Digital Surveillance in the name of National Security

Abstract: Surveillance has throughout history been a widely discussed phenomenon and the debate over the delicate balancing of state power vis-à-vis privacy in the pursuit of national security equally so. In 2013, Edward Snowden revealed that the NSA had been conducting digital surveillance globally and it represents a tipping point in the history of surveillance. By applying the normative logics deontology and consequentialism, as well as the normative concept paternalism, an analysis has been made covering the reasonings and arguments behind both Snowden’s and the National Intelligence Agencies’ actions. This thesis has made visible how the logics and paternalism resonate both similarly and differently on the Snowden case. The research question was: Can it be justified to allow national intelligence agencies to infringe upon their citizens’ privacy through big data surveillance technologies in order to ensure national security? Oversimplified, the conclusions are that the duty-ethical strand of deontology means that it cannot be justified, meanwhile for the rights-based strand of deontology, moderate deontologists and consequentialists, it is dependent on whether one values citizens’ right to privacy or a state’s end of ensuring national security higher. Paternalism, viewed through the utilitarian strand of consequentialism, means that it cannot be justified, as the NSA’s paternalistic act cannot be deemed as exclusively rightful.