Discussion Question (DQ) 1


Brooks, “The Solitary Leaker”; Waytz et al, “The Whistle-Blower’s Quandary”; Carr, “Whistle-Blowers in Limbo

For Discussion

Read each of these articles from the New York Times and look up any vocabulary words or concepts you don’t recognize.  Use the comment function below to answer these questions:

  1. What is the general conversation all of these articles is responding to; in other words, what is their shared context?
  2. What particular angle on this topic does each piece take?
  3. What is the specific point each article makes?
  4. What do you want to add to this discussion; for example, do you have a new question or another point? Do you want to correct or disagree with a view? What do these articles, taken together, make you think about?


17 thoughts on “Discussion Question (DQ) 1

  1. Cody Nadeau,
    1.) The three articles are all talking about information that was leaked from the government by a guy named Edward Snowden. I believe Snowden leaked information that the government was hiding from the americans.
    2.) The article “Neither Hero Nor Traitor” talks about what Edward Snowden did (leaked gov. information) and also talks about other incidents when leakers helped americans. The article “The Solitary Leaker” talks more about who Snowden betrayed when he leaked the information. The article “The Whistle Blowers Quandary” talks about two values whistle blowers have; loyalty and fairness are the two values that are being experimented on. the experiments are to see which type of person is willing to blow the whistle.
    3.) The article “Neither Hero Nor Traitor” makes the point that there are different standing points on leaking government information. This also ties in the next article, “The Whistle Blowers Quandary” which makes the point that people who value fairness are more likely to blow the whistle then those who are more valued around loyalty. lastly the article “The Solitary Leaker” makes the point to show that Snowden knew what trouble he would be in but still felt the need to leak government information for the sake of the civilians.
    4.) I am still a little confused on the whistle blowing, I think it means leaking the information. After reading these articles I started to think about how much information the government hides from us. I also would like to know other sorts of information that have been leaked and helped us along the way.

  2. 1) The articles talk about how Snowden leaked information that the US government was trying to hide and shared it with the american people.
    2) “neither hero or traitor talks about thing that the government were trying to hide and how leakers actually helped the americans by leaking them. “The Solitary Leaker” is about who was betrayed by what Snowden did when he leaked the information. “The Whistle blowers quandary” talks about an experiment and what type of person will blow the whistle.
    3) The points that “Neither hero nor traitor” makes is that there are different levels of leaking government information. “The solitary leaker” talks about the trouble Snowden knew he would be in but the choice that he made any ways to leak the information. “The whistle blower quandary” states that people who more value fairness are more likely to blow the whistle then the people who value loyalty more.
    4) How would a people choose to either leak information and what information is right to leak?

  3. 1. I believe that all 3 of the articles are talking about whether or not it is appropriate for someone to be a “whistle blower”. All articles speak about how if you are a “whistle blower” then you are no longer being loyal, but you are being fair. They have a very good point when it comes to saying that you are no longer loyal after you “whistle blow” because if you do that then you are going behind someone’s back to tell the trust, which would be fair, but not loyal.
    2. The article “Whistle- Blowers in Limbo, Neither Hero Nor Traitor” is mainly talking about Edward Snowden and how he had no problem blowing the whistle while to others it might be a harder task. This article doesn’t condone nor bash whistle blowing. “The Solitary Leaker” speaks again about Edward Snowden and shares how he betrayed so many people while blowing the whistle, thus saying that it wasn’t a good trait. “The Whistle- Blower’s Quandary” compares fairness and loyalty and seeks to find whether or not participants think that it is better to be fair or to be loyal.
    3. “Whistle- Blowers in Limbo, Neither Hero Nor Traitor” proves how even though Edward was so bright and intelligent, he didn’t put much thought into how he was going to effect the government and the lives of the people in which he shared personal information. Even though he knows he will be forever on his own because of his poor decisions, he continues to leak government information to the public. “The Solitary Leaker” shows how many people Edward hurt in the process of being a whistle blower. Even though he thought he was being fair, he was only ruining the trust that everyone had in him. “The Whistle- Blowers Quandary” has a point in saying that individuals who fight for fairness are more likely to be whistle blowers because whistle blowers seek fairness.
    4. I am still skeptical when it comes to Edward Snowden. I’m not sure why he thought it would be a good idea to leak government information in the first place and when he noticed it was having a negative impact, why did he continue?

  4. Klaara Moberg

    1. The main topic that each of the three articles are talking about is the event of whistle-blowing. Each article gave specific examples regarding whistle-blowing that were very popular and recent in the news which made it easier for readers to understand and follow. An example common to each article was the issue of Edward Snowden leaking confidential government information to the entire country.

    2. Each of the three articles reference the same idea of whistle-blowing, however, each takes a different approach on the topic. The article, “The Whistle-Blower’s Quandary” by Adam Waytz, discusses the reasons why a person may or may not chose to disclose private or confidential information. The second article, “Whistle-Blowers in Limbo” by David Carr, talks about two prominent whistle-blowers, Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden, that have recently been in the news. The Third article, “The Solitary Leaker” by David Brooks, informs readers of the consequences that leaking information can have.
    3. The authors of each article supported their main ideas by including specific points. Waytz’s point in “The Whistle-Blower’s Quandary” is that each person must take several things into account before they decide to leak confidential information such as whether they value loyalty over fairness or the other way around. Carr, in the article “Whistle-Blowers in Limbo,” makes the point of describing how people were conflicted in how they responded to the actions of Snowden and Manning viewing neither as a traitor nor committing an act of heroism. Brooks’ article, “The Solitary Leaker,” has a negative point about Snowden’s actions. He describes how Snowden’s actions were poorly thought out and selfish.
    4. Before reading these articles, I hadn’t known much about the events surrounding Edward Snowden. Now that I am informed, I agree with the article saying that he was selfish. As Americans, I think that everyone knows that the government has a tendency to pry into one’s personal information to some degree. To the extent in which they do this, no one knows specifically, but we all know it occurs. I think it is better for Americans as a whole that they not know this sort of information. If someone is going to leak information, it should be about something that is seriously detrimental to America as a whole. To release information, such as Snowden did, threatens the trust Americans have with their government which is foolish and unnecessary.

  5. 1.) The general conversation of all three articles is responding to the fact the Edward Snowden leaked government documents and important information to the public. All three articles discuss whether or not his actions are moral.
    2.) In “The Solitary Leaker”, Brooks states the Snowden is wrong for leaking the information. He did it for all the wrong reasons. While, in “The Whistle-Blower’s Quandary” it focusses on the angle of fairness versus loyalty. Waytz believes that Snowden acted for the greater good of the American people. In the “Whistle-Blower’s in Limbo, Neither Hero Nor Traitor”, Carr, considers Snowden to be neither a hero nor a traitor, but somewhere in between.
    3.) The specific point for “The Solitary Leaker” focused on the fact the Snowden was an antisocial person and he betrayed his loyalty for leaking the secret information. He made things worse instead of helping the society. “The Whistle-Blower’s Quandary” concentrated on the psychology behind Snowden’s decision. Was he acting out of fairness or loyalty? In “Whistle-Blower’s in Limbo, Neither Hero Nor Traitor”, Carr compares Snowden to Private Manning. He also states that the reason these men are receiving so much attention is due to the fact that they released so many documents so quickly; due to the advancements in technology. They are somewhere in between a hero and a traitor.
    4.) I think that Snowden made the wrong decision in leaking information. His careless decision has made everyone skeptical and worried about other things our government might be hiding from us. Now more laws are being passed making it even harder for the NSA to access this information, when they are just trying to protect us from potential threats.

  6. 1. These articles all discuss whistle-blowers. The whistle-blower all three mention is Edward Snowden who worked for the NSA and released very important and secret information for the world to see. These articles give their personal and the general public’s opinions on the issue of whistle-blowing and the consequences. They all discuss what factors affect the decisions of the whistle-blowers.
    2. “The Solitary Leaker” article written by David Brooks states that Snowden did a disservice to the country. “Whistle-Blowers in Limbo, Neither Hero Nor Traitor” written by David Carr is more or less neutral on the topic. It gives insight from the general public and explains that there are mixed feelings on the issue at hand. “The Whistle-Blower’s Quandary” written by Adam Waytz, James Dungan and Liane Young is an article that goes into specific studies done related to the controversial issue. This article asks the question of whether or not whistle-blowing is heroic or unfaithful.
    3. In “The Solitary Leaker” makes Snowden out to have betrayed his peers, our country, and our privacy. It states that there has to be some sort of surveillance for the country to be stable. “The Whistle-Blower’s Quandary” points out the two moral values of fairness and loyalty. It points out that some believe he was serving the citizens of the United States and defending our rights, but to others he betrayed our country and is considered a traitor. Lastly, the “Whistle-Blowers in Limbo, neither Hero nor Traitor” states that a person’s act of heroism could be another person’s act of unfaithfulness. Carr believes that Snowden and Private Manning are stuck in “limbo” between being considered a hero and being considered a traitor.
    4. These articles together make me think about who we should trust in our society these days. The government says that they work to protect us, but there is a fine line between what is considered protecting us and what is considered a breaching of privacy. I think that Snowden did a service to us by showing us just how much we are being watched, but I also think that he was very wrong to break all of the oaths that he promised to keep. Those oaths are meant to be unbreakable and he dishonored all of them.

  7. Alex Touri

    1. The general conversation that all three of these articles is responding to is whether or not whistle-blowing is a moral dilemma. Is whistle-blowing an act of heroism or an act of betrayal? These articles question two moral values – fairness versus loyalty. For example, is it fair and just to let everyone know what is going on in your company or is okay to keep quiet out of a sense of loyalty to your company? These articles seem to question the morality of whistle-blowing. Is whistle-blowing something that is done for the greater good or is it a sense of betrayal? This question seems to come up in all three of the articles.

    2. The particular angle on this topic that “The Whistle-Blower’s Quandary” takes is whether you want to encourage loyalty at all costs you would then discourage whistle-blowing or if you want to encourage fairness you promote whistle-blowing. This article basically questions whether whistle-blowing is an act of heroism or betrayal. In the studies that were done, it was shown that there were ways to either encourage whistle-blowing or discourage it. If fairness is emphasized or if people believed more in fairness, they tend to be okay with whistle-blowing. If loyalty is focused on more, then whistle-blowing tends to be harder for these people to accept. To some people, Snowden was defending the rights of all Americans and to others, he is a person who betrayed his country. “The Solitary Leaker” shows how Snowden was never part of a group and never quite fit in. He appears to be more of a loner – “the loosening of social bonds.” According to this article, Snowden separated himself from everyone including school, neighbors and even family. So it would seem as though he doesn’t feel like he betrayed his country by revealing how the NSA spies on its citizens. He didn’t seem, to possess a sense of loyalty towards his country. Snowden did not really have a sense of loyalty. Snowden had a deep suspicion of authority so it seems logical that he would sacrifice his career because he believes that the government should tell the citizens everything they are doing. “Whistle-Blowers in Limbo, Neither Hero Nor Traitor” states that Daniel Ellsbery who came in for sustained criticism for his leak of the Pentagon Papers is now viewed as an important historical figure who brought much needed accountability to America’s prosecution of the Vietnam war. According to this article, Snowden and Ellsbery are neither looked at as a hero or a traitor. Time can change things, so maybe Snowden will be looked at as a historical hero eventually as well.

    3. The specific point that each article takes is in “The Whistle-Blower’s Quandary” if you emphasize loyalty, people tend to not be whistle blowers and if people emphasize justice and fairness they tend to be whistle-blowers. “The Solitary Leaker” shows that Snowden was never part of a group and never really fit in – he never had a sense of loyalty- which is probably why he blew the whistle. “Whistle-Blowers in Limbo, Neither Hero Nor Traitor” made the point that Snowden and Ellsbery are neither a hero nor a traitor and time can also change things because when Ellsbery leaked the pentagon papers at the time he was looked at as a traitor and now he is a historical figure, so that can be possible for Snowden as well.

    4. These articles make me think about what Edward Snowden did. Did he really feel that American’s rights were being violated? When I think about the government spying on the American citizens, I believe that their rights may be violated. However, after what happened to our country on 9/11, I am not certain. Is this the way that our country can prevent another terrorist attack from happening?

  8. 1) All of these articles share a debate on two types of moral values, loyalty versus fairness when talking about a former Central Intelligence Agency operative and National Security Agency contractor, Edward Snowden who leaked sensitive documents to multiple media outlets.
    2) “The Whistle-Blower’s Quandary” is more of what-makes-whistles-blowers rather than an opinion piece and a certain side whereas “The Solitary Leaker” shows Edward Snowden to be a traitor and “Whistle-Blowers in Limbo, Neither Hero Nor Traitor” shows that he could be a traitor or a hero.
    3) In “The Whistle-Blower’s Quandary”, it talks about how would-be whistle-blowers can see reporting misdeeds an act of heroism instead of betrayal. The article shows multiple studies to try and understand this moral quandary between being loyal and being fair. In “The Solitary Leaker”, I thought it was very opinionated. David Brooks sought to show that Edward Snowden was a traitor by leaking sensitive documents to multiple media outlets and to be a cynical man. “Whistle-Blowers in Limbo, Neither Hero Nor Traitor” article described why Edward Snowden and apparent accomplice, Private Bradley Manning were seen as either a traitor or a hero. It went on to say that whether or not they are considered a hero or a traitor, time changes things and, for some people, their views. Though, from what I have gathered, majority of people believe Edward Snowden to be a traitor, he could be seen as a hero later on.
    4) I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion on a subject, event, etc. but the thing is that we don’t truly know why Edward Snowden did what he did so, in all honesty, we only have one side of the story, assumptions of why he leaked these sensitive documents, and opinions on how others feel about the event.

  9. 1. These three articles are all talking about whistles blowing. Each article is saying how if you are a whistle-blower you are fair and if you are a non-whistle blower then you are loyal. The three articles are al talking about how there are conflicts between each option

    2. In “The Whistle-Blower’s Quandary” Waytz reported many studies that were conducted to see if people favored fairness, which is considered a whistle-blower, or if they favored loyalty, which is a non-whistle blower. Waytz says that a person can either be classified as a hero or a traitor. In “The Solitary Leaker” Brooks is suggesting that Snowden is a betrayer and that what he did was wrong. This article does not talk very much about how he was a hero in any way. Brooks is saying that Snowden betrayed many people and that what he did was wrong, where as in “The Whistle-Blower’s Quandary” Waytz is giving both sides of the situation. In “Whistle-Blowers in Limbo, Neither Hero Nor Traitor” Carr is expressing how Edward Snowden and Private Manning are not traitors and they are not hero’s. Carr says “one person’s heroic crusade is another’s betrayal of loyalty.” Carr is saying that to one person it might be a form of betrayal and to another person it might be a form of loyalty.

    3. There is a specific point made in each article. In “The Whistle-Blower’s Quandary” Waytz’s main point is that different circumstances make people whistle blowers over non whistle blowers and vice versa. A whistle blower is a person who favors fairness and a non whistle blower is a person who favors loyalty. In “The Solitary Leaker” Brooks is suggesting that Snowden is like an outcast so it wasn’t a surprise that he betrayed so many people. “Whistle-Blowers in Limbo, Neither Hero Nor Traitor” Carr is saying that Snowden and Private Manning are neither a hero nor a traitor, they are in-between and in a “limbo” because what they did might be considered good to one person and bad to another.

    4. Before reading any of these articles I had never heard of Snowden or hat he had done. I think that in a way it was good what he did and in a way it was bad. It is good because now the public has an idea of what is going on but it is also bad because it goes to show that even the most trusted people might not be as trustworthy as we think.

  10. 1. All three articles talk about “whistle blowers”. They discuss what it is that urges them to do this and the consequence of this action. All three use examples and research related to “whistle blowers”.
    2. Brooks’ article titled The Solitary Leaker focuses specifically on Edward Snowden. He goes into detail about his earlier life including his “background and mind-set”. Brooks says that it is logical Snowden would commit such an act. He tends to focus on the negative side of a whistle blower with six of his sentences beginning with “he betrayed”. Carr’s article is more lenient towards the whistle blowers. He tends to stand up for them and almost convinces them that they will one day be heroes despite the criticism now. He ends his article saying “time can change things” and an example of a man who is now a historical figure. Waytz’s article is centered around why people do this and what kind of people they are. He talks about research done on an online marketplace that displays this information.
    3. The point Brooks makes is that whistle blowers are traitors and there’s really no two ways about it. The point Carr makes is that they can be recognized both negatively and positively but opinions can also change. Waytz’s point is that people who are fair tend to whistle blow and those who are loyal tend to remain silent.
    4. I think that these articles bring up a very controversial issue that I was not very familiar with. They make me think about how we define a just human being. Everything always has its two sides and this is a tough one. This same issue happens everyday, just maybe not so extreme. For example a kid confines in an adult something worrisome or dangerous. The adult is faced with the dilemma of opening their mouths or keeping them shut.

  11. Taylor LeBorgne

    1. The general conversation of all three articles is about “whistle blowing,” especially Edward Snowden who exposed data mining procedures of the National Security Agency, which was confidential information. He leaked it to the American people and is viewed by some people as a hero that was defending American rights and by other people as a traitor that was not loyal. They all share the context of arguing whether or not it is right or wrong to leak information.
    2. Each article takes a particular angle on the topic of whistle blowing. The article “The Solitary Leaker,” by Brooks, informs the reader about Snowden’s characteristics and background. It also argues how he betrayed many people when he released the information. The article “The Whistle-Blower’s Quandary,” by Wayts, uses a series of studies that compare fairness and loyalty to see why variations in moral values determine whether or not people agree or disagree with whistle blowing. The last article, “Whistle-Blowers in Limbo, Neither Hero nor Traitor,” by Carr, explains why two whistle blowers- Manning and Snowden- felt the need to reveal the information and how they are seen as in between a hero and a traitor.
    3. Each article makes a specific point. “The solitary leaker” negatively responds to Snowden revealing information and states that he betrayed and damaged his social arrangements. The author makes the point that society cannot function right if there is no basic level of trust and that Snowden should have thought through the consequences of leaking the confidential information before he went through with it. “The Whistle-Blower’s Quandary” makes points about how people will agree or disagree with whistle-blowing based on their values of fairness and loyalty. Some people view whistle blowing as a “larger loyalty,” that citizens have the right to know about. The last article “Neither Hero Nor Traitor” argues the point that people saw Manning and Snowden as both doing something right and wrong. People have different views which make them feel betrayed or see loyalty.
    4. I thought it was interesting to read about whistle blowing and would like to know more about other people that have done this. Is it right that the government has confidential information that no citizens know about?

  12. 1.) The general conversation of all of these articles is essentially “whistle-blowers” and how much loyalty and fairness play into it. More specifically withing this topic they all mention Edward Snowden leaking information and whether or not he was a whistle-blower.

    2.) “The Solitary Leaker” by Brooks talks about who Edward Snowden betrayed when he leaked government information. “The Whistle-Blower’s Quandary” by Waytz et al describes how whistle-blowers are generally people who value fairness most and non whistle-blowers as people who value loyalty the most. “Whistle-Blowers in Limbo” by Carr describes Edward Snowden and information he has leaked and some of the impact it has had.

    3.) “Whistle-Blowers in Limbo” makes points about different standing points of government information leaking. “Whistle-Blower’s Quandary” makes points about people who value fairness and loyalty and which ones are more likely to be whistle-blowers. “Solitary Leaker” makes points that Edward Snowden felt it was important the citizens knew about that information, but he also knew there would be consequences for him.

    4.) I have continually heard Edward Snowden’s name in the media, but until reading these articles I have never really understood the events surrounding him were. There have been other people who have leaked government information, but most of the time that person’s name has not been used in the media so widely. What makes him different?

  13. David Pearson,
    1. The general conversation was about Edward Snowden who worked for the CIA. He discovered information that he believed that Americans should know, and leaked it out into the public.
    2. In “Solidarity Leader” They talk about how he was a traitor towards the government. “The Whistle Blowers Quandary” compared two qualities that Snowden had, and that was him being fair and his loyalty he showed by leaking the information. “Neither Hero Nor Traitor” talks about what Edward Snowden did when he leaked the government information, but also mentioned other times it happened in our countries history.
    3.“The Solitary Leaker” point was to show that Edward Snowden knew the exact trouble he was getting himself into by leaking top secret government information to the public. In “Neither Hero Nor Traitor” the article shows that there are many different view points on leaking information. Then the last article “The Whistle Blowers Quandary” makes points that people like Snowden take fairness over loyalty, are more than likely to “blow the whistle” or leak the government information.
    4. I think what would really help this discussion is definitely more information towards government leaking. As well as knowing more about the consequences that might come with these guys who leak top secret information of the government.

  14. 1.) The articles are discussing the question of whether or not whistle-blowing is a beneficial act or one of betrayal. They weigh the pros and cons of the new mass-leakers such as Snowden or Private Manning, who are now able to leak millions of documents with the use of a simple flash drive.
    2.) The Solitary Leaker declares that Snowden betrayed many people by leaking all of his information on the NSA. They say that as a public servant he has a right to keep the trust in his gorvernment. The piece by David Carr took a more neutral approach, providing quotes from both sides of the debate on whether whistle-blowers are doing a public service or doing more harm then good by betraying the trust put into them by the government and their employers. Lastly, The Whistle-Blower’s Conundrum referenced a number of psychological and sociological studies on how people’s backgrounds, characters and political stances can alter whether or not one would be a whistle-blower. There was also a study that speculated that perhaps even changing certain aspects of mission statements to emphasize loyalty as opposed to fairness may be able to suppress whistle-blowing and vice versa.
    4.) I disagree with the article by David Brooks. I believe that we all have a duty to tell the public about breaches of their own privacy. It does not matter if the government puts trust in you if they are trusting you keep your mouth shut. The public is putting their trust in the government to take care of them yes, but they are also trusting that they do not breach their own privacy. The government is breaking this trust and the public deserves to know.

  15. 1. The shared context between the three articles was involving the act of whistle blowing and whether or not it was an act of deceitfulness. If someone was to be a whistle blower, then they were considered traitors. If not, then they were considered to be honorable.
    2. Carr’s article took an angle discussing how when government information was leaked, it helped american society on knowledge of what was going on behind the scenes, but it didn’t necessarily hurt the government. “Solitary Leaker” discussed how Snowden betrayed the government by blowing the whistle, but it didn’t really phase him too much. “The Whistle Blower’s Quandary” discussed how much of a burden it was to decide whether or not to leak the government information.
    3. The specific point that the articles were making was that the American citizens needed to know what was going on behind the scenes, but it was such a hassle to be the individual who revealed the information.
    4. When I look back at these articles, it makes me wonder what exactly America doesn’t know about that is going on within the government; it makes me wonder if the information that isn’t being released to us is for our protection, or for the government’s protection. Why can’t we see what exactly goes on?

  16. 1. The articles are discussing the fact that Edward Snowden exposed government documentation to Americans and the public to see. And the question coming forward is whether or not his actions were immoral or not.
    2. The article “The Solitary Leaker” discusses how Snowden betrayed the government by leaking the information to the public. David Carr’s views were very mutual where he sympathizes with Snowden by “taking on larger forces” but he also states that it is “betrayal of loyalty” to the government who trusted him (Carr). In “The Whistle- Blowers Quandary” it discusses the aspects or characteristics of a whistle blower and why Snowden may have leaked the documents.
    3. “Neither Hero Nor Traitor” states that there are very different levels of leaking the information to the public and different ways of viewing whether or not it is a serious matter. In “The Solitary Leaker” it was focusing on the wrongdoings of Snowden breaking the trust and loyalty of the government. In the “Whistle Blowers Quandary” the main point was that Snowden is a type of person that will do anything, no matter the circumstances for what he thinks is right.
    4. I remember this happening but not entirely, but after reading these articles I now want to know more about what the government keeps from the public. I’d like to discuss more on if people believe Snowden’s actions were moral or immoral because I can’t decide what I believe. The issue is thinking whether we are ok not knowing certain things the government keeps from us, or if there are serious issues that we just do not know about.

  17. 1. Each of these articles are showing multiple opinions of whistle-blowing and telling us that Edward Snowden leaked information about the government that was supposed to be a secret to the public.
    2. In “The Solitary Leaker” Brooks angle is showing how much/and to what degree Snowden. In “Whistle-Blowers in Limbo, Neither Hero Nor Traitor” Carr’s angle is neutral in the sense that leakers are not heroes or traitors. In “The Whistle-Blower’s Quandary” Waytz’s angle is more on the psychological values people have of loyalty and fairness.
    3. In Waytz’s article he states that there is a conflict between loyalty and fairness, being loyal isn’t fair and being fair isn’t loyal. He and the other authors did several psychological experiments on people’s values of fairness and loyalty and were published. With these experiments they found that they could influence and manipulate people’s values and make it so that if someone is being fair they are also being loyal (doesn’t conflict) if someone is
    Brooks gives his opinion of Snowden, and he did not agree with Mr. Snowden. Brooks states Snowden is a loner, is less likely to be loyal because he has no one to be loyal to. Brook s also repeatedly states that Snowden betrayed many, from his friends to the U.S. Constitution, and the cause of open government.
    Carr wrote a neutral article and mentions technologies influence on leaking and how it is easier to spread information. And finished saying what Snowden did by leaking information maybe bad but times change and it could end up being a good thing that he leaked this information.
    4. Why doesn’t the government think/give us the right to know what is going on? Why did Snowden think that we had the right to know? Is Snowden charged with treason? What is his punishment for leaking this information?

Leave a Reply