Trade-Off Between Individual Freedom And National Security

Freedom vs security: Can we have both, or are we forced to choose between the two? What about our 4th amendment rights, which protects the rights of Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures? Are the crimes solved and prevented by technology and surveillance worth giving up our freedom and right to privacy? Countless people are already aware about the NSA surveillance of collecting metadata of our internet and phone records through the Patriot Act that many consider spying; thanks to the leak from Edward Snowden, who blew the lid off of government secrecy because it violated his moral and ethical standards. Many regard Snowden as a true patriot and a hero; while to others, he is a traitor and a criminal. Considering foreign and domestic

The general public gives an problem with the government surveillance as a media for invading others privacy. With the government monitoring, collecting, and retaining people's personal data, one side would claim that it is an infringement of their freedom to the rights to privacy. While the National security associations justifies the reason for monitoring would be to maintain order. Their ways to maintain order would be to monitor criminal and terrorist activity and to detect incoming threats, terrorists, or problems that would harm their country. This issue shows that freedom cannot exist without order. Although the general public wants their freedom of their privacy, they can not achieve their most of their desires because it puts their lives at risk without protection. Order is necessary in order to have freedom. It is impossible to attain entire freedom for a cause, however, it is possible to attain freedom to a certain

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.

Look around you America. Your world is changing. Suddenly it’s no longer safe to fly in airplanes, attend sporting events, or just open your junk mail. Almost daily, news of threats and security breach’s litter the airwaves, leaving many asking the same question. “How can we make our country safe again?” Unfortunately, there isn’t a simple answer. America is united in the cause, but divided over the methods of preventing terrorism. At this time of uncertainty, many are urging Americans to “give up” some of their freedoms and privacy in exchange for safety. Regrettably, this wave of patriotism has spilled over, and is beginning to infringe on our fundamental liberties as outlined in the Bill of Rights. Since the September 11th terrorist

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.

In the wake of September 11th, the country was in turmoil. Fear and confusion were rampant; direction was required. President George Bush, in a famous address, acknowledged the severity of the attacks, and called for a newly invigorated sense of nationalism. His plan for preventing future attacks called for the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, and expanded powers to intelligence agencies (Bush). During this time, one of the most provocative bills was allowed to pass, under the guise of a terrorist seeking bill. The Patriot Act was indeed effective in increasing the power allotted to surveillance agencies, but many feel at too high of a cost. Many have asked the question… "is

Government surveillance in the past was not a big threat due to the limitations on technology; however, in the current day, it has become an immense power for the government. Taylor, author of a book on Electronic Surveillance supports, "A generation ago, when records were tucked away on paper in manila folders, there was some assurance that such information wouldn 't be spread everywhere. Now, however, our life stories are available at the push of a button" (Taylor 111). With more and more Americans logging into social media cites and using text-messaging devices, the more providers of metadata the government has. In her journal “The Virtuous Spy: Privacy as an Ethical Limit”, Anita L. Allen, an expert on privacy law, writes, “Contemporary technologies of data collection make secret, privacy invading surveillance easy and nearly irresistible. For every technology of confidential personal communication…there are one or more counter-technologies of eavesdropping” (Allen 1). Being in the middle of the Digital Age, we have to be much more careful of the kinds of information we put in our digital devices.

Imagine being in the runaway trolley scenario. Which one is more ethical, saving one person and killing five, or saving five people and killing one? Either way, someone has to be sacrificed in order to save the others. This is similar to the question whether upholding the rights of citizens and giving sanctuary to refugees is more important than national security. The articles, “That Time the United States Happily Airlifted Thousands of Muslim Refugees out of Europe”, “Anne Frank and her Family Denied Entry to the US”, “Japanese American Relocation”, “Remembering the Victims of the San Bernardino Attack”,” 2015 Paris Terror Attack Fast Facts”, and "George Takei: They interned my family. Don't let them do it to Muslims” all prove one thing. They all prove that national security should take precedence over upholding the rights of citizens or giving sanctuary to citizens for the sake of the safety of the majority and the prevention of terrorists.

In today’s society, the word “privacy” has become ubiquitous. When discussing whether government surveillance and data collection pose a threat to privacy, the most common retort against privacy advocates – by those in favor of databases, video surveillance, spyware, data mining and other modern surveillance measures – is this line: "If I’m not doing anything wrong, what would I have to hide?" The allowance of the government’s gathering and analysis of our personal information stems from an inadequate definition of what privacy is and the eternal value that privacy possesses. The adherents of the “nothing-to-hide” argument say that because the information will never be disclosed to the public, the “privacy interest is minimal, and the security interest in preventing terrorism is much more important.” 1 In an era where the patterns we leave behind will inevitably become the focus for whatever authority, the issue of privacy affects more than just individuals hiding a wrong. In this essay, I will explore the state of online privacy in wake of the government’s warrantless data collection. Respectively, the nothing-to-hide argument and its key variants in more depth.

Citizens of the United States are allowed “unalienable” rights by the Bill of Rights. This document, created in the late 1700s has served as the core of American liberty. Yet, these rights are being infringed upon in the name of Security. The American government, at times blatantly ignores the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They argue that the security of the country is vital. Any citizen of the United States would have to agree that security of the nation should be a top priority of the government. However, while both liberty and security are fundamental factors in American society, the balance is skewed

I negate the resolution, "Resolved: When the United States is engaged in military conflict, national security ought to supercede conflicting claims of individual rights. My value for the round is Human Dignity, or what can be defined as a respect for the individual and his or her rights and virtues. John Stuart Mill states that "Everyone who receive the protection of society owes a return for the benefit... but not to the point that it violates constituted rights." Thus those rights which are the fundamentals of human dignity must be maintained. No fundamental goal should ever undermine this fundamental goal. The criteria which must consistently achieve is the maintenance of a legitimate government, or a govt. that maximizes the rights of

Place yourself in the safety and comfort of your home, under the belief that “everyone has the right to the use and enjoyment of his property” (Department of International Law), searching, emailing, and talking about things that may be frowned upon by others. Now imagine the raw feelings of fear and deception that would wash over you upon seeing Edward Snowden’s statement on how “the U.S. government is destroying privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they 're secretly building.” You may initially feel betrayed, but Obama formally announced that the NSA acts solely in the name of safety right? Have we begun to sacrifice the freedom and

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

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.”

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?