Snowden, Ethics and Crime
Published in Prensa Libre
(Guatemala) on 3 July 2013
by Julio LigorrÃa Carballido (link to
original)
The delicate balance of world power is facing a crisis. The former contractor and computer technician Edward Snowden, ex-employee of the CIA and ex-contractor for the NSA (Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency, respectively) has leaked sensitive information, accusing the American government of spying on people in several countries and on millions of American citizens as part of its anti-terrorism programs. Snowden has said that emails and lists of telephone calls, among other data, have likely been the target of American espionage. He now seeks asylum from within the international zone of the Moscow airport.
Everything seems to indicate that the technician seriously failed in one key calculation: He has not gotten political asylum in China, where he initially wanted to be, nor in Moscow or in 20 other countries, as reported by WikiLeaks early on Tuesday.
A highly skilled employee cannot betray his or her country, violate fundamental ethics and then remain immune. It would be a terrible precedent for the international community to grant asylum to Snowden without conditions, since similar cases could soon arise, whose impact on world security would be devastating.
Russia has a clear view of the situation. Even though leaking data about internal American security could be attractive to nations that compete for global supremacy, President Putin was explicit in his first warning to Snowden: Asylum is available if you promise to not leak critical security information from within Russia. Moscow’s diplomatic and ethically based position reveals the state of the case at the moment; other nations have internalized the tricky situation of protecting a person who is a deserter as well as a criminal.
For the purpose of contrast, it is useful to respectfully analyze the thoughtless attitude of second-tier officials in other countries, whose anxiety about assaulting the U.S. has made them look ridiculous because of confusing a condition of basic individual freedom of expression with an act of betrayal toward the homeland, a clear criminal offense. The controversial analyst has not leaked an individual opinion regarding government action; instead, he has spread critical information that implicates the security of the country that he served while in a position of full trust.
Beyond the curiosity caused by the leaks, it is appropriate to start reflecting on the case. The management of sensitive information is a responsibility of proportions that are hard to calculate. In an era in which power revolves around data, reports, analysis and prediction, the capital sin of our society stems from the use of these inputs. That has been the center of the controversy for quite some time.
At the time of writing, nothing further was known. The U.S. has cancelled Snowden’s passport, which leaves him without a travel document that legalizes his situation; therefore, he is an undocumented individual in any part of the world. Countries such as France, with extensive experience as a sanctuary, have been explicit in saying that the U.S. is a key ally and that they don't want to cause further problems. Something similar is occurring throughout the rest of the globe, where bit by bit the significance of the case is being understood. Fate seems to be showing an uncomfortable ending for Mr. Snowden: Either he shuts up and stops being a problem — somewhat improbable — or he will be a guest at the airports of the world for who knows how long.
Everything seems to indicate that the technician seriously failed in one key calculation: He has not gotten political asylum in China, where he initially wanted to be, nor in Moscow or in 20 other countries, as reported by WikiLeaks early on Tuesday.
A highly skilled employee cannot betray his or her country, violate fundamental ethics and then remain immune. It would be a terrible precedent for the international community to grant asylum to Snowden without conditions, since similar cases could soon arise, whose impact on world security would be devastating.
Russia has a clear view of the situation. Even though leaking data about internal American security could be attractive to nations that compete for global supremacy, President Putin was explicit in his first warning to Snowden: Asylum is available if you promise to not leak critical security information from within Russia. Moscow’s diplomatic and ethically based position reveals the state of the case at the moment; other nations have internalized the tricky situation of protecting a person who is a deserter as well as a criminal.
For the purpose of contrast, it is useful to respectfully analyze the thoughtless attitude of second-tier officials in other countries, whose anxiety about assaulting the U.S. has made them look ridiculous because of confusing a condition of basic individual freedom of expression with an act of betrayal toward the homeland, a clear criminal offense. The controversial analyst has not leaked an individual opinion regarding government action; instead, he has spread critical information that implicates the security of the country that he served while in a position of full trust.
Beyond the curiosity caused by the leaks, it is appropriate to start reflecting on the case. The management of sensitive information is a responsibility of proportions that are hard to calculate. In an era in which power revolves around data, reports, analysis and prediction, the capital sin of our society stems from the use of these inputs. That has been the center of the controversy for quite some time.
At the time of writing, nothing further was known. The U.S. has cancelled Snowden’s passport, which leaves him without a travel document that legalizes his situation; therefore, he is an undocumented individual in any part of the world. Countries such as France, with extensive experience as a sanctuary, have been explicit in saying that the U.S. is a key ally and that they don't want to cause further problems. Something similar is occurring throughout the rest of the globe, where bit by bit the significance of the case is being understood. Fate seems to be showing an uncomfortable ending for Mr. Snowden: Either he shuts up and stops being a problem — somewhat improbable — or he will be a guest at the airports of the world for who knows how long.