.png "Rita van Haren")
Rita van Haren
Jennifer Hernandez
Grant St. Martin
Cody Bryant-Zygowski 
Justin Bernard
Stacie Bernasconi
Jonna Elvin
Laurel Poff
Jennifer GuerreroWin18_Phil302 Cyberethics’s Updates
Lesson 10: High Profile Case Studies
Module 6 Lesson 10: High Profile Case Studies
We will now look at two historic cases of Whistleblowing, one that used IT to inform the world about alleged abuses in the Iraq war and one that warned of abusive use of IT by the National Security Agency (NSA). Both of these cases are still ongoing and even when they are settled, the repercussions will resonate for some time.
Case 1, Chelsea Manning and WikiLeaks
Chelsea Manning (then Bradley Manning) was a US Army intelligence analyst who provided WikiLeaks with hundreds of thousands of Army reports, diplomatic cables, and videos relating to the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war in January of 2010. The one item that received the most media attention was the release of a video now entitled “Collateral Murder,” which shows gun camera footage from an incident in Baghdad on July 12, 2007, where two American helicopter gunships fire on a group of ten men. The group included two Reuters employees who were there to photograph and American Humvee that was under attack by a militia group. The Reuters cameramen were killed in the attack as were a large number of the men around them and two children were also injured as they were passengers in a van that arrived to try to help the wounded. This video was what put Wikileaks into the spotlight. Chelsea’s leaking of this video and the other documents were found out and later in 2010 she was arrested. A high profile trial ensued and in 2013 she was charged with 22 offenses, 10 of which she plead guilty to and found guilty of 7 more. She avoided the death penalty but was sentenced to 35 years in maximum security, though she is eligible for parole once 8 of those years are served. Her stated motive for releasing this material was that she believed, “…[t]his is one of the most significant documents of our time removing the fog of war and revealing the true nature of 21st century asymmetric warfare” Manning, January 9, 2010. Others have claimed it was treason and an attempt to aid the enemies of the United States. Let’s try to form our own opinions of this case, please view the “collateral Murder video above and then watch at least one of the presentations in this video from a conference held on the ethical and legal nature of what Chelsea did.
Case 2, Edward Snowden: hero or traitor?
Edward Snowden’s case is a very complicated one. We can find reasoned arguments that claim he is a hero, traitor, dissident, whistleblower, ethically motivated, and unethically self-serving. We are not going to settle that issue here and the case continues to evolve, but this case is too important not to have an understanding of it, at least in general terms.
Snowden was an IT professional who had worked for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). In addition to this he worked for Dell and Booz Allen Hamilton to do contract work for the National Security Agency (NSA). In 2013 he leaked thousands of classified documents to various media outlets which contained many thousands of files form American Australian and British intelligence services along with hundreds of thousands of documents from the department of defense. These documents were leaked to reporters such as Glenn Greenwald from The Guardian and Barton Gellman from The Washington Post, along with the controversial documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras. The articles that these reporters began writing using this material began to appear May 20, 2013 while Snowden was traveling in Hong Kong. This was the beginning of his self-imposed exile form the United States due to his fear of retribution if he were to return. At this time he is living in Russia under the protection of the Russian government from extradition to the US.
The many articles that have now been written on the evidence provided from this material have proven that the NSA has been involved in surveillance of US citizens on an unbelievably massive scale. Snowden has shown that through new advances in IT, the NSA has been able to compile massive amounts of data on nearly everyone who has made a call into or out of the United States. The extent of this activity is incredibly wide, there is evidence that the NSA spied on foreign corporations, and heads of state, not only of the enemies of the US but its allies as well. The spying included some strange targets including users of the online games “Second Life” and “World of Warcraft.” These examples only scratch the surface of the revelations and more is learned every day.
To get a better handle on all this lets first read this article, How Edward Snowden went from loyal NSA contractor to whistleblower, The Guardian February 1, 2014.
Let’s now look at two sides of the debate. Please read Edward Snowden is a hero, and then Edward Snowden is no hero.
Finaly, let’s hear from Snowden himself in this TED talk: Here’s how we take back the Internet.
Assignment 16, writing reflection (200 to 400 words) posted to the comments box below—We have looked at two complicated cases of whistleblowing that have had worldwide impact. Where do you stand at this time in relation to the value of whistleblowing, our capacity to protect whistleblowers, and whether or not these two cases are an example of ethically motivated whistleblowing?
Assignment #16
After learning more about whistleblowing and whistleblowers I now have a better understanding on where I stand on the topic. I have read both case studies and have done a few other readings aside from the ones provided as well. I think that whistleblowing is ethical and should not be shamed upon. What they are doing is mostly beneficial for society as a whole as most of the time it is exposing information that we should know about current events happening around the world that may pertain to us. As to where I stand on their protection, I think they should have somewhat of protection. I think they should be protected from being sued by the government for exposing their secrets. They should not be punished when they are simply just exposing the secrets being hidden and telling the truth. What seems unethical to me is the government hiding such big factors from the citizens no matter how much they choose to believe they are protecting us. Whistleblowers should be protected under freedom of speech; sometimes this is not the case when battling the government and their secrets. My overall stance is that I believe every case and situation is unique and different, but there is nothing unethical about telling people the truth.
Assignment #16
After learning more about these two complicated whistleblowing cases of Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden and the impact that they had on the world, I personally believe that they were doing trying to do the ethical thing. Chelsea Manning handed over the film, Collateral Murder, which was of horrific scene of the death and injuries of innocent lives. Edward Snowden released documents that proved that US citizens were under very high surveillance of the NSA. Although both cases are very different I believe that each person thought they were doing the best thing for the greater good of people by exposing unethical situations that had occurred. Both Chelsea manning and Edward Snowden are cases of ethically motivated whistleblowing. If an unethical situation is occurring in the world under our government (or in general) I want to know because it affects me and everyone else for that matter. It is upsetting that these two people thought that they were helping US citizens by informing them about what is occurring behind closed doors and they are ‘unwanted’ here in the States because they are ‘betrayers’. Overall I think that whistleblowing is a case by case matter, even though I think that Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden were did the ethically right thing, I am not sure I will feel that way in every single whistleblowing situation, it depends on the circumstance.
Assignment 16:
I stand that the right thing to do in a whistleblower’s case is not black or white. It is very grey and muddled as are the consequences that befall a whistleblower. For Chelsea Manning, I believe that people should know as much as they want to about what is going on in war as long as they receive accurate information. There is no better way to gain this information than live footage. While answering questions about this incident in an interview, it was said that everything was done to help the injured kids and that no casualties were harmed when the public can easily see that is a lie from the video that was leaked. I believe that the public should not be lied too and the line of reasoning of lying to the public because it makes things “easier” is not good enough. Who does that act of lying truly benefit? What the public does need to understand is that these whistleblowers put their necks out on the line, and for what? These whistleblowers are trying to accurately inform the public and once the public is accurately informed then what? The public has to brace itself in realizing what is within their power to actually do something about a situation they do not like. There is almost a feeling of being informed, but powerless to do much about it except for continuing to pass on what they have just learned. Edward Snowden exposed that we live in a high surveillance density and that people are being monitored without consent. I believe this to be unethical, but I also do not know how to be active about this particular situation. It also does not directly affect me because I truly do not mind much if people want to listen into my boring phone conversations or texts. This would affect people who were trying to hide something. Otherwise, what is there to lose really? To me, it is a feeling. Being heavily monitored does not feel good. With this heavy surveillance exposure, it feels that they do not trust the public which would in turn lead me to question that fact that if they do not trust the public, then why should the public trust the government? When it comes down to it, this is what ethics is about. In the code of conduct’s read throughout class, much of it contributes to the feeling of trust a customer has with a company. It is not much different in that mutual trust should be had between the public and the government otherwise there will be constant questioning of what is true or not which is highly ineffective and something that our country continues to engage in. So what these whistleblower’s did I believe to be right. Even if the truth is difficult, it is much more effective than telling a lie. My line of reason would stem from virtue ethics in that if people worked on their moral and character, that there would be more trust and therefore more efficiency. People would not have to waste so much time digging for the truth.
Our capacity to protect whistleblower’s reminds me of how well we protect against discrimination in the workplace. Employers may still openly discriminate against potential or current employees yet lie and say the reasoning for their actions is something entirely unrelated to discrimination. The victim is in a tough position of how to prove the discrimination. This parallels the whistleblower in that the whistleblower seems to have to prove their intentions behind their actions. Was it for the greater good or was it self-serving? Well, any whistleblower would know, especially by now, that “nothing good” will come out of whistleblowing as Edward Snowden put it. So a whistleblower proves an intention by the mere fact that they know negative consequences will happen. If we take this punishment out of the way I believe a whistleblower’s intentions may be much more difficult to prove. I think the best option to protect a whistle blower is either what WikiLeaks has proposed, anonymity, or to not give any incentive or punishment to be a whistleblower. With no incentive or punishment, there really isn’t any other motivation to whistleblow except for the motivation to expose the truth and inform the public. As in the video with the conferences there are presently whistleblowers that are “pressured out of their jobs, forced to ‘voluntarily’ resign, or eventually fired” for some ‘other’ reason. Just like enforcing the discrimination laws, I do not know how avoiding this line of fire and protecting whistleblowers would be enforced.
I believe that Manning and Snowden were and are ethically motivated, but I can see how others think they may pose a problem. In the article discussing how Snowden is “no hero,” the writer mentions that Snowden was answering some higher calling and this was more important than respecting company policies. If people were to believe this was a black and white situation and believe Snowden to have acted 100% ethical with no questions, then others would also feel it okay to answer to a higher calling and damage anything that they disagree with. The reason whistleblowing puts ethics highly into question is because who is to say what is right and what is wrong? From my humble point of view, I do believe that these two individuals mean and meant well.
Assignment 16
I find myself in the middle when it comes to whistleblowing. I think that while it is 100 % necessary to have whistleblowers out there showing us what illegal activity is being taken up by companies/governments, we also need to make sure they are probably vetted. With that in mind, I think that we as a country provide the necessary protections needed for whistleblowers to secure in sharing information. Which is why I’m somewhat critical of the actions Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden took. In the case of Manning I do find that she was acting more ethically than Snowden, in that it is probably much more difficult to go through proper channels when whistleblowing on military activity. And while I still think a lot of what was leaked placed lives in danger, I also see that a lot of it uncovered illegal military activity which needed to come out. With Snowden I’m far more critical. I think that instead of acting ethically he acted selfishly. The proper way to make his concerns known was to go to his superiors or to Congress who had created the NSA and was in charge of its oversight. And as a government official he was protected under the whistleblower act.Instead he did the illegal thing of dumping it all on the internet, which hurt our interests.Now he is Russia, continuing to undermine our country, while still making a name for himself, which he wanted to do all along.
These are good so far. A number of you have yet to post. I appreciated the additional information that some of you put in your posts, thanks for that.
Assignment 16
I've said this before, if you have not done something wrong, there is nothing to fear.
With that being said, whistleblowers are of extreme value. Whistleblowers will expose the truth. Whistleblowers will reveal the wrong doings of those around them, at the expense of themselves.
However, because whistleblowers expose the truth, illegal, unethical of even the closest among them, they are not protected to the deepest extent they should be. In both of the cases seen, they were not protected because they were seen as traitors. Betraying the country in which they lived in. In the case of Edward Snowden, because he exposed what the NSA had been doing to the United State citizens, it was seen as a betrayal to the United States. But who was he really betraying?
In the case of Chelsea, I think her actions were ethically motivated. She was trying to show us the unethical acts of the army. I think that in the case of Edward Snowden, he was ethically motivated to help the citizens of the United States. He was so motivated to expose the unethical doings of the NSA that he risked his own salvation to do it.
In the example of Edward Snowden, I value annonymous whistleblowing. Although the United States could view this as a betrayal of their trust, if the United States wasn't or isn't doing anything unethical, there wouldn't be anything to fear.
I believe that the value of whistleblowing is groundbreaking. The US Declaration of Independence and Constitution were written in a way to grant the citizens of the United States legality to assemble, speak up, and up-rise against their own government if they feel it is not serving the people best. These two cases of whistleblowing are severely complicated due to the position the whistleblowers are in. While they are both employed by the US government and mean to be loyal operators within their organizations, they are both also meant to serve the community for the greater good as citizens of the United States. From both Manning's and Snowden's perspective, to continue serving as a loyal subject to a government which is not acting in a way that best serves and protects its citizens would mean disregarding their own duty to the public as US citizens by promoting such a government. Manning and Snowden both felt that the actions of the government organizations to which they belonged to were acting unethically in a manner that did not benefit its own citizens nor its allies and promoted violence, mistrust, and political unrest. On the other hand, what Manning and Snowden did was also unethical – because these government organizations were their employers, they chose to betray the trust of their employers to which they had pledged their loyalty to. Thus, they had coincidentally betrayed the trust of the US government. Whistleblowing is crucial to the citizens of the US and their allies because it allows the public to know what their government is actually a part of and what they are standing for. Unfortunately, the capacity to protect whistleblowers is very low and whistleblowing does carry extremely negative repercussions for the participant. I do feel these two cases are examples of ethically motivated whistleblowing. Manning wanted to inform the public of how warfare and technological advances in weaponry dehumanizes people to a point where anyone can be an enemy and that enemies are essentially just targets. The value of human life is lost in the process and many people, especially civilians, are unnecessarily killed in the process – Manning wanted to put a stop to this. Meanwhile, Snowden exposed the NSA for acting in a way that compromised individual privacy of its own citizens. He felt that we all deserve to have the ability to protect our rights and that the government spying on us is essentially a violation of those rights and goes back to a time where British soldiers were posted inside Americans' homes to spy on them. He also goes on to say that the NSA spying on its own people to such an extreme extent did not prevent any terrorist attacks. Snowden felt that the actions the NSA were taking were not only unethical, but could potentially spur a new-age civil war.
Assignment 16:
I believe that both cases of Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden were ethically motivated because they were both trying to show the world the truth of illegal actions by large organizations. In both cases of Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden, we see example of ethically motivated whistleblowing. In Manning’s case, she had leaked information to WikiLeaks about the US Army’s illegal actions. Even though she knew there would be negative backlash, she felt that it was her duty to bring this unethical information to the public. Manning’s actions could be considered an example of deontological thinking, she did not think of the consequences and felt it was her duty to bring the unethical information to light. Manning was focusing on the greater good to stop further illegal actions to take place. In Snowden’s case, he felt that it was right to bring the unethical actions he witnessed to the public. In my opinion, both of the cases of Manning and Snowden were ethically motivated for the greater good of the public. Manning and Snowden both had the courage to risk their lives to expose unethical and illegal actions from large organizations like, the US Army and the NSA.
Assignment 16:
Within these two cases of whistleblowing, it was clear to both Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden knew that these acts done by the US military and National Security Agency were withholding unethical-doings from the US citizens that directly affect them. I am sure that when both Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning discovered this huge amount of information they were not thinking about how leaking these secrets would affect them and acted on what was beneficial for the majority of the people. Although this information is alarming to find out is important that the people are aware of the corrupted action both the US military and the National Security Agency are doing because these people putting their trust into these systems. I believe that both these cases were ethically motivated and that both Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden were only exposing these two systems to inform everyone that they were creating unethical acts that directly affect the majority of people. This was a courageous act on both Manning and Snowden, they both risked everything to tell the truth and are now facing the extreme consequences. I do see the benefits of having sites such as WikiLeaks and whistleblowers if they are exposing secrets for the good of the majority of the people. If the information that is put out there is false, I do think that can be extremely damaging to a person or company and they need to remain mindful and make sure the information is reliable before telling these stories.
Assignment 16
Whistleblowing is such a fickle topic to discuss especially when it has to do with the government and what they deem “national security” and things of that nature. In theory I am for it when it comes from an ethically good place that doesn’t harm the good people involved but there is always collateral damage to releasing things purposefully hidden. I think we should protect them more but only in the cases where they are doing more good than harm, each case would be different and be dealt with accordingly, so it is hard to say what the best course of action is to protect those who wish to reveal the truth to those who are unaware of the whole story like in Chelsea’s case. Snowden’s case is a little bit different because it did have some negative repercussions for America because of who the NSA was looking into, they were essentially tipped off that the government had an eye on them like our allies and other countries who we deal with. This is seen as a bad thing that can come from whistle blowing but did he think it was worth it? He told America that the NSA can spy on you without your consent were the “negatives’ worth it? I think Snowden was doing his fellow Americans and favor by exposing the government for spying but it also came with costs that may not be worth it for our nation as a whole. I cannot personally say if this was truly right or wrong but there are definitely solid arguments for each side of if Snowden was ethical or not in his actions.