Why Is National Security More Important Than Privacy

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

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

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 devastated the United States people. As they mourned over the deaths caused by the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York City, Americans began looking for a way to prevent anything like this from happening again. Consequently, an act known as the USA PATRIOT act was passed by Congress. This act opened up many doors previously closed to law enforcement and intelligence agencies. With these new opportunities available to them, they have the capability to obtain information about specific individuals believed to be involved in terrorist activities and organizations. Very beneficial to the United States, the Patriot Act provides easier access for different government law enforcement agencies to share information, allows government agencies investigative tools that non-terrorist crimes already use, and helps to dismantle the terrorist financial network. Although many people claim that the Patriot Act violates the United States Constitution and the freedoms of the American people, it contains many elaborate safeguards to fight against such abuse.

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.

For some residents, the reluctance to give up freedoms is a reflection of their belief that terrorists will succeed no matter what. However, according to a poll run by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, ⅔ of Americans say it’s appropriate to sacrifice some privacy and freedom in the fight against terrorism. People worry that giving up one freedom will lead to the loss of others. They believe that the one time someone does not get scanned at an airport or does not get their luggage checked it will be detrimental to society. With 9/11 still at the back of everyone’s minds, people do not want to risk our national

“The precondition to freedom is security” (Rand Beers). Security has been the main focus since the start the United States of America. From 9/11 where many say the U.S was tested to see how strong of a nation it was. To many other terrorists attacks, including the Boston Marathon, the United States had to have a plan to keep their boat afloat, a plan which many can call a “Survival plan”. The N.D.A.A, which is short for the National Defense Administration Act. The N.D.A.A is a bill that authorizes appropriations for procurement for the Army, Navy and Marine Corps, Air Force, and Defense-wide activities, as specified in the funding tables in Division D, Title XLI, of this Act. (https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4435)

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.

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.

The rights of the people in America should not be infringed upon because these rights are guaranteed. And if abused, it not only infringes the rights of the people, but also diminishes the moral code of citizens of the United States. Furthermore, the civil rights that have protected people from the government now seem like they are being taken away from the government itself. The government has given itself the privilege to tap our phones, read and scan emails, access bank accounts, invade homes, and detain someone indefinitely. All of this is happening without any prior legal courses of action or our knowledge. This right to privacy, a fundamental liberty that is implied by the fourth amendment in the U.S. constitution, continues to be infringed upon by the government.

Finally, security loses its worth if not accompanied by rights. Benjamin Franklin states that "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither liberty or safety" Without Liberty, Security is purposeless. The entire purpose of national security is to protect the American way of life and what our nation

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.

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

National security is more important than personal privacy because it concerns a much larger group of people. If someone is innocent, they should have nothing to hide. In a world where terrorism is a reality, it is more important to protect the safety of a country than for a few people avoid being

"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?