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) • Review
Political Self-Sacrifice: Agency, Body and Emotion in International Relations by K. M. Fierke
This book brings what seem like senseless acts of desperation into focus as strategically intelligible and culturally meaningful techniques of resistance.
Spring 2014 (28.1) • Review
Modern Pluralism: Anglo-American Debates Since 1880, Edited by Mark Bevir
Talk of “pluralism” has become ubiquitous in political theory, but it is often vague.
Spring 2014 (28.1) • Feature
Coalitions of the Willing and Responsibilities to Protect: Informal Associations, Enhanced Capacities, and Shared Moral Burdens
There has been widespread support for the idea that the so-called international community has a remedial moral responsibility to protect vulnerable populations from grave human ...