Whatever else one might say concerning the legality, morality, and prudence of his actions, Edward Snowden, the former U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) contractor, is right about the notion of publicity and informed consent, which together constitute the hallmark of democratic public policy. In order to be morally justifiable, any strategy or policy involving the body politic must be one to which it would voluntarily assent when fully informed about it. This, in essence, was Snowden’s argument for leaking, in June 2013, the documents that revealed the massive NSA surveillance program:
So long as there’s broad support amongst a people, it can be argued there’s a level of legitimacy even to the most invasive and morally wrong program, as it was an informed and willing decision. . . . However, programs that are implemented in secret, out of public oversight, lack that legitimacy, and that’s a problem. It also represents a dangerous normalization of “governing in the dark,” where decisions with enormous public impact occur without any public input.
What, however, is inherent in being fully informed when it comes to surveillance?
To read the full text of this article, click here.
More in this issue
Spring 2014 (28.1) • Essay
Hobbes on the International Rule of Law
The practice of state compliance with international law is not that easily demonstrated to be the product of legal constraint. Indeed, the problem goes beyond ...
Spring 2014 (28.1) • Essay
The Contemporary Relevance of Buddha
There is a basic humanity in the story of Buddha’s life that is easy to access and absorb in our own lives.
Spring 2014 (28.1) • Essay
International Law and the Mediation of Culture
This essay advances an alternative perspective on culture and international law. After exploring in greater detail determinist accounts of this relationship, I reverse the typically ...