Whistleblowers: Hero or Villain
- Dawn Andersen
- Apr 28, 2019
- 7 min read
Updated: Sep 8, 2023
The bystander effect is a social physiological phenomenon in which individuals are less likely to offer help to a victim when other people are present.
Several factors contribute to the bystander effect, including ambiguity, group cohesiveness, and diffusion of responsibility that reinforces mutual denial of a situation’s severity. If this were universally true, no one would speak out against pernicious acts.
Those who choose to follow their moral compass sometimes are left with difficult decisions like risking their own safety and well being for the benefit of a greater cause.
This leads us to believe there exist scenarios in which a morally valued decision takes precedence over any potential negative effects; legal, social, or physical.
In the modern era, we have been unknowingly caught in a net of constant surveillance, conducted by both private and governmental institutions.
With the advent of the internet, surveillance is now conducted virtually rather than physically, allowing them to lurk in the shadows constantly and quietly compiling information on the public.
This method of collection was relatively unknown to the populous until secret government documents were illegally leaked by contract computer programmer Edward Snowden.
He put his well being on the line for what he felt was vital information for the people to have, and in doing so unveiled a massive danger to the public. In this sense, despite breaking laws, he acted for the good of the world.
Before we get into the controversy that surrounds him, let us develop some context on who Edward Snowden was before in order to better gauge the importance and weight of his actions.
Born in North Carolina Edward Snowden was the son of two public servants: his father, an officer in the Coast Guard, his mother a clerk for the U.S. District Court. His family had a distinct history of working and serving the United States.
After trying his hand at joining the military, a venture cut short by a tragic accident involving the breaking of both of his legs, Snowden found his home in the government as a tech expert. A self titled “wizard”, he began his new job at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Despite not having the most impressive academic resumé, he was hired on the basis of his immense technical expertise. He rose quickly through the ranks, rising from an entry level IT position to being the head of network security for US government operations at the US Mission in Geneva.
He resigned from his position at the CIA due to their testing of his moral standing. For example, during his stint at Geneva when the CIA attempted to obtain confidential information from a Swiss banker.
An undercover agent befriended the banker got him drunk and encouraged him to drive, he was pulled over and received a DUI. The undercover agent offered help in a variety of ways, but only if the banker cooperated with the CIA in giving them the information they were seeking.
“They destroyed the target’s life for something that didn’t even work out, and simply walked away (Greenwald p.42).”
Snowden was bothered by this and many other examples of how the US government used devious ploys to capture whatever they were seeking. Due to these reasons he resigned from the CIA in 2009, however this is not the last time Snowden would end up in bed with the US government.
He began working for Dell, and was contracted to the National Security Agency (NSA). This job came with many benefits, he lived a relatively comfy life in Hawaii with his long-term girlfriend with an annual salary of $200,000.
While working for the NSA, Snowden encountered many more equally upsetting moral dilemmas. Snowden said,
“I have been in the darkest corners of the government and what they fear is light (Greenwald p.32).”
He was disturbed about the lengths the government would go and the laws they would violate in order to obtain information.
Snowden was privy to thousands of documents and secret orders to be executed and approved by a secretive court Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA).
These documents contain all the information the public knows about operations including PRISM which is a FISA approved legal edict allowing the NSA to collect private internet communications from some of the largest US internet companies including Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Facebook, Apple, and AOL.
One set of documents titled BOUNDLESS INFORMANT explains it is a subpoena for all Verizon phone records they deem to have probable cause, or any record in which a US citizen calls a foreign counterpart.
The NSA hid millions of felonies behind the guise of defense against “threats to national security” and the supposed “worthlessness” of metadata. The opposite is true, with metadata playing a key part in analyzing one’s digital footprint.
Snowden had reached a breaking point. He could no longer stand idly by and risk being a victim of the bystander effect. He had realized that the issues he was facing were seriously detrimental to society and much larger than himself.
He displayed cincinnatus-esque character when he decided to steal thousands of top secret documents, his intent to inform the masses of the malevolent power overreach of the NSA.
Abandoning his plush life to live a life of fear, uncertainty, and solitude. Snowden said
“If we can’t understand the policies and programmes of our government, we cannot grant our consent in regulating them (Greenwald 56).”
Snowden blew the lid off of the NSA and its far reaching branches.
He sparked a debate on the harmfulness of overly pervasive domestic surveillance, and returned the power of knowledge to the people about the NSA’s actions.
Without his courage and sacrifice, we would have been left as sheep with wool over our eyes, blind and naïve to the impingements of our rights taking place every day.
Still, today the morality of the actions of whistleblowers like Edward Snowden are held in contention. Despite the undeniable evidence that what the NSA was doing was against the desires of the very people it is designed to protect, many see Snowden’s actions as treason and a betrayal of the trust of the United States Government.
Joel Melstad, a spokesman for the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, says Snowden’s leaks
“...have put U.S. personnel or facilities at risk around the world, damaged intelligence collection efforts, exposed tools to amass intelligence, destabilized U.S. partnerships abroad and exposed U.S. intelligence operations, capabilities, and priorities (Masslive Associated Press, 2018).”
These are grave accusations, and give credence to the claims that Snowden’s actions were closer to treason than actions made in the pursuit of the greater good.
Before we investigate further the real world impacts and implications of Snowden’s actions and attempt to moralize his position as a whistleblower, whether successfully or not, allow us now to briefly provide a contemporary information leaker whose actions parallel but differ in key ways from Snowden’s.
The Australian computer programmer Julian Assange, founder of the media organization WikiLeaks, poses an interesting parallel to Snowden.
Wikileaks is a site dedicated to leaking classified information, serving as a central hub through which sensitive documents can be revealed to the public in a secure way.
Unlike Snowden, who personally stole all of the files he would later share with the public, Assange and his Wikileaks platform receive insights, files, and leaks from sources around the globe.
They purport to be a non-partisan neutral organization, with only the proliferation of information being their goal. Some of the leaks include conspiring with former US military analyst Chelsea Manning in hacking a Pentagon computer system.
Due to their nonpartisan approach to information, over their history WikiLeaks has on multiple occasions released non-relevant yet sensitive private records, like medical records and other personal information on ordinary citizens.
Assange and WikiLeaks choose to compromise the safety of persons who just happen to be mentioned in classified government documents.
“A Saudi man accused of homosexuality—a “crime” punishable by death in Saudi Arabia—told the AP. ‘They [WikiLeaks] published everything: my phone, address, name, details.’ (Hertsgaard 2016).”
Emma Ellis wrote in a wired article “lately the timing of and tone surrounding their leaks have felt a little off, and in cases like the DNC [Democratic National Committee] leak, more than a little biased. At times, they haven't looked so much like a group speaking truth to power as an alt-right subreddit (Ellis, 2016).”
Assange has proven time and time again that he uses WikiLeaks not to just inform the public, but to further his own political agenda and views. His organization releases information in accordance with happenings in the political sphere, and the leaks themselves correlate with important political events.
By picking and choosing when and what to publish with a selection process not at all neutral, overtime he and his website have betrayed the very morals they were founded upon.
In addition, Assange has been exposed countless times for accepting sensitive information from opposing countries intelligence agencies and leaking it on their behalf, jeopardizing the security of entire nations at will. He is motivated by political agendas rather than what is beneficial to society at large.
What makes these leaks different and separates Assange from Snowden is the harmful effects that came with them. Snowden holds true to his Cincinnatus character and chooses not to release sensitive documents that harm people or put their safety at risk, even when valuable information is intertwined in the files.
He is less agendized than Assange withholding thousands of highly classified and dangerous documents refusing to release them. Protecting certain individuals mentioned in the documents.
This is in stark contrast to Assange and his sheer negligence or lack of care in the releasing of documents about a gay Muslim man. Whistleblowers take on a role, with that comes responsibility and some choose different paths to handling it.
No person can be deemed saints or villains, Gandhi was anti-black, and Pablo Picasso a known misogynist. Snowden and Assange are both whistleblowers using contrasting creeds and goals in their journalistic endeavors, but both are vital stimulating and initiating current debates in secretive government procedures.
Humans cannot be deemed complete villains or saints. Whistleblowers sacrifice their lives and many comforts we take for granted to inform the public of these leaks. The revelations can be made with the best intentions like Snowden or may harm innocent lives like Assange.
Yet they are both altruists revealing information, sometimes being framed facts but still evidence of a truth. Simply put whistleblowers help extend the reach for honesty and transparency when we are not capable.
To condemn, vilify, or punish someone for informing the public of maleficent acts is disagreeable and debatable it is a case by case situation and should be treated as so.
We live in a world where truthfulness is seen as a noble characteristic and the systems that organize and facilitate our societies need to be upheld to some truth and transparency.
Edward Snowden is a hero and still continues his fight for clemency, we as a people should support those we democratically decide are just.
Sources
Comments