@ vezire

At a time when data-gathering technologies are dominating all aspects of everyday life, governmental agencies such as The National Security Agency have considerable surveillance and control authority. The National Security Agency runs surveillance programs on not just violent international criminals, but also ordinary citizens within the country. A tremendous amount of effort is being made to keep these programs from being critiqued and shared with the public. In this paper, I will discuss whistleblowing and its relevance in establishing a more democratic structure in governmental institutions, through the cases of Edward Snowden and Thomas Drake. Firstly, I will emphasize Edward Snowden's action as an example of illegal whistleblowing and how he acts closer to civic disobedience rather than espionage. Following that, I will discuss Thomas Drake's espionage charge while legally criticizing The National Security Agency's programs and the inadequacy of whistleblower protection laws.  In our everyday lives, we come into contact with or utilize a variety of technological equipment such as security cameras, GPS devices, iris scanners, and so on. Everything we do, from buying things from shopping malls to searching for information on the internet, is kept in massive databases. Without even our knowledge, our data, which is vast enough to create our entire profile, is in the databases of a private firm or the government. That's why the surveillance network is getting bigger and bigger. Most of the surveillance tools and the capability to regulate these tools are under state control. The government also agrees with data aggregators -companies that collect data from multiple sources and make it available to customers in a value-added format- to access more data. The US Department of Justice has an $8 million agreement with data aggregator company ChoicePoint (Stanley, Steinhardt 2014). In this way, The Justice Department can access many civilians' information in the company's database. Although this surveillance mechanism seems to be an effective way to track and detect many illegal incidents such as terrorism, money laundering, etc., this surveillance network can easily be applied to ordinary civilians. For example, in 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft released new domestic spy guidelines that dramatically expanded federal agents' ability to monitor on American civilians (Stanley, Steinhardt 2014). The American government also is running programs to spy on ordinary citizens, according to information obtained from the National Security Agency documents which leaked to the media on multiple occasions (Greenberg, 2013). The National Security Agency (NSA) began as a cryptology-focused agency and has since grown into an intelligence agency that gathers data from enemies of the United States of America (Verble, 2014). The surveillance and data collection programs of NSA, however, are not carried out just to keep enemies at bay. Information on the NSA's programs was provided to the media by Thomas A. Drake, a senior executive at the NSA, and Edward J. Snowden, who also worked as a computer intelligence consultant at the NSA. As a result of all of these events, it is fairly obvious that the state and its institutions are conducting unethical surveillance to the civilians. However, the two people who raised awareness of this unethical operation by providing classified and declassified NSA documents to the media faced major crises. Both Thomas Drake and Edward Snowden faced charges under the Espionage Act. Despite the fact that two former NSA employees used different methods to prevent these surveillance programs, which were developed to spy on citizens using their taxes, both were charged with treason. In this article, I will discuss the whistleblowing act through Thomas Drake and Edward Snowden examples, as well as the significance of whistleblowing in inspecting institutions with tremendous authority, such as centralized databases.  Whistleblowing is described as the act of an employee, typically within the organization, who reveals illegal, immoral, or inefficient information or actions within a private, public, or government institution. Daniel Ellsberg, one of the authors of the document, leaked information concerning the United States' political and military engagement in Vietnam between 1945 and 1967, also known as the Pentagon Papers. These papers, which revealed that the American government of the time did not accurately reflect information about Vietnam to the public, became the subject of the most well-known whistleblowing act in American history. Daniel Ellsberg faced charges under the Espionage Act (Greenberg, 2013). It is problematic to think that sharing the information with the public about crucial topics such as the state is systematically lying to the public or spying on them in a wide surveillance network is equated with espionage. The development of democratic regimes necessitates public debate and regulation of this type of government acts. I will demonstrate the significance through the examples of acts of Edward Snowden and Thomas Drake. The Case of Edward Snowden  At one point, Edward Snowden's and Thomas Drake's whistleblowing actions differ. While Edward Snowden got confidential material from the NSA and shared it with the media directly, Thomas Drake initially attempted to prevent or regulate programs run by NSA from inside the organization by taking a legal path. Firstly, using Edward Snowden as an example, I will evaluate the role of becoming an illegal whistleblower by sharing classified information with the public. Edward Snowden released highly classified information from NSA in 2013, revealing the NSA's surveillance operations with the cooperation of telecommunications companies and European governments. Snowden was charged under the Espionage Act and stealing government property by the US Department of Justice, and his passport was canceled by the Department of State. Not only that, the efforts were made to portray him as a traitor. Before leaking the information to the media, Edward Snowden was a 29-year-old consultant who worked for the NSA's Hawaii office and made $200,000 per year (Scheuerman, 2014). Snowden did not reveal this information to a country or organization that is hostile to the United States. He directly shared this material with the media, allowing the public to learn about these surveillance programs. He received no personal benefit from this act, and he risked himself and lost his privileged position in his life. Edward Snowden said to The Guardian reporters; “I really want the focus to be on these documents and the debate which I hope this will trigger among citizens around the globe about what kind of world we want to live in.” He added: “My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them” (Glenn, 2013). Given all of this, Edward Snowden's actions are more similar to civic disobedience than treason or espionage (Scheuerman, 2014). As a United Nations citizen, Edward Snowden revealed to the public the wrongdoing of a governmental institution, making this situation questioned among the public. A democratic government gains from public criticism of its acts, which aids in the development of more ethical institutions.  While it is a social benefit to inform the public about a massive government surveillance program, obtaining that information from the NSA and making it available to the public may also benefit the United States' enemies. Institutions also have the opportunity to develop and regulate these programs within their own walls, without any confidential information leaking out. Employees of the institution can file complaints to their supervisors and criticize these programs in a legal path, which is legal whistleblowing, however, in the case of Thomas Drake, we can see that legal whistleblowing puts people's lives at risk at least as much as the illegal version. The Case Of Thomas Drake On September 11, 2001, one of the most devastating days in American history, Thomas Drake began his job at the NSA. In the early years of the new millennium, when America was most vulnerable to external threats and digital data was growing exponentially, a program named Trailblazer caught Drake's attention. Drake saw the initiative as a huge budget waste that did not contribute to national security. He reported his critique to his supervisors, which is considered legal whistleblowing, but his attempts were unsuccessful. Finally, he decided to share his criticism with the media while remaining anonymous, although he did not share any confidential documents with the media. He only served declassified information, which conveys that Trailblazer was an ineffective project that wastes money. Drake was questioned by FBI investigators shortly after and accused of taking classified documents from the NSA. He faced charges of 35 years in jail time for 10 different crimes including the Espionage Act. The court dismissed the case in 2011, stating that the accusations were inappropriate and overstated, and Thomas Drake was sentenced to one year of probation. However, as a result of the entire process, Drake spent $82,000 on legal expenses, was dismissed from both his NSA and university positions, and lost his retirement (Greenberg, 2013). Thomas Drake's experience is an example of how even the slightest criticism of government institutions and their projects can have drastic consequences. The courage to criticize unethical projects is trying to be destroyed by this atmosphere of fear. The whistleblowers, whether they go the legal or illegal path, are aware that they will be prosecuted for espionage, loss of employment, and jail time.  At this juncture, I believe we should oppose the totalitarian positions adopted by the institutions, which have vast surveillance networks both domestically and internationally, and we should protect whistleblowers' rights. The United States has two legislations protecting whistleblowers, the Federal Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 and the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012. According to a 2015 research, the Federal Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 fails to protect whistleblowers. 79 percent of the 142 cases involving government ethics and administration ended in employee job loss. The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 is also insufficient in terms of protections of whistleblowers (Peffer, Bocheko, Del Valle, Osmani, Peyton, Roman, 2015). Conclusion The whistleblowing contributes to public debate about the ethics of the state's programs. However, these organizations, which hold a vast surveillance network, damage the democratic process by raising severe allegations against whistleblowers in order to avoid the risk of limiting their authority. We can have an idea of how our data is gathered and used if we have laws and rules that protect whistleblowers. Accusing them with espionage and treason, on the other hand, will gradually create this environment of fear and, as a consequence, silence. Reference Glenn G. (2013, Jun 11). Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance       Greenberg, A. (2013). This machine kills secrets: Julian Assange, the Cypherpunks, and their fight to empower whistleblowers. Penguin. Scheuerman, W. E. (2014). Whistleblowing as civil disobedience: The case of Edward Snowden. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 40(7), 609-628. Stanley, J., & Steinhardt, B. (2014). Bigger monster, weaker chains: the growth of an American surveillance society. In Ethics and Emerging Technologies (pp. 269-284). Palgrave Macmillan, London. Peffer, S. L., Bocheko, A., Del Valle, R. E., Osmani, A., Peyton, S., & Roman, E. (2015).Whistle Where you work? The ineffectiveness of the Federal Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 and the promise of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 35(1), 70-81.               Verble, J. (2014). The NSA and Edward Snowden: surveillance in the 21st century. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 44(3), 14-20.