The NSA scandal broke in 2013, when details about NSA’s surveillance programs were published by the Guardian. The story was soon picked up by news agencies around the world, causing outrage on a global scale. The man behind the scandal is Edward Snowden, a former employee of the CIA, contractor for NSA, and most notably a whistleblower.
According to the timeline of the scandal published by the Guardian, in May 2013 Snowden gained access to highly classified files through his work at defense contractor Booze Allen Hamilton. He then left the United States for Hong Kong, where he met with journalists and through them leaked information about NSA’s surveillance programs at home and abroad. The BBC article Edward Snowden: Leaks that exposed US spy programme summarized the leaks: Initial reports centered on a NSA surveillance program known as Prism, which allowed NSA to “tap directly into the servers of nine internet firms, including Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, to track online communications”. As the scandal widened, more surveillance programs became known. On June 21 2013 the Guardian reported the UK spy agency was taping fiber-optic cables and sharing the information with NSA. The situation worsened with further reports on phone taping involving many of Washington’s allies including the German Chancellor Angela Merkel and many other EU leaders. It was also revealed that the NSA was collecting and storing SMS messages, almost 200 million of them per day, across the globe.
Whistleblowing at such a massive scale is bound to have profound social and political consequences. It has been almost three years since the initial reports, and it is interesting to observe the impact of Snowden’s action. According to Snowden, his goal was to invoke a public outrage concerning the illegal surveillance programs. However, in a post 911 American society people are equally concerned about counter-terrorism efforts as they do about their privacy. As a result, the public opinion is still evenly divided. Instead, what the scandal primarily achieved is, as put by the ex-CIA chief Michael Hayden, “the erosion of confidence in the ability of the United States to do anything discreetly or keep anything secret.” At abroad, people are much less understanding of NSA’s need for surveillance. With many allegations accusing NSA of spying on foreign leaders, the world became more cautious about US intelligence activities. Many European countries passed laws requiring stricter regulation on surveillance operations and collaboration with US intelligence agency.
The most unexpected and the most prominent effect of the scandal can be seen in the technical industry. Companies started paying attention to data encryption in order to protect their customers’ privacy. According to the Washington post article Edward Snowden’s impact, “The Snowden stories raised enough concerns about U.S. government spying — especially concerns outside the U.S., where opposition to U.S. spying is more universal — that it became a smart business decision for companies with a global customer base to increase the use of encryption.” The scandal has led to debates on whether it is ethical to allow government “backdoors” in their products.
It is hard to label Snowden as a hero or a traitor. What he did echoes the fundamental American value of privacy and free speech while also jeopardized public security. As for the morality of his action, it seems that his intention is a moral and ethical one, but he fail to consider the broader consequences of his actions. As commented by Hayden, “he [Snowden] believes he is acting for a higher good — an almost romantic attachment to the merits of absolute transparency — and he seems indifferent to the legitimacy of any claims of national security.” It seems that Snowden’s black-and-white sense of justice makes him unsuitable in the intelligence community where there are many grey areas. And the discussion of possible prosecution seems more appropriate after his extradition from Russia.
My view of the government, national security, encryption, and technology in general has not changed. I think all sides involved in this scandal were trying to perform their duties. Maybe a continuing debate would be beneficial and could lead to a dynamic balance between the counter-terrorism effort and the protection of privacy.
xuanyilicse40175 