Why Is National Security More Important Than Digital Privacy

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

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.

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.

Our nation is built upon its foundation from the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights. Included within this governing document is the Fourth Amendment, the laws and guidelines that gives the people the right to privacy. Within in this amendment, it is stated that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated” (Magruder’s American Government 772). Despite the fact that these right are clearly stated and profound, recent advances in the scopes of technology and social media have violated the people’s privacy by deceiving them into thinking they are protected.

Americans security and the Fourth Amendment have been conflicting since the origin of the amendment. Some Americans started to be at odds with whether their security is at risk with the amendment, yet other citizens feel that privacy is equally important. With the coming of the twenty first century complications between the two are certainly bound to occur. Since the coming of the digital age and mass production of personal electronics, people’s privacy becomes imminent. Simple reasoning shows America rebelled from Great Britain; and one of those reasons for America to fight for its independence is that there was no sensible privacy was being showed. Although the Fourth Amendment tries to protect the privacy of Americans data, it should be

Privacy! It’s an elementary principle we all value and fight to protect. However, with technological trends, such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Snapchat, our lives have now become accessible to all. These social media platforms have become part of our daily lives, from sharing personal information or activities to communal networking. The fascination to be trendy and acquire followers, is compromising our privacy principles and places us at significant risk. It’s remarkably easy to pretend that we control what personal information we share, however, realistically we leave technological trails every day we login to these apps, or browse the internet. For the most part, it seems that

This paper will examine the Fourth Amendment and take a closer look into what is the requirements to obtain a warrant and when there is no need for a warrant to search a civilian or his or her property. Also the Patriot Act is infringing on our fourth Amendment right to privacy.

The common thread throughout all four arguments for civil liberties—historical backing, refined legality, obligatory morality, and economic responsibility—is that each is personal to citizens. The Fourth Amendment was written for American citizens. The laws enforced in this nation are for the people’s safety. The social contract is in place to balance the relationship between government and society. And the government security agencies are funded by the citizens through taxes. The initial two questions were “is government collection of personal data under the argument of national security just, and, if not, what would be an alternative to protecting American citizens?” The resolving answer is that the collection of data is unprotected, immoral,

People might not think about being watched when they’re posting personal experiences in their life on social media. The government has the ability and justification to go through a person’s social media site, listen to phone calls, and read text messages as a way of narrowing down possible suspects for terrorism. The privacy laws in America are what allows the U.S. government to search the digital world for possible threats to the country. Although some say that privacy laws help American citizens keep their confidentiality for medical reasons, also as benefits for social security, I still maintain that privacy laws gives the government undeserved power and can give the impression of being watched .

As a nation, we have had many first-hand experiences with terrorism and violence. The pain and suffering we are put through as a nation, people tend not to consider being subjected to government surveillance. Our security from future terrorist attacks is vital, then again, not as vital as our privacy. People shouldn’t be so quick to sacrifice their privacy rights, to allow the government to monitor national security. Giving the government the power of invading our privacy, creates an effortless way for them to violate their power and strip citizens of their constitutional rights. People will argue that the price one has to pay for safety, is giving up their rights to privacy. As Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” (Independence Hall Association). In other words, those willing to give up their privacy for security, deserve neither. We the people, those who assemble this nation, should not allow the government to invade our privacy or void our 4th amendment right.

As the Fourth Amendment recognizes the right to privacy, its application has the tendency to spark debate among individuals (Peak).

Privacy is something that is valuable, and gives trust to both sides. Everyone is endowed with some degree of privacy, right? The debate of the topic privacy versus security has been going on for a while. Most people believe privacy is more important, giving people the chance to be relaxed without anyone watching them, literally or figuratively speaking. Governments believe that security is more important, claiming it will help with terrorism and lower the crime rate. If we allow this to happen, then as an example, the government could monitor our phones conversations, what websites we visit, the games or programs we download, even where we go throughout our day by tracking us on the GPS unit in our smartphones.

Technology has become very effective for a thriving generation, but it also possesses a handful of flaws that counter the benefits. Technologies help people post and deliver a message in a matter of seconds in order to get a message spread quickly. It also gives individuals the power to be the person they want to be by only showing one side of themselves. But sometimes information that had intentions of remaining protected gets out. That information is now open for all human eyes to see. This information, quite frankly, becomes everybody’s information and can be bought and sold without the individual being aware of it at all. However, this is no accident. Americans in the post 9/11 era have grown accustomed to being monitored. Government entities such as the NSA and laws such as the Patriot Act have received power to do so in order to protect security of Americans. However, the founding fathers wrote the fourth amendment to protect against violations of individual’s privacy without reason. In a rapidly growing technological world, civil liberties are increasingly being violated by privacy wiretapping from government entities such as the NSA, Patriot Act and the reduction of the Fourth Amendment.

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