This paper examines Edward Snowden's 2013 disclosure of classified NSA surveillance documents and explores the ethical reasoning behind whistleblowing as an act of civil disobedience. Through a first-person perspective, the author considers the moral justification for exposing government programs conducted without public knowledge or approval, arguing that transparency serves democratic accountability and protects individual privacy rights. The paper addresses the tension between legal obligations and ethical responsibility, concluding that revealing information about unconstitutional surveillance can be justified as a form of justice and a mechanism to restore power to citizens.
Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old high school dropout, became widely known over the past year for his role in exposing classified information. Working as a defense contractor with access to some of the nation's most secretive technology, Snowden made the decision to reveal America's extremely controversial surveillance programs to the world. He believed that citizens deserved to know what their government was doing without their consent or knowledge. His astounding revelations marked the beginning of what would become an ongoing series of disclosures. Snowden currently resides in Russia, where he was granted temporary asylum lasting one year, which expired in August of that year. Before leaving the United States, Snowden reportedly compiled approximately 1.7 million classified documents. His current whereabouts remain undisclosed, though it is known that he is in a secure location.
Imagine being placed in Snowden's position one year after the initial disclosures. The immediate question becomes: what comes next? Snowden has expressed concern about the potential damage his actions may have caused to family members who also hold secretive positions within the government. However, setting aside those broader concerns, the core issue remains personal survival and purpose. At this point, the primary objective becomes how to advance the mission as a whistleblower. There is no home to return to, all possible harm to loved ones has already been inflicted, and the conviction in the cause remains unwavering. Therefore, the logical course of action is to continue the work and maintain the momentum of the mission.
Turning back at this stage offers no viable future. Everything that has been sacrificed would be rendered meaningless and buried. Continuing to expose invasive government surveillance programs offers the possibility of achieving meaningful change—change that could preserve liberty and personal privacy for citizens. The decision, then, becomes clear: continue releasing vital information to international media outlets of choice.
The decision to release classified documents is legally classified as espionage. Whether such an action is fair presents a complex ethical question. On one hand, it is arguably unjust to take documents entrusted to one's care and release them without authorization. On the other hand, a compelling counterargument exists: releasing these documents constitutes a form of justice for the people of America. A government operating in secrecy, conducting surveillance through secret courts without public knowledge or approval, fundamentally betrays the democratic contract.
By releasing these documents, the whistleblower levels an unequal playing field. In a true democracy, voting members decide the nation's operations—not the government itself acting unilaterally. Whistleblowers who expose illegal or unconstitutional actions serve the democratic process by providing citizens with honest information they deserve. They restore power to the people by enabling informed decision-making. The act becomes just when it exposes injustice, even if the legal system defines it as criminal. True satisfaction comes only when a sense of liberty and privacy can be restored to all individuals.
In a functioning democracy, transparency serves as a cornerstone of accountability. The right to information enables citizens to understand the actions taken in their name by their government. When programs are established through secret courts and classified procedures, citizens lose their ability to meaningfully participate in governance. They cannot vote on policies they do not know exist. They cannot hold leaders accountable for decisions made in darkness.
"Connection between citizen knowledge and democratic power"
Learning about Edward Snowden and the NSA revelations was not something imposed externally but rather a personal choice to seek knowledge and understanding. The case itself proved deeply compelling—a single individual's capacity to expose injustice and challenge institutional power. Snowden would not be the first whistleblower, nor will he be the last. The broader lesson lies in recognizing that individual rights form part of personal identity and should never be taken lightly or surrendered without conscious resistance.
The study of cases like Snowden's reinforces an essential truth: civil disobedience has historically driven social and political change. Citizens who understand how their government operates, and who recognize when those operations contradict fundamental principles of democracy and privacy, are better equipped to preserve their freedoms. Knowledge of government power and mechanisms becomes not merely academic but essential to maintaining individual liberty in democratic societies.
You’re 89% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.