US whistleblower oblivious to his betrayal

Edward Snowden. Photo: Reuters

From what we know so far, Edward Snowden appears to be the ultimate unmediated man. Though obviously terrifically bright, he could not successfully work his way through the institution of high school. Then he failed to navigate his way through community college.

According to The Washington Post, he has not been a regular presence around his mother's house for years. When a neighbour in Hawaii tried to introduce himself, Snowden cut him off and made it clear he wanted no neighbourly relationships. He went to work for Booz Allen Hamilton and the CIA, but he has separated himself from them, too.

Though thoughtful, morally engaged and deeply committed to his beliefs, he appears to be a product of one of the more unfortunate trends of the age: the atomisation of society, the loosening of social bonds, the apparently growing share of young men in their 20s who are living technological existences in the fuzzy land between their childhood institutions and adult family commitments.

If you live a life unshaped by the mediating institutions of civil society, perhaps it makes sense to see the world a certain way. Life is not embedded in a series of gently gradated authoritative structures: family, neighbourhood, religious group, state, nation and world. Instead, it's just the solitary naked individual and the gigantic and menacing state.

This lens makes you more likely to share the distinct strands of libertarianism that are blossoming in this fragmenting age: the deep suspicion of authority, the strong belief that hierarchies and organisations are suspect, the fervent devotion to transparency, the assumption that individual preference should be supreme. You're more likely to donate to the Ron Paul for president campaign, as Snowden did.

It's logical, given this background and mindset, that Snowden would sacrifice his career to expose data-mining procedures of the National Security Agency. Even if he has not been able to point to any specific abuses, he was bound to be horrified by the confidentiality endemic to military and intelligence activities. And, of course, he's right that the procedures he's unveiled could lend themselves to abuse in the future.

But Big Brother is not the only danger facing the country. Another is the rising tide of distrust, the corrosive spread of cynicism, the fraying of the social fabric and the rise of people who are so individualistic in their outlook that they have no real understanding of how to knit others together and look after the common good.

This is not a danger Snowden is addressing. In fact, he is making everything worse.

For society to function well, there have to be basic levels of trust and co-operation, a respect for institutions and deference to common procedures. By deciding to unilaterally leak secret NSA documents, Snowden has betrayed all of these things.

He betrayed honesty and integrity, the foundation of all co-operative activity. He made explicit and implicit oaths to respect the secrecy of the information with which he was entrusted. He betrayed his oaths.

He betrayed his friends. Anybody who worked with him will be suspect. Young people in positions like that will no longer be trusted with responsibility for fear they will turn into another Snowden.

He betrayed his employers. Booz Allen and the CIA took a high-school dropout and offered him positions with lavish salaries. He is violating the honour codes of all those who enabled him to rise.

He betrayed the cause of open government. Every time there is a leak like this, the powers that be close the circle of trust a little tighter. They limit debate a little more.

He betrayed the privacy of us all. If federal security agencies can't do vast data sweeps, they will inevitably revert to the older, more intrusive eavesdropping methods.

He betrayed the constitution. The founders did not create the United States so that some solitary 29-year-old could make unilateral decisions about what should be exposed. Snowden self-indulgently short-circuited the democratic structures of accountability, putting his own preferences above everything else.

Snowden faced a moral dilemma. On the one hand, he had information about a program he thought was truly menacing. On the other, he had made certain commitments as a public servant, as a member of an organisation, and a nation. Sometimes leakers have to leak. The information they possess is so grave that it demands they violate their oaths.

But before they do, you hope they will interrogate themselves closely and force themselves to confront various barriers of resistance. Is the information so grave that it's worth betraying an oath, circumventing the established decision-making procedures, unilaterally exposing secrets that can never be reclassified.

Judging by his comments reported in the news media so far, Snowden was obsessed with the danger of data mining but completely oblivious to his betrayals and towards the damage he has done to social arrangements and the invisible bonds that hold them together.