action
of Edward have created risk for the functioning of government and thus must be
punished.
Both the parties have fair arguments as the argument of Edward is justified and the claim
of government is also acceptable to the extend of national security (Boehme, 2017).
3. If you were in Snowden’s position, what would you have done and why?
If I would have been at the position of Edward, I would have done the same as Edward
have pledged to swear to defend and support the constitution of USA against all the enemies be it
domestic or foreign. Edward has been swear to bear the true faith to the same so conducting such
activities in order to protect the public interest is justified ethically correct.
4. Would you change your position if you knew that Snowden’s leak would lead to a loss of life
among CIA operatives? What about if it would save lives?
When an individual is at privileged access, it realises that there are many things which are
actually abuse. Edward would have leaked the information by way of whistle blower and kept its
name confidential so that it can protect the lives of other CIA operators. If the leak would have
lead to loss of life, Edward may act as secret whistle blower by upholding its ethics and morals
and on other side saving the lives of CIA operatives.
5. Is there a circumstance in which you think whistle-blowing would be ethically ideal? How
about ethically prohibited?
According to standard theory, whistle blowing is morally needed when it is required at
all. People has the moral obligation in order to prevent the harm to others. It helps in seeking the
positive change and protect others from the risk. On other hand, there are instances when the
whistle-blowing is ethically prohibited such as when there is threat to national security (Olesen,
2019).
CONCLUSION
It is concluded form above report that the case study deals with the ethical and lawful
consequences of the whistle-blowing whereby a CIO administrator leaks the confidential data in
public to preserve public interest but on other side, it legally violates Espionage Act.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Boehme, G., 2017. Edward Snowden: Heroic whistleblower or traitorous spy?. Cavendish
Square Publishing, LLC.
Furgang, A., 2018. Edward Snowden: Whistleblower in Exile. Enslow Publishing, LLC.
Olesen, T., 2019. The politics of whistleblowing in digitalized societies. Politics &
Society. 47(2). pp.277-297.
Pozen, D.E., 2020. CODA: Edward Snowden, National Security Whistleblowing, and Civil
Disobedience. In Whistleblowing Nation (pp. 327-338). Columbia University Press.