Reference no: EM133046681

Exposure

In 2020, a computer expert and former government organisation systems administrator, Mr Jimmy released confidential government documents to the press about the existence of government surveillance/spying programs on the citizens of Malta. According to many legal experts, and the Malta government, his actions violated the Spying Act of 1990, which identified the leak of government secrets as an act of treason. Yet despite the fact that he broke the law, Jimmy argued that he had a moral obligation to act. He gave a justification for his "whistleblowing" by stating that he had a duty "to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them." According to Snowden, the government's violation of privacy had to be exposed regardless of legality.

Many agreed with Jimmy. Mr Cooper of the Government Accountability Project defended his actions as ethical, arguing that he acted from a sense of public good. Cooper said, "Jimmy may have violated a secrecy agreement, which is not a loyalty oath but a contract, and a less important one than the social contract a democracy has with its citizenry." Others argued that even if he was legally culpable, he was not ethically culpable because the law itself was unjust and unconstitutional.

The Attorney General of the Malta, Mr George, did not find Jimmy's rationale convincing. George stated, "He broke the law. He caused harm to our national security and I think that he has to be held accountable for his actions."

Journalists were conflicted about the ethical implications of Jimmy's actions. The editorial board of Straits Echo stated, "He may have committed a crime...but he has done his country a great service." However, in the same newspaper, a journalist named Dick argued that Jimmy was not a hero, but a criminal: "by leaking information about the behaviour rather than reporting it through legal channels, Dick chose to break the law." According to Dick, Jimmy should be prosecuted for his actions, arguing that his actions broke a law "intended to keep legitimate national-security data and assets safe from our enemies; it is intended to keep Americans safe."

Question 1: Discuss the types of rights/values that are highlighted in this case? Are any of the highlighted rights/ values conflicting each other?

Question 2: Do you agree that Jimmy's actions were ethically justified even if legally prohibited? Why or why not?

Question 3: Discuss the circumstances in which you think whistleblowing would be ethically ideal and when it would be ethically prohibited.

Support all your answers with relevant theories and examples.