Choice Between Security And Liberty A False One Analysis

The debate between where to draw the line between allowing government surveillance and keeping society’s members privacy will never be completely clear. It is important to keep a part of an individual’s life private and once the Untied States voted the Patriot Act in privacy went from limited to microscopic. Widening the scope of government surveillance slowly but surely pushes privacy out of the

During the past decade, an issue has arisen from the minds of people, on which is more important? Privacy or national security? The problem with the privacy is that people do not feel they have enough of it and national security is increasing causing the government to be less worried about the people. National security is growing out of control which has led to the decrease in people’s privacy and has created fear in the eyes of U.S. citizens. “Twelve years after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and amid a summer of revelations about the extent of the surveillance state built up to prevent others, leaders, experts and average Americans alike are searching for the right balance between security and privacy” (Noble). Americans should be able to live their daily lives without fear of an overpowered government or a “big brother” figure taking over. “According to a CBS News poll released Tuesday evening, nearly 6 in 10 Americans said they disapproved of the federal government’s collecting phone records of ordinary Americans in order to reduce terrorism” (Gonchar). While it is good to keep our country safe with security, American’s privacy should be more important because there is a substantial amount of national security, the people 's rights should matter first.

The United States of America is undoubtedly one of the world’s largest and most powerful nations. However, it has been facing the problem of terrorism for many decades, most notably after the tragic events of September 11th. The Patriot Act was passed shortly after these events in response to the acts of terrorism witnessed by the whole nation. At the time, it seemed rational and logical to allow this bill to pass, due to the extreme anger of American citizens, and the willingness to fight against terrorism. However, certain breaches of privacy came with the introduction of the Patriot Act. We as Americans want to feel protected from the threats of terrorism, however, we are not willing to give up certain privacies and liberties in order for that to happen, even when put to a vote.

The events that took place on September 11th 2001 have forever changed the United Sates. On that day it was clear that our borders were not secure. Our nation’s security was questioned, and our national security plan, as a result, had to change. President Bush did what he felt was needed at the time, laying out the foundation for a surveillance apparatus, involving the Patriot Act and the National Security Agency. This United States’ surveillance apparatus though, draws a thin line between privacy and security, forcing us to trade our liberty for security. By trading our liberty for security we lose both, and thus, move towards losing our democracy.

As our fears grew concerning national security, our government began to conduct surveillance with certain groups labeled as “suspicious”. As this escalated into dangerous territory, it begged the question: does the threat of terrorism outweigh the right of privacy?

The quest for privacy and security has always been a long and arduous one, as America’s citizens “no longer care” about the lack of integrity which the American government is showing towards its citizens (Sullivan). “When you have it, you don’t notice it. Only when it’s gone do you wish you’d done more to protect it.” Sullivan explains in Privacy under attack, but does anybody care?. After the National Security Agency was accused of “systematically collecting information” on citizens’ phone calls, emails, and countless other sources, “the news media treated it as a complete revelation” (Whitehead). People throughout the country protested and condemned the government—all while they failed to realize that we have consciously permitted the government to collect and secure our private information by “giving our personal information” to companies who ask for it, and by “allowing our personal lives to be posted on media sources such as Facebook and Twitter” (Washington). Ironically enough, we ourselves have

Ever since the American public was made aware of the United States government’s surveillance policies, it has been a hotly debated issue across the nation. In 2013, it was revealed that the NSA had, for some time, been collecting data on American citizens, in terms of everything from their Internet history to their phone records. When the story broke, it was a huge talking point, not only across the country, but also throughout the world. The man who introduced Americans to this idea was Edward Snowden.

Dingwen Zhang English 3 12 August 2016 NSA Surveillance NSA Surveillance: Is safety worth losing freedom? Recently there is debate about if it is okay for the United States government to spy on citizens using NSA and FBI. This became common knowledge when Edward Snowden leaked millions of documents that show the government is spying on the public. The United States government should not keep the NSA surveillance going because it hurts the public more than it keeps the public safe.

People nowadays are uncomfortable with the Patriot Act because it collects so much data about people, and people worry about what happens with their data. The act was first established to catch threats to the public, but people question that the act may be over-stepping its boundaries (National Security, 1874). At a recent symposium at Loyola University Chicago, many discussions occurred about the safety of people’s data and how it was being used. The overall consensus is that the public does not like their data being unsecured and open to hackers. The Bell Telephone Company had access to many conversations and spied on suspicious ones. In our opinion, we prefer that companies and the government not keep our data for surveillance, but this is a hotly contested issue that will be argued for decades to

David Haynes examines the Section 215 program and its overreach. Clearly, Haynes isn’t fond of the program. Section 215 allows the National Security Agency to gather information by listening in on the conversations of unsuspecting Americans.

The uses of wiretapping and surveillance have become extremely evident in the society we live in today. With issues of terrorism and foreign threat, the concern for the safety of American citizens is at an all-time high. Over the past 50 years, different amendments and acts have been passed to help regulate the use of wiretap and surveillance tactics, but perhaps the most significant of the bunches would be Title III, FISA, and the Patriot Act. These acts paved way to a safer feeling society, but at the same time they bare constitutional issues which take away some of the liberties granted to citizens by the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights, raising a lot of controversy within our society. One of the most controversial themes being the NYPD Surveillance Program which targets foreign operations here in the U.S. by unconstitutional means of action, but due to the regulations of amended acts such as the Patriot Act, the actions of the NYPD have been found completely legal. This paper discusses the evolution of wiretap and surveillance laws and how the NYPD has incorporated them into tactics that suffice many constitutional issues.

Inscribed in the stairwell of the Statue of Liberty is Benjamin Franklin’s quote, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Recent reactions to terrorist attacks provide examples of our country beginning to mortgage freedom, and privacy under the mask of protection in times of crisis. Warrantless searches and seizures performed in the interest of national security are becoming more commonplace.

Privacy has endured throughout human history as the pillar upon which our authentic nature rests. Yet, in an age darkened by the looming shadow of terrorism, another force threatens to dominate the skyline and obscure the light of liberty behind promises of safety and security: government surveillance. As an employee of the NSA, Edward Snowden broke his vow of secrecy to inform the public of our government’s furtive surveillance acts, but does this render him traitorous? To answer this, we must first ask ourselves, traitorous to whom? When the very institution established to protect our fundamental liberties intrudes on our privacy from behind a veil of secrecy, should such informed individuals resign from judicious autonomy and

Governments have always claimed that there is a trade-off between individual freedom and national security, that both can’t mutually exist in their full capacity. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 not only fuelled this argument for America but for other countries across the world. But this invasion of privacy in order to weed out the ‘bad guys’ really isn’t as effective or necessary as it's made out to be, and, if anything, poses potential harm to

Thesis Statement: “Citizens of this country should value the national security more than their privacy since it is concerned with a much larger group of people in order to protect our country from invaders, to maintain the survival of our country and to prevent airing of criticism of government.”