GS4 PYQ (Mains Answer Writing): Ethics Case Study - 6 | UPSC Mains Answer Writing: Practice PDF Download

Edward Snowden, a computer expert and former CIA administrator, released confidential Government documents to the press about the existence of Government surveillance programmes. According to many legal experts and the US Government, his action violated the Espionage act of 1971, which identified the leak of State secret as an act of treason. Yet, despite the fact that he broke the law, Snowden argued that he had a moral obligation to act. He gave a justification for his “whistle blowing” by stating that he had a duty “to inform the public as to that which is done in there name and that which is done against them.”
According to Snowden, the Government’s violation of privacy had to be exposed regardless of legality since more substantive issues of social action and public morality were involved here. Many agreed with Snowden. Few argued that he broke the law and compromised national security, for which he should be held accountable. 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. (UPSC MAINS GS4)

• Edward Snowden could be understood in two paradigms- one is about his loyalty to the office, compliance to the laws of the country, professional code of conduct and patriotism. The second paradigm is about the cause of larger public interest, the issue of their privacy, freedom, justice and fairness. 
• Edward in the earlier part of life fitted well into the first paradigm. In the later half of his life he decided to act more like a free citizen, to be an individual with concern for moral and ethical values and to be a whistleblower for larger public interest and an international citizen for a just and fair global order. Comparing these two paradigms and deciding as to which paradigms of the two is better and a superior choice will depend on the basis of our vale judgment. 
• In the first instance, while he was part of the government establishment and CIA, he must have been bound by secrecy acts e.g., Espionage Act 1971 and professional code of conduct, which he did not comply. 
• So the critics appear to be right when they allege him for breach of confidentiality and loyalty on one hand and treason against the state on the other hand. Governance is a different ball game where surveillance and monitoring public or outside state and not state players becomes indispensable for national interest. Here national interest takes the central place while ethical and moral concerns take the back seat. 
• It is clear the way diplomacy and intelligence are conducted. Privacy of people is violated and. Freedom is encroached in the name of public interest and national interest. An officer in the government is required to maintain confidentiality and loyalty to the office in which Snowden failed. 
• When Snowden leaked documents pertaining to government covert surveillance of public and consequent breach of privacy on ethical grounds as his moral duty, it may be treated as a paradigms shift in an individual’s life due may be to the voice of conscience and a sense of justice and fairness as exemplified by his argument “as which is done in their name and which is done against them”. On moral and ethical principles it seems right to act as a whistleblower to bring out truth in order to make a just and fair system for the people and a just and fair global order. 
• Breach of privacy of people is also an encroachment on their freedom and dignity. I think that what Snowden did might have violated the law, but it upheld the cause of freedom and dignity of the people and justice and fairness. When state becomes overarching and starts peeping into people’s lives and tries to hideously monitor and regulate people’s lives, it makes the state autocratic, anti-people and brazen and unscrupulous. The states will overpower public will. It is undemocratic. 
• Therefore, I think what Snowden did was morally correct and was in favour of freedom, democracy, justice and fairness. Such occasions are rare in history and those who speak against unfair practices of state and violate state’s dictates for a truly great cause, they become Socrates or Gandhi. But doing such acts for populism, problem mongering and personal gains would deserve placing such a person on the lowest rung of the hell. 
• Any punishment for such person would not match his guilt, yet such a person should be punished in harshest manner. Since the two paradigms are different and correct in their own rights, it is not easy to decide which of them is better. But Snowden may be faulted legally, he is morally correct!