The Security Is More Important Than Our Nation 's Security And Defeating Terrorism Trump All Other Priorities.

Snowden’s leaked information prompted debates all over and it brought major concerns about personal privacy and the security of citizens. His actions to risk his personal freedom to bring controversial information to the public domain is an act of great patriotism, it upholds the virtues contained in the US constitution. (Gurnow, 2014) Nonetheless, ever since the events of terrorism in 2001, the NSA has given spy agencies mandates to carry out surveillance on suspicious persons, thus reducing acts of

In the year 2015, with new technology and social media citizens of Americans can see terrorist acts on a daily basis. They feel as if the Patriot Act doesn’t work and they think that it doesn 't need to be used anymore. They believe it is an invasion of privacy. However, we need this act for our protection. For example, the group ISIS in Iraq and Syria, is a terrorist group. They have plotted schemes to attack the US. This Patriot Act has caught many people trying to get to ISIS as well. The US has a population of about 319 million. 365 days a year the government is scanning phone calls, text messages and social media in order to catch possible terrorist attacks. Before the Patriot Act this would not be possible. In 2011 President Barack Obama signed to extend the Patriot Act. That year 42% of the politicians said that the act was a necessary tool ( PewResearchCenter Public Remains Divided Over the Patriot act (pewresearch) 15, February 2011 13,May 2015). Overall the Patriot Act is still necessary for the world we live in.

Americans’ growing fear of a terrorist attack (McGill) coupled with cyberattacks on big businesses - such as the bank JPMorgan Chase (Granville) - have prompted Congress to push for bills that would considerably extend the NSA’s access to citizen’s private information. Recent technological advances have granted the government ways to search for and eliminate potential threats to the United States at the expense of personal privacy. As a result, a consistent topic of debate has become how much access to this data the government needs to effectively protect its people, without completely stripping them of all their privacy. A staunch advocate of internet privacy, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden has

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,

The events that took place on September 11th 2001 have forever changed the United Sates. On that day it was clear that our borders were not secure. Our nation’s security was questioned, and our national security plan, as a result, had to change. President Bush did what he felt was needed at the time, laying out the foundation for a surveillance apparatus, involving the Patriot Act and the National Security Agency. This United States’ surveillance apparatus though, draws a thin line between privacy and security, forcing us to trade our liberty for security. By trading our liberty for security we lose both, and thus, move towards losing our democracy.

The shocking tragedy on September 11, 2001 altered the course of American national security. Prior to the 9/11 attacks, homeland security was rarely debated as a hot topic, even within the small circle of policy elites (Kamarck, 2013, p. 34). The only prior homeland attack on America was Pearl Harbor and this was not on U.S. mainland. Many Americans were shocked that such a tragedy could occur on American soil and they are still shocked to this day. People are still recovering from this tragic event. The government knew that the country’s enemies still posed an enormous threat to the nation’s security. In response to the events that took place on 9/11, the United States Congress passed the USA/Patriot Act, which intensified the surveillance powers held by the federal government through the National Security Agency (NSA) and other federal agencies. This act increased national airport security procedures, metro security in most major U.S. cities, and extended the government’s capacity to spy on citizens.

Technology has come a long way since the early 90’s. With modern advances, technology is just about incorporated in everything we do in our day-to-day lives. Since technology has been incorporated into our everyday lives, it may raise some concerns about what may be happening in the background. One of these concerns would be privacy, we all may take it for granted but it is our constitutional rights as Americans. But this all changed after the September 2001 attack on the twin towers.

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

As our fears grew concerning national security, our government began to conduct surveillance with certain groups labeled as “suspicious”. As this escalated into dangerous territory, it begged the question: does the threat of terrorism outweigh the right of privacy?

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

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 impacted the American people without many of them realizing it. The act called for increased monitoring of computer networks, phone lines, and online history inside the United States and allowed the government to deport suspects (ACLU). What was created by the act has snaked its way into all aspects of our lives, creating a sense of order and restricting some freedom. However, some say that this imposition into our daily lives limits our freedoms and actions allowed us by the Constitution. Many interest groups voice strong resentment for the act while others try to demonstrate the strengths and triumphs of the Homeland Security Act. This paper will show the differing viewpoints of those that feel that the

Medine’s piece, Choice Between Security and Liberty a False One, focuses on the delicate balance between privacy and security. The central theme presented is about the methodology of information gathering. First off, Medine explains that a knee jerk reaction to tragic events, such as the attacks in Paris, shouldn’t be the catalyst to end or change existing surveillance programs. Following the Paris attacks, there were appeals requesting that the National Security Agency increase their phone records collection program known as Section 215.

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

Edward Snowden is a United States citizen and former employee of the National Security Agency (NSA). Snowden leaked information about the NSA to the media in 2013 and is now in Russia where he was recently granted three years of asylum. The NSA uses cryptology and others forms of information gathering to enable various networks to make advantageous decisions for the Nation and our allies under all circumstances. The NSA operates undetected by civilians, and uses global monitoring so broadly defined that it has allowed for unscrupulous behavior that was witnessed by contracted employee, Edward Snowden. Snowden believed that as the public gained knowledge of the illegal intelligence gathering by the government of domestic citizens, and abroad, he would gain protection from the public. Snowden did receive protection from people including powerful lawyers, journalists, and privacy advocates. Analysis of the Edward Snowden case

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.”