National Security Vs. Personal Privacy

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.

Is anyone’s private information contained in their cell phone actually private? Are appointments, bank information, conversations, the user’s location or other sensitive personal information truly confidential? Is there a Big Brother watching? There is no definitive answer to any of these questions. From the beginning of time to now, privacy has become more and more scarce. Through new developments in technology, it is hard to believe that someone is not watching your move at any given moment. The government’s job is to keep Americans safe, but where is the line drawn? Where is the difference between having a reasonable doubt and accessing information solely because these government officials have the power to do so? The government has infringed upon the rights of the American people when it comes to this topic.

Privacy is, and should continue to be, a fundamental dimension of living in a free, democratic society. Laws protect “government, credit, communications, education, bank, cable, video, motor vehicle, health, telecommunications, children’s and financial information; generally carve out exceptions for disclosure of personal information; and authorize the use of warrants, subpoenas, and court orders to obtain the information.” (Protecting Individual Privacy in the Struggle Against Terrorists: A Framework for Program Assessment, 2008) This is where a lot of people feel as though they have their privacy violated. Most Americans are law-abiding citizens who do not commit illegal acts against the country, they want to go about their lives, minding their own business and not having to worry about outside interference. The fine line between privacy and National Security may not be so fine in everyone’s mind. While it is the job of government agencies to ensure the overall safety of the country and those living in it, the citizens that obey the law and do not do anything illegal often wonder why they are subject to any kind of search, when they can clearly point out, through documentation, that they have never done anything wrong.

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.

After the horrific terrorist attack on the date of September 11th, 2001 the U.S has passed a law to help prevent terrorist attacks. Through the use of tapping phone lines and checking citizens Internet usage. The U.S. department of Homeland Security’s purpose was to organize the National Security Agency, the Pentagon, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency. The design was intended to product the people of the U.S. It allows the government to search people’s home without a warrant. The causal factors that allow the government search through without warrant are: emails, phones and search engine searches. There is a problem the 4th amendment “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,

The government’s interpretation of the Fourth Amendment has been used to amass a collection of phone records, gain access to other records, and carry out search and seizure without a warrant; however, the government has used this approach to find threats to America.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” Sound familiar? Well it should. That quote was a section of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Those lines are one of the many things that set America apart from other countries around the world. It has protected us for centuries from “unreasonable searches and seizures…” made by anyone, including the government. This is all beginning to change with the inventions of the smartphone, computer, and even GPS. These inventions have possibly turned our world for the better, or maybe even for the worse.

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

The issue of search and seizure is more than a simple legal problem, for it is directly related to a deeply held constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Additionally, the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was enacted with the purpose of protecting citizens from the Government infringing on their privacy without just cause; likewise, this includes the right to be secure in their person, their property and to be free from unreasonably searches and seizures (Varone J. C., 2012).

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.

I negate the resolution, "Resolved: When the United States is engaged in military conflict, national security ought to supercede conflicting claims of individual rights. My value for the round is Human Dignity, or what can be defined as a respect for the individual and his or her rights and virtues. John Stuart Mill states that "Everyone who receive the protection of society owes a return for the benefit... but not to the point that it violates constituted rights." Thus those rights which are the fundamentals of human dignity must be maintained. No fundamental goal should ever undermine this fundamental goal. The criteria which must consistently achieve is the maintenance of a legitimate government, or a govt. that maximizes the rights of

On December 2nd, 2015, a radical Islamic couple, Tashfeen Malik and her husband Syed Rizwan Farook, killed fourteen people and seriously injured twenty-two. This tragic incident did not occur at a large government facility, or even in an overpopulated area. It happened at a holiday party for a group of eighty Department of Public Health Employees, in a rented banquet facility. This terrorist attack, in San Bernardino, California, resurrected fear in Americans, originally brought on by the September 11th attacks that occurred on American soil. This attack has brought on a fueled debate over which is more important for U.S. Citizens, protecting our fourth amendment right to privacy or national security.

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

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.”