The Privacy And National Security

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.

With the seemingly exponential propagation of inexpensive digital communications technologies over recent years, the general public is becoming more aware of the issues surrounding information privacy and government surveillance in the digital age. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a smart-phone has to be wary of how they use their private information for fear of that information being collected and used in a way contrary to their wishes. "Leaky" smartphone apps that transmit private information across the internet can be unethically used by government agencies. The issue of privacy is a balancing act; the public usually wants increased privacy and the government usually wants increased access.

The misuse of our personal information collected by private and public institutions has made privacy, or the lack of it, a major societal concern today. One of the biggest reasons privacy has become such an issue is the enactment of the “Patriot Act”, signed into law in reaction to the attacks on 9/11/2001. This act broadened the ability for the US government to collect surveillance on people in order to protect against terrorism inside the US. Critiques say it violates our civil liberties and undermines our democracy. One example of this is the collection and storage of phone data by the government under the Patriot Act. Is this an invasion of privacy? In order to keep society safe, a certain amount of private information has to be known by Law Enforcement. In order to collect taxes and for society to function, the government also needs some information. Collecting basic information isn’t an invasion of privacy, but the collection phone data is too intrusive. Can the public trust the government to not miss-use or lose the information they have on them?

The American people, including many big corporations such as Apple, disagree with the government collecting the personal information of the American people. President, Barack Obama, stated that intelligence committees and all congress members were briefed on the Patriot Act and its contents (Obama). The congressmen knew what the Patriot Act did involving the personal commutations in the United States. Nevertheless, the Patriot act was voted into being a law almost unanimously in the senate, 98-1, and 357-66 in the House of Representatives (Patriot Act). When Ed Snowden leaked that the NSA was obtaining personal information and how it was handled, the American people became shocked and outraged towards the government, and created a tension from the American people towards the government.

Would you give up your privacy for a little bit of security? The two go hand in hand. Our advancing technology provides our government with the tools to fulfill its top priority—national security. But where is the line drawn between security and privacy? Privacy is not only a value to many Americans—it is a right protected under the Fourth Amendment. But to what extent? The technology meant to protect us seems to be invading the little privacy we have left, having diminished greatly over the years. It has been said, “Give me liberty or give me death!” Since 9/11, security in our daily lives has been a concern for many Americans and the government has since made efforts to secure the nation. The measures taken to protect our nation through the

Imagine someone living in a country that turns surveillance equipment on its own citizens to monitor their locations, behavior, and phone calls. Probably no one is willing to live in such place where privacy is being undermined by the authorities. For people living in the U.S., their private information has been more vulnerable than ever before because the government is able to use various kinds of surveillance equipment and technology to monitor and analyze their activities, conversations, and behaviors without their permission, in the name of homeland security. Mass surveillance has jeopardized people’s privacy and deprived individuals of their freedom, which is associated with dignity, trust, and autonomy. In the

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

Officially given its name on the fourth of November 1952, the National Security Agency was developed to ensure the safety of American citizens (Howe 11). In an effort to prevent any unauthorized spying on innocent civilians a court known as FISA was created in 1978 to regulate the NSA. Up until the events of September 11th, 2001, the NSA was used strictly as a tool for foreign investigation to decipher international communications (“Frequently Asked Questions About NSA” 1). Twenty-three days after the Twin Towers fell, President Bush passed the Patriot Act (“Timeline of NSA Domestic Spying” 16). This act ushered the NSA into a position of limitless capability. Millions of Americans are having their personal lives followed, tracked, and recorded into mass data pools. This unethical acquisition of personal information is in strict violation of the Fourth Amendment. Immediate action must be taken by the Government to return the rights assured by our Founding Fathers and the Constitution.

National security is vital because it helps the police monitor criminals and terrorists. People suspected of any terrorists activities have no place to hide; everything is monitored from “telephone conversations, telegrams” (Frank Church) to internet searches and surveillance cameras are all monitored. This provides a sense of security for citizens.

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

"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?