In June last year, Guardian journalists Glenn Greenwald and Ewen MacAskill and documentary maker Laura Poitras flew to Hong Kong to meet an employee of the National Security Agency’s defence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. On the 5th June, The Guardian published the first of a series of revelations about the previously undisclosed programme, Prism. The revelations disclosed a secret court order showing that the US government had forced the telecoms giant Verizon to hand over the phone records of millions of American citizens. The following day, 6th June, The Guardian revealed that the top-secret Prism program claimed direct access to servers of firms including Google, Apple and Facebook. The source of both of these revelations was Edward Snowden (see here for a more extensive timeline).
As the story continued to develop, Snowden went on to seek exile in a number of countries before being forced to adopt Russia as his temporary home. Meanwhile, the revelations saw him branded a traitor at home, the partner of one of the journalists harassed and the newspaper that published the story subject to government intimidation. It was clear that shining a light on the activities of the state was not tolerable. Transparent governance only goes so far.
Snowden’s revelations have taught us two things that should be of concern to all information professionals. First that the state collects vast information on all of its citizens. The state is permitted, without restriction and, until now, without our knowledge, to collect as much information on its citizens as it desires. Whilst one might expect surveillance to be carried out on supposed ‘dissidents’ one would not expect the information harvesting to affect all citizens, regardless of their beliefs or their activities. This amounts to state surveillance on an unprecedented scale.
The second lesson from these revelations is that the flow of information is going in only one direction: upwards. Whilst information is collected on us to an unprecedented degree, we know very little in return. It is only the actions of a (vilified) whistle-blower that has enabled us to learn about state activities for which we have not given our consent. The subsequent intimidation and threats have sent out a clear message: citizens must be kept ignorant about the activities of the state and any breach of this ignorance will be severely punished. Transparency in governance is fundamental to a fully functioning democracy. Such threats and intimidation reveal the disdain of the establishment for a truly democratic political system that embraces transparency and democratic principles.
As information professionals, we are bound to facilitate access to information to ensure citizens can partake fully in the democratic process. We advocate for transparency and access to information. We also have a responsibility to ensure those citizens are protected in the ways in which they access information. Information access should not be monitored and scrutinised. Every individual has a fundamental right to access information freely and without prejudice. The activities of the state revealed by Snowden contravene our values in terms of access to information and in terms of transparent governance.
These revelations are without precedent. Snowden has revealed the extent of the flow of information within our democracies in stark and revealing terms. His actions have, clearly, raised the profile of the information profession, made a highly important, significant and positive impact on the profession and made a substantial difference to the world of information and knowledge. His actions are without equal in terms of highlighting the secretive actions of the state and the vulnerabilities in our activities accessing information online. For his vital, historic and important contribution to our societies and democracies, he must be honored formally by the information profession.
Edward Snowden for an Honorary Fellowship of CILIP 