In my opinion, Snowden’s decision to disclose classified documents from NSA should be considered ethical. His choice to reveal secret governmental information for the sake of acting in the best public interests involves a series of potential issues. As noted by Bellaby, by stealing classified documents and exposing them to the media, an employee violates the working contract with the company. However, in the worst-case scenario, silencing unjustified surveillance programs, which collect personal data from the individuals who did not permit being targeted, threatens constitutional human rights for privacy. According to Epstein, by 2013, when the whistleblowing remedy happened, NSA’s ethical guidelines were designed in accordance with the Patriotic Act, which allowed for the seizure of private property from “private communications” to prevent terrorism. However, as argued by Snowden, the scope of the data collected from individuals does not justify appeals for sustaining national security. Only after 2015, the Freedom Act clarified uncertainties in the Patriotic Act, putting limitations on the NSA’s intelligence surveillance programs, which proves that the company’s policy overstepped people’s privacy despite the Fourth Amendment.
Several ways to resolve this ethical dilemma could be reporting the instance of violation to the supervisor, addressing the concern to the external correcting agency, ignoring the issue, or whistleblowing on the abuse. Delivering information to the supervisor might help to solve the problem inside the organization without publicity, but the reporter risks being ignored or even fired for his remarks. Reaching out to the external correcting agency may allow for the anonymity of the employee. However, it does not guarantee a rapid reaction from the government. Ignoring the issue does not pose any additional threats to the decision-maker, yet may deviate from the employee’s personal moral principles. By whistleblowing, the employee might act according to the ethical code to protect public interests. The downside of such a decision is the potential breakage of the law or the company’s contract.
In Snowden’s case, the best ethical choice was to whistleblow the abuse since the ethical guidelines of NSA overstepped the law and violated the Fourth Amendment. Though he infringed the Patriotic Act in 2013, when reporting the NSA’s actions, the bill was modified in 2015 with NSA’s policy for data collection prohibited. I am convinced, when law and morality go separate ways, the professional should act in the best public interests, as Snowden did.