Our Privacy Is More Important Than National Security

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.

National security is the ability to protect our borders through homeland security while upholding the rights of nation. Privacy when openly tampered with is distorted. Nobody acts the same knowingly being watched. Information finds another way. There have been studies on lesser issues like workers. There is more productivity when people think they are being watched. The same when our liberties are at stake. What are people to do when it’s done for the wrong reasons? Like when an African American see’s a sign that separates white and color bathrooms. Another would be when the Jews were forced to where a star then live separately in their own projects. The US jokes about our nation being like fraternity. Every new group gets picked on. The Jew’s for being good with money. The Mexicans for being illegal’s and now it’s the Arab’s turn. But Arab’s are all terrorist somehow. We have seen terror before from the Unabomber, the KKK, and columbine shooting. How do we keep up with inflation? The government finds one way to gather information and terrorist adapt. When civil liberties get trampled in the process more anti-American groups rise to the occasion creating more danger inside America and out.

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.

Like most Americans, I have read in the news recently about the different intelligence agencies of our government, federal and local, gathering and storing personal information on its citizens under the direction of the Patriot Act. Some would consider the information gathered about our personal lives overly intrusive, including violations of our constitutional rights while others may not. However, I think most Americans will agree that the government needs to be very careful in how they interpret the amended Patriot Act. It should be interpreted in such a way that it does not violate the American people’s constitutional rights. If the laws do then they should be overturned. Today many

On October 26, 2001, a law was signed into congress by George W. Bush known as the Patriot Act. The initial purpose of the act was to monitor terrorist like activity that could happen on U.S. soil and that could affect the way of the American life. Although its sole purpose was to monitor suspect activity, it gives citizens little to no privacy. In Martin Letter from Birmingham Jail, he explains how he believed that a just laws should follow the code of ethics. However, this law is the farthest from having morals or being ethical, it’s used to invaded the privacy of U.S. citizen. The USA Patriot Act is an unjust law, it violates the right to freedom and abuses the right to have privacy, and it can lead to unlawful consequences.

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

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,

Relevance: The government for years has been using the excuse of national security, as a way in to our lives and the lives of those we represent. It is time that we introduce a new law in order curb this intrusion in to our lives

The topic of national security vs. personal privacy, in recent events, has been very controversial regarding which is more appropriate. On one hand, the government can search through personal, private files without any consent from the owner, thus making the information no longer private. The opposing side argues that the government is invading personal privacy of innocent civilians, violating the Fourth Amendment Rights to prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures. Both have valid points, both positive and negative; however, the invasion of personal privacy by the law is only justified in a dire, life or death situation. The government should not have the ability to view private information in an everyday situation because it is a strong violation of the Fourth Amendment, it is too invasive, and it bypasses the limits of personal privacy when necessary. Therefore, the government should not be able to view personal, private information of civilians unless absolutely necessary.

Finally, security loses its worth if not accompanied by rights. Benjamin Franklin states that "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither liberty or safety" Without Liberty, Security is purposeless. The entire purpose of national security is to protect the American way of life and what our nation

The conception of human rights and freedoms is the cornerstone of American traditions, law and the indicator of democracy. The approach of prevailing interest in personal privacy, property privacy and non-interference of state authorities in private affairs is the basic ground for modern organization of American society. For centuries the courts have been standing safeguards of protection of persons against unreasonable intrusion of the State, generally interpreting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights with preference of personal human rights protection. Nonetheless in the end of the 21st century there appeared several factors which so much influenced our society that the matters

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.

Security can be defined as the “freedom from danger, risk, etc. with the absence of threats to assimilated principles” or a “low chance of damage to assimilated principles.” However, the word security originates from the Latin Securus, which means “carefree”. Notice that the very definition of the word clues to the term “freedom”. The aforementioned definition of security is very general. It does not stipulate the individual whose security is at issue or the types of values pliable to being secured. The security of people (“human security”) is understood to extend beyond national security, also comprising of economic welfare, the health of the environment, cultural identity, and political rights. Security began to take on a diverse set of restrictions with the Alien and Sedition Acts of the 1790s. We would see a drastic change after September 11, 2011.

"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?