Individual Privacy vs. National Security

Since the 9/11 attacks, concerns about the fine line between safety and privacy have arisen. It all began after the Patriot Act was enacted by the government to protect the safety of our country. One of its most controversial sections is section 215 which allows access to records and other tangible items under FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act). Many Americans argue its right for the government to have access to certain personal information for the safety of the country. Others allege this goes against the fourth amendment of the constitution which states people are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. However, it does not protect against all searches and seizures, but only those that are thought unreasonable under the law.

decided to overhaul their security protocols and specifically upgrade the security involving airports and airplanes. The upgrade in security of airports, although in some cases helpful, has caused an unnecessary amount of problems for American civilians due to the invasive changes made by the American government. Not only is it harder to get through security in America, but many of the American’s privacies have been taken away by the government in the name of safety as David Lyon says in his article on security changes in airports: “after 9/11, various policies and even laws concerning matters such as privacy and confidentiality have been overridden by the concern with ‘national security’”(405). Under the claim of safety, American and foreign civilians’ rights and privacy have been abused and taken away, leading to many people being overall upset and angry with the

Defining National Security VS Personal Privacy is a matter of looking at the basic nature of each. From research collected there is a consensus that we need balance. Too much of one hurts the other and vise versa. There are a couple of articles that range from Civil Liberties to the birth of public right to know that support the overall claim. Talks about the effects of censorship in different situations like war and peace will help prove that a balance needs to be forged. The problem here isn’t the definition of personal vs national security, but the survival of each in light of each other. There is history in our nation

Another measure TSA took was to add body scanners to security. These scanners can see what a person is carrying underneath their clothes. There have been a few different designs to this machine due to some lawsuits in the past brought up because the TSA agents were making fun of a man’s gentile size or certain passengers would feel embarrassed because someone can see their bodies. Now what the TSA agent sees is an outline of the passenger’s body and whatever is on the body. The body scanner does not show a naked person anymore.

For some residents, the reluctance to give up freedoms is a reflection of their belief that terrorists will succeed no matter what. However, according to a poll run by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, ⅔ of Americans say it’s appropriate to sacrifice some privacy and freedom in the fight against terrorism. People worry that giving up one freedom will lead to the loss of others. They believe that the one time someone does not get scanned at an airport or does not get their luggage checked it will be detrimental to society. With 9/11 still at the back of everyone’s minds, people do not want to risk our national

Shortly after 9/11 twelve years ago, the federal government created the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to protect air travel and prevent similar attacks. In 2012, the TSA had a budget of $8.1 billion, and while it claims to improve airport security, it fails to do so. Additionally, their checkpoints are privacy-invasive and cumbersome, negatively impacting the air travel industry. For these reasons, the agency should be abolished.

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

Debate continues over interpretation of fourth amendment rights as applied to the Transportations Security Administration’s (TSA) use of full body scanners. In the opinion article appearing in the Washington Post, Rosen clearly defines the arguments against full body or naked scanners attempting to sway public opinion and thus, swaying a potential supreme court decision regarding its use as a violation of the Fourth Amendment (2010). Not only does this article point out the level of invasiveness and the ineffectiveness of naked scanners but, also provides less intrusive methods that could be used in its place.

A plane can no longer be boarded without everybody at least going through a body scan, a suitcase check, and the metal detector. In the article, an author explains that “...touchstones like putting laptops into plastic bins, a pat down, and a blaring reminder not to carry packages for strangers drive home the fact that the survival is at stake in the post-September 11th world.” Lives could be at risk so it is necessary to go through these procedures to make sure everybody on the plane will be safe. These invasive procedures have been accepted over the years. People have also accepted the fact that there are more than enough police officers and technology at public events. One of the authors state that “... physical security screeners see what’s in your bag and your pockets; aerial and digital surveillance sees

Since the events of December 8, 1941 and September 9, 2001, there has been an immense change in the ruling of our national security and personal freedoms. The debate between the two is an intricate affair. Our national security has a direct effect on the lives of every citizen in this New World. America has yet to figure out how to retain both without a monumental problem occurring. National security is protecting against all national crisis, which demands taking away some civil liberties from the people. Having said that, a mass amount of people are not willing to give up those personal freedoms for the betterment of our nation because they feel that the government has taken it too far. National protection of the citizens

The country’s recently heightened airport security measures have become a source of controversy and debate across the Nation. Due to a recent attempted act of terrorism, where a man on an international flight to Detroit attempted to blow up the plane using a bomb, the department of homeland security has taken new measures to ensure national security in the form of new high- tech full-body scans and pat down procedures in airports. The new body scanning machines create images of people without their clothing, and the new pat down procedure is generally considered too personal. Many people feel that the new airport security screening is an invasion of privacy. A recent poll by Zogby International

Since September 11th, airport security has been more cautious as to who and what enter on the planes. “The TSA conducts screening and checks of passengers and their luggage to ensure safety and to attempt to catch potential terrorists before they attack passengers on a flight or plant explosives in an airport.” (Winterton 1) Airports now have very high tech security equipment and techniques that are very prestigious such as the pat down method, full body screening, and luggage screening. All of these procedures ensure the safety of people that are going on board the flight. People have the right to be safe, as well as to be searched when it comes to their personal lives. Many people have agreed as well, that the Patriot Act needs to go further with protecting its people. “Most recently, in 2010, 47% said they were more concerned that government policies “have not gone far enough to adequately protect the country,”” ( Doherty

I negate the resolution, "Resolved: When the United States is engaged in military conflict, national security ought to supercede conflicting claims of individual rights. My value for the round is Human Dignity, or what can be defined as a respect for the individual and his or her rights and virtues. John Stuart Mill states that "Everyone who receive the protection of society owes a return for the benefit... but not to the point that it violates constituted rights." Thus those rights which are the fundamentals of human dignity must be maintained. No fundamental goal should ever undermine this fundamental goal. The criteria which must consistently achieve is the maintenance of a legitimate government, or a govt. that maximizes the rights of

Airport security in the United States has been a controversial topic since the terrorist attacks of September 11th. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was established to ensure the safety and security of US airports. New regulations such as taking off shoes and full body scanners soon became the new normal in airports across the country. Travelers voiced concerns and complaints over the heightened security measures, arguing that they invade privacy and are unethical. On the other hand, Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport takes a very different approach to tackle terrorism in airports. Instead of high-tech machines, the airport focuses on the use of intelligence data and profiling to effectively identify terrorists. In the

There are numerous conflicting views on the methods the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to examine a passenger who is going to board a plane. Although the methods use seem necessary for one's safety at airports, passengers feel that full body scans and pat-downs are a violation of their Fourth Amendment and the Privacy Act as Hunter, M.(2010) stated as one of the lawsuits made by a public interest research group. The TSA being able to search you without