National Security Or Privacy

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.

While there is no “right to privacy” explicitly mentioned in the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court believes that several of the Amendments embody this right; specifically the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments [6]. The First Amendment protects the privacy of one’s beliefs [6]. The Third Amendment protects the privacy of the home against it being forcibly used to house soldiers [6]. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches [6]. The Fifth Amendment protects the privacy of personal information [6]. The Fourteenth Amendment provides for a right to liberty in the areas of family, marriage, motherhood, procreation, and child rearing [6]. And lastly the Ninth Amendment is a “catch-all,” declaring that just because a

When it comes to a horrible attack to our own homeland the privacy of individuals is not important. The patriot act needs to stay for as long as possible due to the fact that it has been benefiting us for many years. The act also provides increased funding for victims of terrorist attacks and their families, as well as for the rebuilding of business and infrastructure that are damaged by terrorism. The emphasis was on being sure that should another attack be planned, the government would have the power to prevent it from being

By being able to spy on “U.S.” citizens, protective agencies claim that such measures will be able to track terrorists in a heartbeat and foil their plans immediately based on the justification of the 9/11 attacks. However, it is known that the NSA has been around since 2005[4] and has not foiled any terrorist attack for the 8 years of its existence. [5] Matter of fact, the odds of a terrorist attack occurring, according to the Daily Kos, is 20,000,000 to 1[6]. That’s twenty million to one. With such a low risk of a terrorist attack occurring, why exactly does the NSA take such precaution in order to prevent it? But wait, wasn’t the bombing at the Boston marathon a supposed terrorist attack? How did the NSA not prevent that? Were they too busy trying to annihilate our Fourth Amendment rights, as

Privacy is a natural right that needs to be kept because if it is not a free society cannot function as one. If we give up our total privacy, we give up our freedom, which in essence throws away our liberal society. Every individual enjoys the act of being alone because it allows him or her to be themselves without facing any type of judgment. Every individual would cringe at the thought of being watched at all hours, while eating, sleeping, communicating, or participating in another activity. I would would feel embarrassed and petrified to know that every time I took a shower I was being watched. Everyone enjoys his or her right to privacy in America. In my opinion, the government has no right to invade our privacy because not everyone is a criminal and gather all this information

It is better to have civil liberties and a right to privacy than for the government to do whatever they deem necessary to prevent another terrorist attack. First off, the legality of the Patriot act is questionable, several articles had tried to nullify preexisting laws. Before law enforcement can fully begin investigating people or places, they must acquire a search warrant. This law is from Amendment 4 in the Bill of Rights and helps protect citizens from any unjustified searches; however, acquiring a search warrant takes time and is the reason why the Patriot Act tries to get away with working around it. An instance of this occurred in 2002, when George Bush authorized the NSA to monitor phone calls and e-mails of thousands of Americans,

Which one would you rather have, privacy or national security? Look at it this way, you are offered a room with safety from any harm with food and shelter for the rest of your life but you would be under surveillance of the government who would know absolutely everything that you do including who you text, your friends, what you say on social media, and every other aspect of your life. Or you have the ability to travel down the road of endless possibilities with the chance of getting hurt or even death but you would have to fend for yourself. In today’s world, terrorism poses a high threat against most Western Countries including The United States of America as shown by many terrorism plots like 9/11, a shooting attack at a night club, or

Our privacy is more important than national security. I would say that is not okay and should not be allowed. In July 2013 Edward Snowden released documents about “the patriot act”. The patriot act was a document president bush issued in 2001. president Barack obama later reissued the document in June 2015.

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 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

National security is more important than personal privacy because it concerns a much larger group of people. If someone is innocent, they should have nothing to hide. In a world where terrorism is a reality, it is more important to protect the safety of a country than for a few people avoid being

"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?