Essay on Safety vs. Freedom

In society today many citizens feel violated with the security methods taken by homeland security. “On September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United States marked the beginning of the global war on terrorism. The methods used are justifiable as they provide protection against possible threats or attacks. This attack on U.S. soil increased surveillance of both American citizens and foreign nationals” (Andrew, C., & Walter,

decided to overhaul their security protocols and specifically upgrade the security involving airports and airplanes. The upgrade in security of airports, although in some cases helpful, has caused an unnecessary amount of problems for American civilians due to the invasive changes made by the American government. Not only is it harder to get through security in America, but many of the American’s privacies have been taken away by the government in the name of safety as David Lyon says in his article on security changes in airports: “after 9/11, various policies and even laws concerning matters such as privacy and confidentiality have been overridden by the concern with ‘national security’”(405). Under the claim of safety, American and foreign civilians’ rights and privacy have been abused and taken away, leading to many people being overall upset and angry with the

America is the universal symbol of freedom. But is it really free? Does the history of the United States stay true to the ideas of our forefathers? Or has the definition been altered to fit American policies? Has freedom defined America? Or has America defined freedom? I believe America was at first defined by freedom, then after time, America defined freedom, altering the definition to fit the niche it fits in, but still keeping key components so it still seems to be staying true to the ideas of America’s founding fathers.

Both National Security and individual privacy were massively affected by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In a matter of minutes, four airplanes were

The federal government assured the public that pictures would not be recorded and saved from these machines.  That is not the case.  The scanner that was uses in a Florid courthouse showed the actual “people side-by-side with their X-rayed selves” (Allahpundit).  Why did the government outright lie to the public?  To save their own asses, of course.  This is in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment.  The amendment gives people the right to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches.  I believe the scanning of humans and taking pictures of their faces violates this.   Shockingly, former TSA security director, Mo McGowan, openly stated on fox news that “Nobody likes to have their 4th Amendment violated going through a security line, but the truth of the matter is, we’re going to have to do it” (Left Coast Rebel).  Excuse me? Did this man actually say this in public?  It’s not shocking that he’s no longer the security director.

Another measure TSA took was to add body scanners to security. These scanners can see what a person is carrying underneath their clothes. There have been a few different designs to this machine due to some lawsuits in the past brought up because the TSA agents were making fun of a man’s gentile size or certain passengers would feel embarrassed because someone can see their bodies. Now what the TSA agent sees is an outline of the passenger’s body and whatever is on the body. The body scanner does not show a naked person anymore.

Developed in the 1960s, facial recognition technology has been used by the government and companies to identify people by matching them to photos. The data for this software was originally entered manually, limiting the scope of use. By 2001, the novelty of more powerful facial recognition technology grasped the public’s attention. During the January 2001 Super Bowl, surveillance cameras captured images to find people with a criminal record (FBI 2013). This potential invasion of privacy under the pretense of public safety sparked a public debate about what private information the government was allowed to take from us. So should we be putting limitations on the use of facial recognition software in America in order to keep

Body cameras come in all shapes and sizes. There are many commercial businesses in the United States that already use body cameras for private industry work. According to Jay Stanley a body camera are, “small, pager-sized cameras that clip on to an officer’s uniform or sunglasses or are worn as a headset, and record audio and video of the officer’s interactions with the public” (Stanley).

It has been more than seventy years since the release of George Orwell’s 1984, a novel that imparts a lesson on the consequences of government overreach. However, today that novel reads like an exposé of government surveillance. Privacy and national security are two ideas competing for value on a balance; if one is more highly valued, the other carries less weight. Government desire to bolster national security by spying on its own citizens-- even the law abiding ones-- is what leads to the inverse relationship between civil liberties and security. In times of a perceived threat to the nation, national security becomes highly prized and people lose privacy. One case is terrorist attacks. 9/11 caused an understandable kneejerk reaction in Americans to bolster protection. Some of the the measures taken were observable, like greater security at airports, but others attempted to increase national security in a more intrusive way. Privacy should be more highly valued than national security, and America has reached a point where that is no longer true.

The current screening method is the body scanner which has been reported on multiple times by the news as it is consider invasive in nature. The screener is able to see the passenger’s nude image, but software updates have eliminated this providing only detection of metallic and nonmetallic threats. The prior method of a metal detector which did not alarm staff if nonmetallic threats existed allowed C-4 explosive (a clay type of explosive) to board the plan. The body scanners are quicker than the former methods of a “pat down”, which every passenger had to endure and were less invasive. This system will be used by the TSA until a better method is discovered, which will provide faster screening, more privacy to passengers and better detection of threats. The cost of this has rising over the years but it was the initial setup of the TSA in 2002 which cost the most since there was not an agency within this realm that completed these duties.

Inhibiting bystanders or defendants that don’t want to be recorded getting arrested. Police body cameras may solve many situations but also create new ones as well, for instance video footage is state owned, which means that traumatic and intimate footage could be leaked online and used in cases. This may also prevent witnesses from coming forward because of fear and public exposure. Equipment is expensive, for all police officers to be provided with and maintain these devices, and storage expenses come up to millions of

If a bad cop does something wrong the body cam will catch it. The bad cop would probably take the body camera off before doing anything wrong, however if there is a good cop around then his body cam could catch the bad cop in the act. If there was more security on police than there wouldn’t be bad cops. The police should be trusted and most of them are but what about the ones that don’t do as much or don’t check in when they’re supposed to on regular bases.

With increased security, we have lost a lot of our privacy. Security from our defense systems, such as the military, NSA, CIA and other government agencies, protect us everyday by monitoring threats and online activities. The security measures in place at public areas, such as full body scanners at airports and metal detectors at courthouses and some schools, are all in place to protect the general population. As a consequence of improved security we lose some of our privacy with the invasive searches of our person and our belongings. One of the former president Barack Obama’s last executive orders gave intelligence agencies the ability to have weaker filter on the data from the Internet. With less of a filter, more information can be collected about threats to the nation. “CIA, FBI and other agencies will be able to access surveillance on foreigners abroad, including information identifying Americans they may be in contact with” (Swaine). Our government has gained the right to collect information of people with suspicious tendencies not in the United States. This choice over freedom is not the way to go. Our goal as a nation is to keep its citizens safe. The executive order gives more reasons for people that hate Americans to want to kill Americans. Although our wings of freedom will spread farther over the earth, people do not like to

To what extent should governments and companies be using biometric information obtained from facial recognition technology for surveillance and convenience in identifying individuals in society? This article discusses the legislature that must be implemented to protect our right to privacy. We will reach a conclusion by further analyzing the benefits and the risks of the new technology, evaluating the privacy issues that accompany, and discussing faults in the

The TSA, however, tries to assure passengers that the images produced are blurred which means the passengers being screened cannot be recognized. It further emphasized that the images are not recorded. In response to this, the Islamic Human Right Commission (IHRC), a non-profit research and advocacy organization based in London, says “The fact that a person’s facial features cannot be identified does not mean that the images are any less invasive. The images still show the person’s body in graphic detail where intimate piercing, catheters and all the parts of the person’s body (including those that a person would normally wish to keep private) are seen by the screener. This is gross invasion of privacy.” If these images are truly not archived, the question is where is the images uploaded on the internet are gotten from. (Bello-Salau 668)