Snowden and the Panama Papers: A Comparison

CYBR650 Week 4

“There are pockets of wealth in this country. Mostly those pockets are in the politicians’ pants.” 
― Jarod Kintz, How to construct a coffin with six karate chops

I remember when I first heard about Edward Snowden’s leak of thousands of classified documents.  I remember distinctly feeling that what he had done was illegal and immoral and traitorous.  Last week when the Panama Papers were leaked I felt that something good had been done.   I immediately wondered what was fundamentally different about these two incidents.  On the surface, they’re very similar. There are also some important differences.  Is Snowden justified in what he did?  Is it morally any different than the reporters who disclosed the Panama papers?

Both were very large collections of documents that were never intended to be available to the public.  Both implicated political figures and government leaders for behavior that is generally considered inappropriate and unacceptable.  Both caused great political turmoil and both were major security incidents, at least for those whose documents were revealed. 

But there are some distinct differences as well.  Snowden was sworn to secrecy by the government whose documents he leaked.  The reporters who disclosed the Panama Papers didn’t break any laws as far as we know.  Snowden is considered by many a traitor, the reporters will probably get an award for great journalism.  Snowden revealed what he and many others felt were illegal and invasive practices by government agencies.  The Panama Papers may not show any illegal actions, only questionable behavior by politicians, not government agencies.

Purely from a security standpoint, Snowden broke the law.  He held a position of trust with a top secret security clearance.  He signed a non-disclosure agreement that basically says he wouldn’t reveal the secrets he learned while performing his duties.  Some have said took an oath “to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.”  Apparently, only military members and the president take that oath.  But even if he had taken the oath, many would argue he did not violate it as he felt the agencies were overstepping their authority.  Snowden feels he did what was morally correct, a higher standard of loyalty to the Constitution than to the law.

There’s no doubt in my mind the politicians implicated by the Panama Papers are dodging taxes and doing so legally, but in violation of the trust of the citizens they represent – at least those leaders who represent democratic governments. 

I still think what Snowden did was wrong.  It violated security laws.  However, he did act very morally, he did what he thought was right.  For that I applaud him.  I have more respect for Snowden than I ever will for any politician.  Many politicians consistently operate on the edge of laws, always being careful to obey the letter of the law, but somehow always violating the intent of it.  

Either way, we always end up with the human factor being the weakest link in security.