Why Is National Security More Important Than Privacy

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,

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

The need to protect National Security is far more important than individual privacy. The greatest part of living in the United States of America is the freedom that we have. That freedom and the right to live freely is protected by various government agencies. From time to time, the privacy a person has may have to be invaded to guarantee the security of the country and other citizens. Everyone has the right to not have their life controlled by the government, but it has the right to make sure that citizens are not doing anything to threaten the security of

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.

Privacy is one of the most controversial, yet most essential topics in the discussion of civil liberties. Some treat it as a necessity along with life, liberty, and property, whereas other people see it as something that shouldn’t get in the way of things like security (Sadowski).

The United States of America is undoubtedly one of the world’s largest and most powerful nations. However, it has been facing the problem of terrorism for many decades, most notably after the tragic events of September 11th. The Patriot Act was passed shortly after these events in response to the acts of terrorism witnessed by the whole nation. At the time, it seemed rational and logical to allow this bill to pass, due to the extreme anger of American citizens, and the willingness to fight against terrorism. However, certain breaches of privacy came with the introduction of the Patriot Act. We as Americans want to feel protected from the threats of terrorism, however, we are not willing to give up certain privacies and liberties in order for that to happen, even when put to a vote.

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.

As a nation, we have had many first-hand experiences with terrorism and violence. The pain and suffering we are put through as a nation, people tend not to consider being subjected to government surveillance. Our security from future terrorist attacks is vital, then again, not as vital as our privacy. People shouldn’t be so quick to sacrifice their privacy rights, to allow the government to monitor national security. Giving the government the power of invading our privacy, creates an effortless way for them to violate their power and strip citizens of their constitutional rights. People will argue that the price one has to pay for safety, is giving up their rights to privacy. As Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” (Independence Hall Association). In other words, those willing to give up their privacy for security, deserve neither. We the people, those who assemble this nation, should not allow the government to invade our privacy or void our 4th amendment right.

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?

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

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.”

"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?