Is Safety Something We Should Sacrifice Privacy For Our Lives?

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.

Technology has been advancing since before humans created the term advancement. Furthering technology was once needed for human survival, such as with the creation of fire and tools. Nowadays, the development of scientific knowledge seems to be based on desire rather than necessity. This threatens to create many problems, such as losing privacy that was once nonexistent and being overthrown by sentient AI’s that weren’t even a possibility 100 years ago. People are forced to decide whether or not the extra technology is worth the consequences that come with it. The loss of privacy and people being able to hack into important information has a greater impact on most than machines with artificial intelligence.

In support of privacy, Daniel J. Solove wrote, Why Privacy Matters Even If You Have ‘Nothing to Hide.’ Solove begins his argument by introducing the nothing-to-hide argument. In general, the argument for surveillance is ‘if you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear:’ hence people’s support for government efforts and regulations to ‘protect’ citizens by decreasing privacy. Those who object this argument target its most extreme cases. For example, if you have nothing to hide, could I take a nude picture of you, own all entitlements to the photo, and share it with anyone? Absolutely not, most would say, but this objection is not exceptionally compelling according to Solove. In order to understand privacy, we must not reduce it to one single definition. Privacy is extremely complex and involves a range of different things that share common characteristics. For instance, one’s privacy can be invaded by the expose of your innermost secrets, but it may also be invaded if a peeping Tom (without the reveal of any secrets) is observing you. Your privacy may also be invaded if the government seeks extensive information about you. All of these examples cause harm related to an invasion of privacy, thus making the definition of privacy not applicable for a “one size fits all” conclusion. The underlying and most significant harm that comes from surveillance is the problem of information processing. Solove uses The Trial example to demonstrate this effect. Here, the

In the brainwashed society of Oceania in 1984, by George Orwell, led by a totalitarian government in the name of a leader known as Big Brother, citizens are placed under constant surveillance from the government, preventing them from having individuality and freedom of thought. Although written in a fictional setting, the book strikes analogous similarities to the United States in today’s world. Due to a growth in surveillance, personal information and privacy are being intervened, however, not violated. While technological advances are increasing and crimes such as hacking and terrorism are becoming more prominent in society, government surveillance is becoming largely needed to ensure the protection

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.

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

Millions of people are posting pictures of themselves and their life experiences online for the world to see. And of course, people only post things that will make themselves seem more cool, adventures, and pretty, basically, a better person. People make an effort to present themselves based on what others like to gain popularity. This effort to be “perfect” is now being seen through people in the real world. People view others based on what they see of them online rather than in the real world. In the articles, “Should We Ditch the Idea of Privacy?” by Don Tapscott and “#Me: Instagram Narcissism and the scourge of the Selfie” by John Paul Titlow. Both authors show us without question, how the internet and social media have impacted the ways we view others and how we present ourselves to others negatively.

As much as a company should not invade the rights of its employees , it has the equal responsibility of ensuring that its privacy and that of its employees are not divulged or used in any personal intent by other employees . According to Nyman (2005 , more companies are being held accountable by employees whose privacy was compromised in the workplace because of what is seen as a lack in its measures to ensure their privacy . Therefore , if employers are being held accountable for such situations , Nyman believes that they should be given enough power to protect themselves from such liabilities

Would the American people be willing to give up their privacy, freedom, happiness, and decision making in exchange for government protection? What if the government took away these rights against their will? In America, this is slowly becoming a reality when regarding the right to privacy. This right has been stripped from Americans for many years, and the violation is only going to create greater problems. The American government and its agencies are illegally collecting the private and personal information of the America people. There are people willing to surrender their rights and people fighting to protect their freedom. The purpose of this essay is to inform all these types of individuals about the government and their so-called national

People in America are having their rights that regard privacy taken away. This nation's security is related to the Writs of Assistance.The Writs of Assistance was passed in 1761. This law was forced on the colonists by British rule. It was an order issued by the court that commanded law enforcement officials to search any home for smuggled goods. This law was an invasion of privacy towards the colonists. Officials could come into their homes without a search warrant. The Writs of Assistance and the United State’s security are both spying on the people’s personal information. Having privacy dominates over having security because privacy is more important for the citizens of the United States, the company Apple was right to not unlock the phones

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.

Individual Privacy vs. National Security is something that many people have argued for years. Many people have forgotten what a disturbance September 11, 2001 was to everyone in America. This was the day that 2,992 lives were stolen in the attacks by the Taliban on U.S. soil. Due to this attack the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) along with the Federal Government has put in place many new security regulations. Many people have lost touch with why these regulations were put in place. As well, many people have lost touch with why TSA is using full body scanners and other security devices.

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.

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?

Indeed, engineering can be enriched by paying more attention to ethics. This guide uses cases drawn from real engineering situations, in order to allow engineers to practice ethical reasoning as it applies to these situations. However, in terms of developing better ethical awareness and reasoning skills, there is no substitute for dealing with the dilemmas and decisions that each of us faces daily. The first step is recognising these when they arise. Analysing them and responding effectively goes to the heart of personal and professional identity.