Is Our Security More Important Than Our Privacy?

When the topic of Homeland Security is introduced, the first thought that comes to mind is either 9/11 or the Transportation Security Administration, TSA for short. No matter the reference, most Americans know that Homeland Security has something to do with Terrorism. Until an actual attack occurs, or election season begins, the average person may never give any thought or credit to the Department of Homeland Security. Homeland Security goes far beyond terrorism and terrorism prevention. Homeland Security does not just encompass holding individuals up at airports for multiple hours to intentionally hinder passengers from catching their flight out of the Caribbean. Homeland Security is multiple levels of legislation; law and policy to prevent

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.

The Internet was first used in the nineteen sixties by a small group of technology professionals. Since then the internet has become an essential part of today’s world, from communicating through texts and emails to banking, studying, and shopping, the internet has touched every aspect of our lives. With the growing use of the internet, protecting important information has become a must. While some believe they have the right to privacy, and feel that the government should not be at the center of their lives. Others feel that the Internet has evolved into a weapon for our enemies, and believe the government must take action by proactively

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.

In the wake of September 11th, the country was in turmoil. Fear and confusion were rampant; direction was required. President George Bush, in a famous address, acknowledged the severity of the attacks, and called for a newly invigorated sense of nationalism. His plan for preventing future attacks called for the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, and expanded powers to intelligence agencies (Bush). During this time, one of the most provocative bills was allowed to pass, under the guise of a terrorist seeking bill. The Patriot Act was indeed effective in increasing the power allotted to surveillance agencies, but many feel at too high of a cost. Many have asked the question… "is

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

Imagine someone living in a country that turns surveillance equipment on its own citizens to monitor their locations, behavior, and phone calls. Probably no one is willing to live in such place where privacy is being undermined by the authorities. For people living in the U.S., their private information has been more vulnerable than ever before because the government is able to use various kinds of surveillance equipment and technology to monitor and analyze their activities, conversations, and behaviors without their permission, in the name of homeland security. Mass surveillance has jeopardized people’s privacy and deprived individuals of their freedom, which is associated with dignity, trust, and autonomy. In the

The United States should prioritize privacy over national security because of abuse of power, the ineffective use of surveillance to stop terrorists’ attacks, and the diminished freedom that occurs with surveillance in America. There is difficulty in maintaining freedom and securing our nation. The goals of each appear to be counter to the other. Can this country strike a balance between the two? Considering that America was founded on freedom, privacy and personal rights should

Since the birth of America the United States has made the use of intelligence known through the purposes of warfare, defense, and diplomacy. Intelligence is the gathering of information which is analyzed and converted into data to serve as an asset to the decision making process. This is possible by identifying what the national interest is at the time. We use intelligence to provide information based off everyday observations and activities to give us a sense of patterns to form an idea of the “big picture” and identify what threats may be imminent at the time. With reference to Homeland Security Intelligence is not to solely acquire life threatening data, rather than should be to analyzes and share information between the private sector,

The words, “Arguing that you don’t care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say” were said by Edward Snowden who is a computer professional in America. Similarly, the essays “Tracking Is an Assault on Liberty,” “Web Users Get as Much as They Give,” and “Facebook Is Using You” from Nicholas Carr, Jim Harper, and Lori Andrews respectively points out that the internet privacy is good and bad. However, the articles by Carr and Andrews are based on the negative side of the internet privacy, which means that the internet privacy is not good. On the other hand, Harper’s article is based on the positive side of the internet privacy, which means that the internet privacy is good and scary, but people need to be careful of their own information and browsing histories, and websites. Jim Harper’s essay is more relevant and reasonable than the Nicholas Carr and Lori Andrews’s essays. However, Harper seems more persuasive to readers because he believes that the internet is good if people use it in a right way, whereas Carr and Andrews believe that the internet is not good at all.

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

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.

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.”

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?