Privacy vs Security: A Comparsion of Th Eterna Value of Privacy by Bruce Schneier and In the Battle between Privacy and Sercurity by Chris Cillzza

Privacy and safety of citizens is common in today's society, as well as the government looking over their shoulder at all times. As an example, George Orwell wrote a book called, "1984" which in it gave an outlook of society being taken over by a party. Government surveillance is different from protecting and bringing safety to the citizens, it violates their freedom, privacy, and human rights.

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

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.

President Bush intended through legislation, to aid federal agencies in identifying potential terrorists and to ultimately protect this country from possible potential terrorist attacks in the future (Banks, 2010). Both individuals in power and ordinary citizens were greatly supportive of giving up certain liberties and privacy in order for the protection of the greater good. However, The Patriot Act was extremely controversial and advocates feared that power could be abused and that non-threatening citizens were being examined for crimes in which were not terrorist related (Sievert, 2007). Additionally, the most controversial aspect of The Patriot Act was the fear of privacy in relation to the first and fourth amendment (Xhelili and Crowne,

As a growing topic of discussion, privacy in our society has stirred quite some concern. With the increase of technology and social networking our standards for privacy have been altered and the boundary between privacy and government has been blurred. In the article, Visible Man: Ethics in a World Without Secrets, Peter Singer addresses the different aspects of privacy that are being affected through the use of technology. The role of privacy in a democratic society is a tricky endeavor, however, each individual has a right to privacy. In our society, surveillance undermines privacy and without privacy there can be no democracy.

In Brian Trent’s article, Technology and Tomorrow: A Challenge to Liberty, Trent describes how electronic surveillance has increased and how it will continue to spread amongst people. In Craig Silverman’s article, Smile, Big Brother’s watching, Silverman explains that the amount of time and surveillance that corporations conduct over employees is increasing, but having some negative effects. Both of these articles explain how electronic surveillance will increase so much, that almost everyone will be able to be seen when not in the open [monitored]. In this essay I’ll be going more in depth to describe both articles and I’ll explain whether I agree with their arguments and why.

Ever since day one, people have been developing and creating all sorts of new methods and machines to help better everyday life in one way or another. Who can forget the invention of the ever-wondrous telephone? And we can’t forget how innovative and life-changing computers have been. However, while all machines have their positive uses, there can also be many negatives depending on how one uses said machines, wiretapping in on phone conversations, using spyware to quietly survey every keystroke and click one makes, and many other methods of unwanted snooping have arisen. As a result, laws have been made to make sure these negative uses are not taken advantage of by anyone. But because of how often technology changes, how can it be

Many users are subject of Security and Privacy on the Internet issue. The term "information" now is more used when defining a special product or article of trade which could be bought, sold, exchanged, etc. Often the price of information is higher many times than the cost of the very computers and technologies where it is functioning. Naturally it raises the need of protecting information from unauthorized access, theft, destruction, and other crimes. However, many users do not realize that they risk their security and privacy online.

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.

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.

Privacy either encourages or is a necessary factor of human securities and fundamental value such as human embarrassment, independence, distinctiveness, freedom, and public affection. Being completely subject to mutual scrutiny will begin to lose self-respect, independence, distinctiveness, and freedom as a result of the sometimes strong burden to conform to public outlooks.

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.”

"Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature. Life is either a daring adventure or nothing." -- Helen Keller