Edward Snowden Case Study: Whistleblowing, Ethics, and Law

This case study examines the actions of Edward Snowden, who leaked confidential government documents about surveillance programs. The analysis delves into the ethical considerations of his whistleblowing, exploring whether his actions were justified by the potential to save lives and expose government overreach, even if they violated the Espionage Act. The study considers the circumstances under which whistleblowing is ethically ideal or prohibited, weighing the value of public good against legal and contractual obligations. It examines the arguments of both those who consider Snowden a traitor and those who view him as a hero, evaluating the impact of his actions on privacy, national security, and the role of the government. References from various sources are included to support the arguments presented in the case study.

Case Study – Edward
Snowden: Traitor or
Hero?

Table of Contents
1. 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? (500 words)............................3
2. Is there a circumstance in which you think whistle blowing would be ethically ideal?How
about ethically prohibited?..........................................................................................................4
References .......................................................................................................................................5

1. 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? (500 words)
I think I would change my position. If I would know that this change is going to save lives of
people, I will favour the decision given by Snowden. I would change my position if I knew that
the leak would lead to loss of life among CIA operatives. The reason behind this is that it is not
ethically right to make lives of people in danger. Also, if it would save lives, in my view, I would
do what Snowden has done because, it’s not ethically wrong in saving the live (Hellegren,
2017). As per the company’s norms and regulations, it is not ethical to leak information outside
the organisation. But if it is concerning about public benefit, then I think it is fine to open up in
front of media. At last of all, the most important thing is to evaluate public benefit. This results
in leaking or harming the information at the same time. Self-interest as well as self-righteousness
are the main factors that can cloud the view of leaker for harm. I think the leakage of information
has helped to avoid risk of terrorism. This has helped the US government to be more cautious
and help many people from getting hurt. Leaks are always being a part of society and it is seen
that there are many competing sources consisting of websites and blogs that can be used for
managing the information. It was a good plan to reveal the information as this has helped to save
lives of many people. This is done for the tight and well thought of the structure (Johnson, Bent,
and Dade, 2020). There is need for managing the consequence to each and every leak. In context
of Edward Snowden, it was clear that leakage of information would have saved life of different
people. The classified information that he has shared with journalists was the exposure of
privacy. He was proved as a whistle blower. This person intended that the plan of providing
information to media was right decision. According to me, ethics are not above a person’s life. I
think it is fine if he has told everything to media. If he would not have done this, then there can
be occurrence of major accident. Snowden is a grateful man and he should be appreciated for
what he has done. According to me, Snowden's situation was considerable as he was focusing
upon lives of people. It was his own responsibility to go against every person in the company.
He knew that his job was in danger then also he tried to save lives. This is a sign of being a good
and responsible citizen of the country.

2. Is there a circumstance in which you think whistle blowing would be ethically ideal?How
about ethically prohibited?
Yes, there would be many circumstances which suggested that whistle-blowing would be
ethically ideal. If the job I am doing will not satisfy me, then I will object that to my higher
authority regarding the consciousnesses which I face. As whistle-blowing is usually done by
employee of the organisation where he finds that ethical rules and regulation are broken by
knowing or not knowing and it is danger for the company (Avila, Harrison, and Richter, 2018).
When any employee is working in a company then it is a part of group where decisions are made
and executed. In the context of this case study, Snowden is the whistle-blower who has leaked
the information to the press and media. He has helped in saving a lot of lives and has done great
for his country. But according to the government of UK, he has done crime by leaking all data
and confidential information to the media. They have committed it as a crime. But according to
me, if I face something wring in a company then I will definitely tell it to higher authority. It is
said that whistle-blower is the disclosure of immoral,. Illegal practises which are being used in a
company under the control of employers to those persons which can may able to effect the
action. Whistle blowing is considers to be the unethical behaviour for the company.
However, if a person thinks that some thinks is not performing good in the company then
they can tell to public and customers about that which can be considers to as ethical behaviour.
Hence, in this case of Snowden, he is leaking the government documents to press or media which
can save so many lives so this considerer to be a ethical behaviour of him. If I was at his position
then I would also have done this. If any of the business is implementing the policy of whistle-
blowing then they are to be considered as strong in moral autonomy (Carnahan, Hao, and Yan,
2019). Whistle-blowers hope and believe that their speaking will out to achieve and is the
correction of what they perceive as an organisational wrongdoing. Id whistle-blowing will be
ethically prohibited then there could be no one who can raise voice on wrong doing in the
company. Then there would be more conflicts among people. If whistle blowing will be ethically
prohibited then company will always do wrong then there would be no one to tell about their
activities. On the other hand if ethical prohibited then, company employees will make sure that
there would be no one to thinks about the wrong issues and employees who are working in a
company as usual. In context of this case study, if Snowden was not there then the function of
the company will affect the overall country and no one will save the lives of people.

References
Avila, R., Harrison, S. and Richter, A., 2018. Women, whistleblowing, WikiLeaks: A
conversation. OR Books.
Carnahan, D., Hao, Q. and Yan, X., 2019. Framing methodology: A critical review. Oxford
Research Encyclopedia of Politics.
Hellegren, Z.I., 2017. A history of crypto-discourse: Encryption as a site of struggles to define
internet freedom. Internet Histories, 1(4), pp.285-311.
Johnson, B.G., Bent, L. and Dade, C., 2020. An Ethic of Advocacy: Metajournalistic Discourse
on the Practice of Leaks and Whistleblowing from Valerie Plame to the Trump
Administration. Journal of Media Ethics, 35(1), pp.2-16.
Lycarião, D. and dos Santos, M.A., 2017. Bridging semantic and social network analyses: the
case of the hashtag# precisamosfalarsobreaborto (we need to talk about abortion) on
Twitter. Information, Communication & Society, 20(3), pp.368-385.