Why Privacy Is More Important Than Security

In support of privacy, Daniel J. Solove wrote, Why Privacy Matters Even If You Have ‘Nothing to Hide.’ Solove begins his argument by introducing the nothing-to-hide argument. In general, the argument for surveillance is ‘if you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear:’ hence people’s support for government efforts and regulations to ‘protect’ citizens by decreasing privacy. Those who object this argument target its most extreme cases. For example, if you have nothing to hide, could I take a nude picture of you, own all entitlements to the photo, and share it with anyone? Absolutely not, most would say, but this objection is not exceptionally compelling according to Solove. In order to understand privacy, we must not reduce it to one single definition. Privacy is extremely complex and involves a range of different things that share common characteristics. For instance, one’s privacy can be invaded by the expose of your innermost secrets, but it may also be invaded if a peeping Tom (without the reveal of any secrets) is observing you. Your privacy may also be invaded if the government seeks extensive information about you. All of these examples cause harm related to an invasion of privacy, thus making the definition of privacy not applicable for a “one size fits all” conclusion. The underlying and most significant harm that comes from surveillance is the problem of information processing. Solove uses The Trial example to demonstrate this effect. Here, the

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.

The United States should prioritize privacy over national security because of abuse of power, the ineffective use of surveillance to stop terrorists’ attacks, and the diminished freedom that occurs with surveillance in America. There is difficulty in maintaining freedom and securing our nation. The goals of each appear to be counter to the other. Can this country strike a balance between the two? Considering that America was founded on freedom, privacy and personal rights should

In his essay “Why Privacy Matters” from The Wilson Quarterly, Jeffrey Rosen offers a compelling account of the harmful effects of eradicating our privacy. Rosen ventures into several different fields affected by the ever-growing intrusion of our privacy, offering a rich compendium of illustrations from the real world. From Monica Lewinsky’s fate under her investigation, to a Charles Schwab employee, Rosen offers a prolific arsenal of incidents where the dignity of privacy is challenged. In his descriptive examples, Rosen demonstrates a broad expertise within the field by taking his time to describe a careful characterization of each case by both implying his own personal experience

Privacy is was too precious to trust in the hands of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I trust Tim Cook fully on this, and his words speak to me greater than the representatives of the Bureau. In an open letter to Apple Users Tim Cook addresses the issue at hand and in this letter he states "While we believe the FBI’s intentions are good, it would be wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our products" (Cook 2016). The requests that the FBI are making are simply wrong, and could lead to more problems. While the FBI may want to stop a terrorist they shouldn't force Apple for create something which could jeopardize other users.

Ever since day one, people have been developing and creating all sorts of new methods and machines to help better everyday life in one way or another. Who can forget the invention of the ever-wondrous telephone? And we can’t forget how innovative and life-changing computers have been. However, while all machines have their positive uses, there can also be many negatives depending on how one uses said machines, wiretapping in on phone conversations, using spyware to quietly survey every keystroke and click one makes, and many other methods of unwanted snooping have arisen. As a result, laws have been made to make sure these negative uses are not taken advantage of by anyone. But because of how often technology changes, how can it be

How is better? The right to privacy puts limits on the government. These restrictions are what prevents them from violating other American civil liberties such as, freedom and happiness. The private lives of the American people should be respected and valued even if the people have nothing to hide. Edward Snowden declares, “Arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.” Americans should be entitled to keeping their personal information private. The American government has been gathering the personal and private information from its people for far too long. The government wants Americans to trust them, but how can the people depend on them when the National Security Agency continues to infringe on their freedoms. If the people tolerate the violation of individual privacy, what’s left of their gun rights, freedom of speech and right to life may be taken away completely. Unfortunately, there are countless numbers of people in this world that will hand over their privacy, gun rights, and freedom because they have been persuaded by the government that safety overrules privacy. Others would rather die protecting their freedom than to surrender it to an over controlling government. “Indeed, we desire to support security, but this cannot be done at the expense of destroying the basis of liberal democracy. . . . security can be defended only in a completely different kind of society where there is no respect for human dignity, autonomy, and equal treatment . . .” (Laas-Mikko, Sutrop 379). If Americans relinquish privacy in the name of security, ethical values in our country may be jeopardized and furthermore, affect our

The topic of national security vs. personal privacy, in recent events, has been very controversial regarding which is more appropriate. On one hand, the government can search through personal, private files without any consent from the owner, thus making the information no longer private. The opposing side argues that the government is invading personal privacy of innocent civilians, violating the Fourth Amendment Rights to prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures. Both have valid points, both positive and negative; however, the invasion of personal privacy by the law is only justified in a dire, life or death situation. The government should not have the ability to view private information in an everyday situation because it is a strong violation of the Fourth Amendment, it is too invasive, and it bypasses the limits of personal privacy when necessary. Therefore, the government should not be able to view personal, private information of civilians unless absolutely necessary.

Are our governments worthy of the authority that we entrust them? America is known as the land of liberty and freedom but is it worth the name when our governments are engaged in surveillance activities against its own people? To make a statement about the government's surveillance activities each individual has to choose whether they value their right to privacy or national security. After consideration I decided to argue my paper from the reasoning of secrecy of the program, then state the problem of transparency in the program, and end the paper with a legal argument of violating constitutional rights. Therefore, I argue that my right to privacy is more important than national security and that the program is unconstitutional.

American Federal Agencies like the NSA (National Security Agency) and the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) have tried to mandate a back door or master-key to company products such as the iPhone, to monitor everyone that owns one of the products. Government organizations sometimes snoop a bit too much. When the FBI was holding a terrorist iPhone, they requested that apple makes a new operating system where the FBI had a backdoor to access the system at any time. Apple declined, stating that what the FBI was asking for would amount to a master-key designed to access any iPhone at any time. Someone

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?