David and Goliath:
A 21st Century Battle Between Edward Snowden and the United States Government
Bebop Onetwothree
Southern England University
Page 1
Edward Snowden is a very smart man. As an on again/off again United States federal
employee and contractor, he knew enough of the United States Constitution to recognize
potential threats to essential citizen rights, he researched intricacies to the recent acts passed to
strengthen national security in a post- 9/11 America, and he knew what needed to be done to
ensure that his discoveries and the actions by the government were disseminated to the American
people. In corporate America, whistleblower laws and protections have been enacted to protect
the individual who suspects wrongdoings by the larger entity. Because of these protections, many
who decide to tell the public of wrongdoing enjoy broad-sweeping protections from employment
security to waived criminal prosecution. In the government realm, however, the broader, more
defined national security acts have canceled out the weaker, less defined traditional
whistleblower protections. Some of the underlying principles of law at play here are national
security versus national spotlight, where the definition of the “Greater Good” is a conflicted one.
Another conflicting area of law deals with the protections afforded by the US Constitution with
regard to individual privacy and freedom of the press. Where do American privacies stop and
government’s efforts to protect its citizens start? Finally, the actions of Edward Snowden have
exacerbated the atmosphere of fear, both on big government’s part and on individuals due to the
uncertainty and stalemate created by Snowden’s flight and ongoing debate over national privacy
versus national security. The result of the public not having a clear conclusion in the Snowden
saga has created more questions than answers, but both sides of the argument remain vigilant to
their cause.
WHISTLEBLOWING LAWS VS. THE PATRIOT ACT
The person committing the act of alerting officials of a company’s potential or past
history of endangerment of public health or safety is what has come to be considered a
Page 2
“whistleblower.” Early whistleblowers were persecuted by the entities they told on by losing
their job or being ostracized by co-workers. Companies even sued whistleblowers for leaking
corporate secrets. As of the turn of the new century, whistleblowing laws had been passed in all
fifty states (Callahan & Dworkin, 2000). These laws had the same objective: to expose, curtail,
and deter wrongdoing. In effect, these laws created an invitation similar to today’s citizen safety
laws seen on most public transportation vessels regarding suspected wrongdoing: “See
something; say something.” The empowerment of the public to help define wrongdoing was a
powerful tool for authorities to have in their arsenal. On the public side, individuals enjoyed
broad protections from any repercussions from them speaking up. It was a fine system of checks
and balances between the public entity and the individual.
Then the World Trade Center towers came down, the Pentagon was attacked, and another
