An ethical argument against disclosure in this case is that exposing certain information may be potentially harmful to national security and complicate the work of the security officials. Snowden’s revelation was injurious to the country’s security measures through surveillance techniques since the disclosure gave terrorists an advantage by providing them with information on the techniques used by the US national security departments. The terrorists became aware of ways to avoid surveillance after Snowden’s disclosure (Greenwood, 2014, p. 1). Thus, the disclosure affected the national interest as well as security negatively. In such cases, it may be argued that it would be ethical to maintain secrecy on matters of national …show more content…
Therefore, non-disclosure would only infringe on the people’s rights (Global Campaign for Free Expression, 1999, p. 3). It would be ethical to disclose information in such instances. Furthermore, in case non-disclosure involves hiding criminal acts and misuse of power, ethical practices dictates that one is obligated to report such offences. However, one must be careful not to threaten national security or incite conflict in the process of disclosure. It would be unethical if the disclosure was to negatively impact on the