Individual Rights Vs. National Security

The need to protect National Security is far more important than individual privacy. The greatest part of living in the United States of America is the freedom that we have. That freedom and the right to live freely is protected by various government agencies. From time to time, the privacy a person has may have to be invaded to guarantee the security of the country and other citizens. Everyone has the right to not have their life controlled by the government, but it has the right to make sure that citizens are not doing anything to threaten the security of

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

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.

Immemorial, governments and individual citizens have had to walk a thin tightrope between the two ideals. This controversy was the catalyst that sparked the first ten amendments of the Constitution that we know as the Bill of Rights and, how in addition to these rights secured by America's forefathers, a number of institutions have arisen to ensure the protection of individual rights in an increasingly complex world. In order to add balance to this equation, the criminal

A paradox has always exists between the issue of civil liberties and national security. Democracy creates civil liberties that allow the freedom of association, expression, as well as movement, but there are some people use such liberal democracy to plan and execute violence, to destabilize State structures. It illustrates the delicate balance existing between reducing civil liberties to enhance security in a state. States have detained suspects for years and have also conducted extensive privacy incursions as strategies to combat terror, however it risks violation of civil liberties. This essay discusses the extent to which a state should be allowed to restrict civil liberties for the enhancement of national security and not abandon democratic values. It looks at aspects of the legal response to terrorism in the United States after the 9/11 attack.

Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the United States, once said “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” In America’s society today, some are willing to sacrifice their civil liberties in order to gain protection and security over some potential threat. Especially after the events of September 11th and several attempted bombings in U.S. cities. This sacrifice of individual freedoms such as the freedom of speech, expression, the right to information, to new technologies, and so forth, for additional protection is more of a loss than a gain. Citizens of the United States deserve equal liberty and safety overall, as someone should not have to give up

In 1784, Benjamin Franklin stated, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." It is hard to say whether or not Benjamin Franklin is right due to the fact that we face different struggles in this day and age that people in Napoleon Bonaparte’s and Franklin’s era did not have to worry about. Our situations regarding security and freedom, especially after September 11, 2001, dramatically changed as citizens realized how often their everyday lives were jeopardized with each new discovery and invention concerning weapons or violence.

Those who give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither liberty nor security

An example of history repeating itself is the similarity of the sequence of events between the Palmer Raids and the NSA’s PRISM program. Both of these events in U.S. history started with Americans calling on the government for protection. The government then responded by creating programs to protect, but while working to protect the government in both events used illegal practices. These practices soon were leaked which caused americans to not support the government’s ways of protection. They even opposed it so much that they even took steps to terminate the programs.

First and foremost individual rights are the liberties of each individual to pursue life and goals without interference from other individuals or the government. Individual rights include the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as stated in the United States of America Declaration of independence. National Security is a concept that a government, along with its parliaments should protect the state and its citizens against all kind of national crises through a variety of power, diplomacy, economic power, military might, and so on. I can see why this would be a big campaign issue because it is like now we are having to pick whether to live or die trying! Some of us debate for the better good for this is the future supposedly to be left for our younger kids.

The conception of human rights and freedoms is the cornerstone of American traditions, law and the indicator of democracy. The approach of prevailing interest in personal privacy, property privacy and non-interference of state authorities in private affairs is the basic ground for modern organization of American society. For centuries the courts have been standing safeguards of protection of persons against unreasonable intrusion of the State, generally interpreting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights with preference of personal human rights protection. Nonetheless in the end of the 21st century there appeared several factors which so much influenced our society that the matters

Place yourself in the safety and comfort of your home, under the belief that “everyone has the right to the use and enjoyment of his property” (Department of International Law), searching, emailing, and talking about things that may be frowned upon by others. Now imagine the raw feelings of fear and deception that would wash over you upon seeing Edward Snowden’s statement on how “the U.S. government is destroying privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they 're secretly building.” You may initially feel betrayed, but Obama formally announced that the NSA acts solely in the name of safety right? Have we begun to sacrifice the freedom and

Security can be defined as the “freedom from danger, risk, etc. with the absence of threats to assimilated principles” or a “low chance of damage to assimilated principles.” However, the word security originates from the Latin Securus, which means “carefree”. Notice that the very definition of the word clues to the term “freedom”. The aforementioned definition of security is very general. It does not stipulate the individual whose security is at issue or the types of values pliable to being secured. The security of people (“human security”) is understood to extend beyond national security, also comprising of economic welfare, the health of the environment, cultural identity, and political rights. Security began to take on a diverse set of restrictions with the Alien and Sedition Acts of the 1790s. We would see a drastic change after September 11, 2011.

"Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature. Life is either a daring adventure or nothing." -- Helen Keller

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?