Carol Forsloff--The recent news about government collection of data by phone and Internet of private citizens presents a moral dilemma that many security experts deal with regularly. The humanitarian principles involved in caring for others raises questions about the public's right to know vs national security. What are these moral dilemmas and what might be considered the proper balance between public disclosure of information and the protection of that same public from outside threats?Dr. David Perry discusses these issues in an article published in 1995 entitled "Repugnant Philosophy: Ethics, Espionage and Covert Action." His thesis about the moral dilemmas in espionage provides a relevant platform to assess Edward Snowden's disclosure of government secrets involving the collection of data on ordinary Americans using telephone and Internet records.
Dr. Perry initiates his discussion by pointing out that ethical principles are seldom discussed in security circles but reminds us "whatever interests or rights that states can legitimately be said to have must derive from the interests and rights of their individual citizens." He goes on to explain what that means with reference to the rights of the individual and the rights of the state.
Those involved in espionage and security are taught to lie, deceive, manipulate, and hide information in order to do much of their work. But the goals of national security do not outweigh the moral values, Dr. Perry points out. He reminds us that "those who have the authority to establish objectives for intelligence operations must not only weigh the ethical justification of those ends but must also raise ethical questions about the various means being considered to achieve them."
Snowden maintains he is a whistleblower, taking responsibility for alerting the public about what he considers to be unethical behavior on the part of the government through its ubiquitous surveillance of private citizens. Dr. Perry's contends that all individuals involved in security and espionage must face moral issues but does not promote the notion of the end justifies the means. In other words, stealing government records and bypassing the standard reporting methods would be questionable.
In the light of the present issue about the public need for transparency in its government and the government's role to protect the security of its citizens, ethical considerations are paramount to any discussion. Perhaps Dr. Perry's advice to include these ethical discussions as part of training at all levels in security and intelligence work might prevent another tragic situation presented by Snowden's disclosures that could significantly impact US security.
