Edward Snowden had one of the most significant document leaks in history. He released hundred of documents that detail the excessive surveillance by the NSA. This is something I’ve heard about since the moment it happened, but until reading about it now do I realize what was the deepness of the surveillance problem. I was still under the impression that the NSA was only monitoring people they thought were engaging in illegal activities or were potential threats to the security of the nation, but they were pretty much monitoring everyone.
Besides that, the US risked its international relations by over-stepping its reach and spying even on private conversations of global leaders. The effect of this was seen through the strong response from foreign leaders. The Brazilian president cancelled a planned state visit. Other leaders called president Obama directly to address the issue. They knew this could very easily could be discovered, but they jeopardized US’s international standing by doing this. What they achieved through all this is also questionable.
I believe Snowden had well intentions. What I’m not sure is whether his approach was the correct one. Handing all the papers off to journalists was a bit irresponsible and truly jeopardizes the security of the state. There was an incident where the New York Times uploaded a pdf and failed to properly coverup the identity of the NSA agent who wrote the document as well as the network targeted for surveillance. In an interview with John Oliver Snowden said that incidents are bound to happen and that it’s more important for the general public to address this issue.
While this was a bit irresponsible, it is also important to consider that a single individual can’t properly go over 1000 documents and properly cover up sensitive data. He needed help to achieve his goals. I believe what he did was outside morality. Morality is not prepared to judge someone like Snowden. He operated from what he believed was the correct thing to do, but whether that was the absolute moral thing to do is hard to tell. Regardless, I believe what Snowden did had to be done. While surrounding it in satire, John Oliver made a point in his interview with Snowden to signal the impact of breaching privacy. There are things we send that we only want to receiver to see. There is a concept of privacy that is precious. There is no sense of intimacy when there are people watching. How is this different from “big brother is watching”, the motto of communist Russia that the US fought so hard against?
Thanks to what Snowden did, we have better forms of encryption today. We have a better sense of privacy and security. This increases risk a bit, since officials can no longer monitor everything, but as John Oliver said, we can’t have both perfect security and perfect privacy. It’s a contradiction. However, the changes that have occurred in legislation in response show that this is what had to be done. While the US can no longer spy on its enemies as easily as before, the opposite is also true. Enemies can no longer spy on the US in the same way. We all gain something from better privacy.