Patriot or Traitor: Was Snowden's Risk Worth It?

Few figures in modern history have sparked as much debate as Edward Snowden. In 2013, the former NSA contractor leaked a trove of classified documents that exposed the vast scope of global surveillance programs conducted by the United States and its allies. For some, he is a hero who sacrificed his freedom to alert the world to government overreach. To others, he is a traitor who endangered national security by revealing classified operations. More than a decade later, the question remains: Was Snowden's risk worth it?

The Case for Snowden as a Patriot

Snowden's revelations unveiled the extent of mass surveillance by the U.S. government, particularly through programs like PRISM and XKeyscore. His disclosures showed that intelligence agencies were collecting vast amounts of data on citizens—often without warrants or oversight. His supporters argue that his actions forced a necessary reckoning with privacy rights, leading to meaningful reforms such as the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015, which ended the bulk collection of Americans’ phone metadata under Section 215 of the Patriot Act.

Moreover, Snowden’s actions ignited a global discussion about privacy, data security, and government transparency. His leaks spurred major technology companies to implement stronger encryption, making it harder for governments to engage in warrantless surveillance. For these reasons, many believe Snowden’s risk was justified, as it prompted a shift toward greater accountability and individual privacy rights.

The Case for Snowden as a Traitor

Critics argue that Snowden’s leaks went far beyond exposing domestic surveillance. He disclosed information about U.S. intelligence capabilities against foreign adversaries, allegedly harming national security. Intelligence officials have claimed that terrorist organizations and hostile nation-states adapted their operations in response to Snowden’s disclosures, making it harder for agencies to track and prevent threats.

Additionally, detractors contend that Snowden had legal avenues to report government overreach, such as whistleblower protections. Instead, he fled to Hong Kong and later Russia, where he received asylum—fueling suspicions about his motives and potential foreign influence. Some believe his actions compromised intelligence operations, damaging U.S. credibility and alliances.

Past Whistleblowers

There have been numerous example of past instances where government officials have followed the rules and come up against impossible odds, trying to do the right thing, their concerns have been ignored, buried, or suppressed for years.

Thomas Drake, a former NSA official, raised concerns about the inefficiency and privacy violations of the NSA's post-9/11 surveillance programs. He supported a government program called ThinThread, which was an alternative to the previous program called Trailblazer. Trailblazer was riddled with budget overruns and inefficiencies. Drake followed proper processes and procedures and went through official whistleblower channels. His concerns were largely ignored. Instead, the government retaliated against him, charging him under the Espionage Act. Though the most serious charges were eventually dropped, his career was ruined, and his case discouraged other whistleblowers.

Then there is the case of Franz Gayl, a civilian Marine Corps science advisor. Gayl was advocating for the rapid deployment of Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected (MRAP) vehicles in Iraq to protect troops from roadside bombs. He warned that bureaucratic delays were costing soldier's lives. Gayl, too, went through internal channels, but his warnings were ignored for years. When the vehicles were finally deployed, they significantly reduced casualties. Thousands of troops had already died or been seriously injured before the government acted and Gayl faced retaliation for his whistleblowing efforts.

There is the case of John Crane, a senior official at the Department of Defense Inspector General's Office, who discovered that whistleblower complaints, including those of Thomas Drake, were mishandled or even leaked back to the agencies being accused of misconduct. Crane attempted to fix the internal process for handling whistleblower reports, but was forced out of his position. He later testified about the systemic failures in whistleblower protections.

Assessing the Impact

A decade later, Snowden remains in exile, living in Russia. His supporters see him as a necessary whistleblower who exposed unconstitutional surveillance, while critics view him as a reckless leaker who put national security at risk. His leaks undeniably led to greater scrutiny of government surveillance and advances in encryption, but they also created geopolitical tensions and intelligence setbacks.

The cases outlined above illustrate how internal channels often fail, forcing whistleblowers to go public. Snowden likely knew of these failures and feared his concerns would be buried and he would be charged with violating the Espionage Act either way. Snowden probably felt like the only way to get the information out to the American people and start the conversation was to leak it to The Guardian.

Edward Snowden's 2013 whistleblowing on mass surveillance programs led to significant changes in U.S. and global policies, legal frameworks, and public awareness. The leak resulted in technology companies adopting vastly improved security enhancements and greater transparency. A few of the notable changes include: overhauling the US PATRIOT Act. Greater transparency in Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court rulings. Apple, Google, and WhatsApp implemented stronger encryption. The accelerated widespread adoption of HTTPS, making internet traffic more secure. Snowden’s disclosures sparked global discussions on privacy, government overreach, and digital rights.

Was his risk worth it? The answer depends on one’s perspective. If the primary goal was to curb unchecked surveillance, then Snowden’s actions had a significant impact. However, if national security is the primary concern, then the cost may have been too high.

I believe Snowden’s decision to leak the information has far reaching implications that we will never fully understand, good or bad, but the visible changes that came from it have had some very positive outcomes, and for that reason, I believe that the risk was worth it. Based on the information at hand, I believe that Snowden did what he felt was in the best interest of democracy and the American people.

Whether we agree or disagree, Snowden's story remains a cautionary tale of the tension between security and privacy in the digital age.

-- Matthew Wold

---

Citation:

• Snowden, Edward. Permanent Record. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2019.

• Greenwald, Glenn. No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2014.

• Poitras, Laura, dir. Citizenfour. RADiUS-TWC, 2014.