Introduction Edward Snowden's act of whistleblowing exposes the inherent tension between legality and morality, echoing the ethical dilemmas faced by whistleblowers throughout history.
This case highlights the central ethical dilemma of security versus privacy, similar to the Pegasus spyware controversy in India, where the government's surveillance practices were questioned, and the utilitarian principle of maximizing overall well-being can be applied. The introduction uses the "Highlighting Ethical Dimensions" and "Historical or Contemporary Examples" approach.

Stakeholder Identification Edward Snowden, US Government, CIA, Public/Citizens, Media, International Community.

Answers

1. Were Snowden’s actions ethically justified?

   • Yes, Snowden's actions can be ethically justified, despite being legally prohibited. His decision stemmed from a crisis of conscience, prioritizing the moral righteousness of transparency and the public's right to know over his legal duty to maintain secrecy. This aligns with the natural rights theory, which emphasizes inherent rights, including the right to information.

2. Arguments supporting ethical justification:

   • Common good approach: Snowden's actions served the common good by revealing the government's overreach, potentially preventing further violations of privacy. This action prioritized public welfare over private gain (his job and security).
   • Transparency and accountability: Whistleblowing, even when legally problematic, promotes transparency and holds powerful institutions accountable. This upholds the rule of law in a broader sense by ensuring that even the government remains subject to ethical scrutiny.
   • Utilitarian approach: Arguably, Snowden's actions maximized overall happiness by empowering citizens with information and fostering a more informed public discourse. This act demonstrates a utilitarian approach as it considered the greater good for a greater number of people.

3. Arguments against ethical justification:

   • Disrespect for the rule of land: Snowden's actions violated the Espionage Act, demonstrating a disregard for established legal procedures. This raises the dilemma of law vs. morality.
   • Potential harm to national security: Leaking classified information could compromise national security, potentially endangering lives and undermining intelligence operations. This highlights the conflict between public welfare and the potential negative consequences of the leak.
   • Violation of contractual obligations: Snowden violated his employment agreement and the trust placed in him by the CIA. This demonstrates a conflict of interest and a breach of duty.

4. Weighing Competing Values:

   • While national security is crucial, it shouldn't come at the cost of fundamental rights like privacy. Snowden’s actions, though legally questionable, initiated a vital public debate about the balance between security and freedom. This relates to the social contract theory, where individuals surrender some freedoms for societal order, but not at the expense of basic rights.
   • The potential harm caused by the leaks needs to be weighed against the long-term harm of unchecked government surveillance. This necessitates a careful consideration of means vs. ends, acknowledging that even morally justifiable actions can have negative consequences.

5. Course of Action:

   • Accountability and Immediate Action: A thorough, independent investigation into the extent of government surveillance programs is necessary, ensuring transparency and accountability. This addresses the ethical issue of violation of rights. Similar to the inquiries initiated after data breaches like the Cambridge Analytica scandal, an impartial body should assess the impact of the surveillance.
   • Tech Solutions: Implement robust data encryption and anonymization techniques to protect citizen privacy while allowing for legitimate security operations. This upholds the right to privacy as per Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), drawing parallels with India's push for data localization and stronger data protection laws.
   • Legislative Solutions: Amend the Espionage Act to include provisions for whistleblowing in cases involving significant ethical violations and public interest. This addresses the dilemma of duty vs. morality, providing legal avenues for individuals facing a crisis of conscience. The Whistleblower Protection Act, 2014 in India can serve as a model.
   • Public Awareness: Educate the public about digital privacy rights and the importance of government oversight. This fosters informed public discourse, aligning with the virtue ethics emphasis on cultivating ethical awareness. Initiatives like Digital India's focus on digital literacy can be expanded to include privacy education.

Conclusion The Snowden case provides crucial ethical learnings about the balance between security, privacy, and the role of whistleblowers in a democratic society. The positive impact of whistleblowing is evident in cases like the Satyam scandal in India, where whistleblowers exposed corporate fraud, protecting shareholder interests and upholding corporate governance. An ethical way forward involves strengthening legal frameworks for whistleblowing, promoting government transparency, and fostering a culture of ethical decision-making within institutions. This ensures that individuals facing similar dilemmas can act with moral righteousness without fear of reprisal, while also safeguarding national security and upholding the rule of law.