Against moral absolutism: Surveillance and disclosure after snowden

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Now that the uproar provoked by the disclosure of the National Security Agency's (NSA) surveillance programs has lessened, and the main protagonists, Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald, have had a chance to make the case for their actions, we are in a position to evaluate whether their disclosure and publication of communications intelligence was justified. To this end, this essay starts by clarifying the history, rationale, and efficacy of communications surveillance. Following this I weigh the arguments against surveillance, focusing in particular on the countervailing value of privacy. Next I explain why state secrecy makes it difficult for citizens and lawmakers to assess the balance that officials are striking between security and privacy. Finally, I turn to consider whether the confounding nature of state secrecy justifies Snowden's and Greenwald's actions. I conclude that their actions are unjustified because they treat privacy and transparency as trumps. Consequently, their actions embody a moral absolutism that disrespects the norms and procedures central to a constitutional democracy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)145-159
Number of pages15
JournalEthics and International Affairs
Issue number2
StatePublished - Jun 12 2015

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Philosophy
  • Political Science and International Relations


Dive into the research topics of 'Against moral absolutism: Surveillance and disclosure after snowden'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this