Edward Snowden, a computer expert and former CIA systems administrator, released confidential Government documents to the press about the existence of Government surveillance programmer.  According to many legal experts and the US Government, his actions violated the Espionage Act of 1917, which identified the leak of  State secrets as an act of treason. Yet, despite the fact that he broke the law, Snowden argued that he had a moral obligation to act.  He gave a justification for his "whistle blowing" by stating that he had a duty "to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them." According to Snowden, the Government's violation of privacy had to be exposed regardless of legality since more substantive issues of social action and public morality were involved here. Many agreed with Snowden. Few argued that he broke the law and compromised national security, for which he should be held accountable. Do you agree that Snowden's actions were ethically justified even if legally prohibited ? Why or why not ? Make an argument by weighing the competing values in this case. (250 words)