Edward Snowden is a former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) employee who indirectly released confidential information to the public concerning the extent to which our government not only monitors the actions of foreign individuals, but also the extent to which it monitors its citizens. These include being able to access phone records and information that one sends to other people in electronic form. There are two sides to the Snowden case, both of whom are antagonistic to each other. On one hand many regard Snowden as a traitor who revealed his own country’s national secrets; on the other hand, however, he is seen as a hero whistle-blower who elucidated on our government’s violation of the public trust.
The fundamental argument and issue behind the Snowden case is one which has been debated since antiquity, well before the establishment of our country; it is the issue of the social contract. According to John Locke, the 17th century English philosopher, government has no intrinsic power but obtains it from it citizens, the people. It is the citizens of a country who are endowed by natural rights and it is the consent to sacrifice some of these rights that enable laws to have power to protect and guarantee the freedom of the rights that are still retained. This concept is known as the social contract—the balance between the rights which we possess and the power that the government holds.
From my perspective, both sides have valid points to their arguments. There is something to be said for Snowden being a hero. The laws are something that we have given consent to in order for them have authority. However, legislation has become so abstract and so complicated that even those who are in charge of creating legislation do not have the full knowledge on the laws which they themselves create. Therefore, if they, the creators, do not fully understand the legislation, then how can this capacity be expected from ordinary citizens? As a consequence, without the capacity to content and give these laws power, there is no way that they should be allowed—for how can one give full content to something that one does not understand? Unfortunately, in this day and age governments have evolved into entities that has so much power that they are able to do surreptitiously act without the knowledge and backing of the people—something that the Snowden case heavily illuminates. Moreover, there is always the argument of how far is the government able to go; if they are able to ignore the laws and act if they believe themselves to be justified, then to what extent can will the laws, and our rights, be violated in the future? In a way the Snowden case is a legislative battle that helps to reign in and helps to restrict the government from becoming too out of hand.
Having said this, however, I also believe in instances in which the government should violate the rights of the people in order to guarantee and safeguard our liberties. If we could have prevented the twin towers catastrophe from occurring and its aftermath, then I am sure that few would describe the current degree of monitoring by the government to be extensive. Yet even if such a prevention were to occur, it would be hard for such legislation to be enacted which enabled the government to violate the rights of its citizens. Regardless of your stance in the issue the fact is Snowden’s action has incited the public to debate on this topic. It has allowed the citizens of the nation to be able to decide the degree to which they want to give up certain rights for a higher degree of safety—it has given a choice to the people something that is rare with the current size of the government.
While I didn't use any external articles, I did watch the movies along with the John Oliver interview. I also checked out Snowden's Ask me anything post on reddit. Here is the link: https://www.reddit.com/comments/4cvhi0/i_am_edward_snowden_ask_me_anything/
John Locke may have something to say about this, but there is a much more recent history here, going back to Watergate and the Church Committee's report in 1978. Here's a brief background and then a link to provide more information.
ReplyDeleteOn January 27, 1975, the Senate, in the wake of the Watergate scandal and alarmed by recent allegations of intelligence service misdeeds, voted to establish an 11-member investigating body along the lines of the recently concluded Watergate Committee.
The resulting body was chaired by Senator Frank Church (D-Idaho). Additional members of the Church Committee, or more formally the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities included its Vice-Chairman, John Tower (R-TX), Walter Mondale (D-MN) and prominent conservative, Barry Goldwater (R-AZ). Over nine months, the committee interviewed over 800 officials, held 250 executive and 21 public hearings, probing widespread intelligence abuses by the CIA, FBI and NSA.
In reaction to the Church Committee reports pushing for oversight, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978, which established a secret FISA court responsible for issuing warrants for domestic wiretapping activity. The FISA court consists of seven judges appointed by the Chief Justice and who serve for seven years.
Leap forward to December 2005, when the New York Times reported that President Bush had authorized the NSA to eavesdrop on American phone calls and emails without obtaining a warrant from the FISA court. That revelation was met with consternation, and investigations, by many in and outside of the political realm.
In August 2007, a temporary amendment to FISA passed called the Protect America Act, which as President Bush explains, modernizes FISA by "accounting for changes in technology and restoring the statute to its original focus on appropriate protections for the rights of persons in the United States - and not foreign targets located in foreign lands." The battle is not over, But the battle's not over — civil libertarians on both the left and right accused the Democratic Congress of giving in easily on wiretapping and several Members of Congress have vowed to readdress the issue. It was controversial then, but not much happened, as the
revelations of Snowden show.
Here's a link where you can watch the PBS show and learn more about The Curch Committee and FISA.
I bring this up only to provide a context; not to be critical of what you wrote. With that said, I think the claim that this is about security and privacy is a false one, but I'm willing to hear what you and others have to say.