Compare And Contrast Teeter Totter

As human beings and citizens of the world, everyone values their privacy. It is a right that is often looked over and taken for granted by most. Since the beginning of time, there have been concerns about individuals’ rights to privacy and their personal information remaining confidential. Our founding fathers had concerns about this which is why, “…this right has developed into

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.

Modern Americans see privacy as one of the greatest freedoms. When Edward Snowden revealed the NSA surveillance program, the citizens of the United States were appalled by the extent of access the NSA had to personal information. However, according to Dan Tapscott in his essay, “Should We Ditch the Idea of Privacy?” we post just as many details daily on our numerous social media outlets. The majority of the information we freely post is not meaningful and does no harm to us by being public, yet there is a dangerous side to our open-book nature.

Privacy is one of the most controversial, yet most essential topics in the discussion of civil liberties. Some treat it as a necessity along with life, liberty, and property, whereas other people see it as something that shouldn’t get in the way of things like security (Sadowski).

In this essay, I will attempt to argue that TSA serves as a mechanism for the government to frame the nature of the debate on privacy, in a way that is beneficial to them. To do this I will first argue that airport security and the TSA is objectively ineffective and merely creates the illusion of privacy. Despite not actually protecting us, the system of airplane security, conditions individuals in the general public to be willing to make sacrifices in privacy for a perceived “greater good” in community safety. This viewpoint of individuals sacrificing a little privacy for the wellbeing of society is the essentially the same “nothing to hide” argument that the government uses to justify mass surveillance and the violation of constitutional privacy rights. This airplane security and analogues government argument is flawed because it defines privacy two narrowly in scope and assumes that privacy couldn’t have social value. However, despite being flawed, the indoctrination by the TSA, and subsequent ideology has become a widely accepted belief. This is inherently

America was founded of the ideals of free speech and equality, but if one tries to exercise these rights to the fullest extent, one’s privacy would be jeopardized. The purpose

Privacy is what allows people to feel secure in their surroundings. With privacy, one is allowed to withhold or distribute the information they want by choice, but the ability to have that choice is being violated in today’s society. Benjamin Franklin once said, “He who sacrifices freedom or liberty will eventually have neither.” And that’s the unfortunate truth that is and has occurred in recent years. Privacy, especially in such a fast paced moving world, is extremely vital yet is extremely violated, as recently discovered the NSA has been spying on U.S. citizens for quite a while now; based on the Fourth Amendment, the risk of leaked and distorted individual information, as well as vulnerability to lack of anonymity.

The horrific September 11th event, along with others, has changed the way people think about their privacy. The fear is so great that we are willing to trade off our privacy, in essence our freedom, for the sake of security. People argue that if they do not have anything to hide then why worry if the government is spying on us. Nonetheless, it is not about not having anything to hide. Simply, it is about

Would you give up your privacy for a little bit of security? The two go hand in hand. Our advancing technology provides our government with the tools to fulfill its top priority—national security. But where is the line drawn between security and privacy? Privacy is not only a value to many Americans—it is a right protected under the Fourth Amendment. But to what extent? The technology meant to protect us seems to be invading the little privacy we have left, having diminished greatly over the years. It has been said, “Give me liberty or give me death!” Since 9/11, security in our daily lives has been a concern for many Americans and the government has since made efforts to secure the nation. The measures taken to protect our nation through the

Daniel J. Solove is the John Marshall Harlan Research Professor of Law at the George Washington University Law School, one of the world’s leading experts on privacy law, and well known for his academic work on privacy and its correlations with technology. Author of many popular books, Solove also served as White House counsel for President Nixon. In the article, The Nothing-to-Hide Argument, Solove further explains the threats of allowing the government to access personal information. One of many arguments in regards to privacy, is freedom and how it hinders people under surveillance, giving a sense of being less inferior. People don’t Acknowledge certain problems because they don’t fit into the particular one-size-fits-all conception of privacy (Solove 738). Privacy is a right granted to every individual that reinforces the freedoms of expression, association and assembly; being that the U.S. is a democratic society and should not be tampered with.

In today’s society, the word “privacy” has become ubiquitous. When discussing whether government surveillance and data collection pose a threat to privacy, the most common retort against privacy advocates – by those in favor of databases, video surveillance, spyware, data mining and other modern surveillance measures – is this line: "If I’m not doing anything wrong, what would I have to hide?" The allowance of the government’s gathering and analysis of our personal information stems from an inadequate definition of what privacy is and the eternal value that privacy possesses. The adherents of the “nothing-to-hide” argument say that because the information will never be disclosed to the public, the “privacy interest is minimal, and the security interest in preventing terrorism is much more important.” 1 In an era where the patterns we leave behind will inevitably become the focus for whatever authority, the issue of privacy affects more than just individuals hiding a wrong. In this essay, I will explore the state of online privacy in wake of the government’s warrantless data collection. Respectively, the nothing-to-hide argument and its key variants in more depth.

Today, individuals are sacrificing privacy in order to feel safe. These sacrifices have made a significant impact on the current meaning of privacy, but may have greater consequences in the future. According to Debbie Kasper in her journal, “The Evolution (Or Devolution) of Privacy,” privacy is a struggling dilemma in America. Kasper asks, “If it is gone, when did it disappear, and why?”(Kasper 69). Our past generation has experienced the baby boom, and the world today is witnessing a technological boom. Technology is growing at an exponential rate, thus making information easier to access and share than ever before. The rapid diminishing of privacy is leaving Americans desperate for change.

The attacks on American soil that solemn day of September 11, 2001, ignited a quarrel that the grade of singular privacy, need not be given away in the hunt of grander security. The security measures in place were planned to protect our democracy and its liberties yet, they are merely eroding the very existence with the start of a socialistic paradigm. Benjamin Franklin (1759), warned more than two centuries ago: “they that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Implementing security measures comes at a cost both economically and socially. Government bureaucrats can and will utilize information for personal political objectives. The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator

Goldsborough, Reid. "Personal Privacy vs. National Security Is Being Debated." Information Today. N.p., 15 Mar. 2016. Web. 16 May 2017.

The tension between national security and individual privacy has long existed even before the development of digitized information. Recently, two main forces have advanced the debate over this balance to the forefront of the public eye: 1) the proliferation of data by private sector companies and 2) the heightened need for homeland security and public defense. With the rapid evolution of technology, companies have aggregated pools of consumer data to improve upon internal decision making. In some cases, however, this data can be leveraged to ensure national security and public safety. This juxtaposition of enterprise and security results in a blurring of the line dividing public and private sector responsibilities. The question becomes an issue of moral obligation versus legal responsibility. What are we as consumers and citizens willing to sacrifice in exchange for safety? And does the private sector inevitably succumb to obligations originating from the public sector?