Ethics Assignment #3

How and when it is acceptable to break the law?

Given the importance and recent impact of the PATRIOT Act ( as well as its controversies), I decided I will talk about it, and why it is important.

Edward Snowden, the famous (or infamous) whistle-blower, felt compelled to act on good intentions by revealing quantifiable and vital information that illustrates h how the government can collect data not only from its citizens, but also from foreign governments (even those who are considered allies).

Based on my reading of Plato's Crito, It could be determined that Snowden could have made other choices in which, could led him into reforming and limiting how the government acts without breaking the law in the process.

• He could express his concerns as a contractor while working for the government, and persuade them that they could be incurring in abusive practices toward their governed citizens.
• It was in Snowden's knowledge that, when he was hired into his position, special laws and agreements will be established between him and the government, such as handling confidential data and methods on which "the mob" would deem controversial. He knew he was going to break the law, and the consequences could be harsh.

It is not clear however, if he has a chance to opt-out of such surveillance program, since in his power resides a lot of vital information that could incite "the rage of the mob".

Crito also gives Snowden arguments to his favor:

• His actions are, presumably, motivated by principle. People where not being told how the government was collecting data (No consent). His actions were against the government procedures that Snowden considered abusive. He did not reveal data to intentionally attack nor destroy the Government of The United States, of The People of the United States.