Now that the uproar provoked by the disclosure of the National Security Agency’s (NSA) surveillance programs has lessened, and the main protagonists, Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald, have had a chance to make the case for their actions, we are in a position to evaluate whether their disclosure and publication of communications intelligence was justified. To this end, this essay starts by clarifying the history, rationale, and efficacy of communications surveillance. Following this I weigh the arguments against surveillance, focusing in particular on the countervailing value of privacy. Next I explain why state secrecy makes it difficult for citizens and lawmakers to assess the balance that officials are striking between security and privacy. Finally, I turn to consider whether the confounding nature of state secrecy justifies Snowden’s and Greenwald’s actions. I conclude that their actions are unjustified because they treat privacy and transparency as trumps. Consequently, their actions embody a moral absolutism that disrespects the norms and procedures central to a constitutional democracy.
To read the full article, click here.
More in this issue
Summer 2015 (29.2) • Feature
The Idea of Universality in the Sustainable Development Goals
Despite an apparent “emerging consensus that the post-2015 agenda should be universal,” there is less agreement over what universality means, and how this demand should ...
Summer 2015 (29.2) • Review
Reason in a Dark Time: Why the Struggle Against Climate Change Failed—and What It Means for Our Future by Dale Jamieson
Jamieson is interested in the real rather than the ideal world. The result is a book that is uncommonly accessible to nonspecialists, and will resonate ...