Policy Brief: Proposed Solutions Assignment
Albert Davis
Liberty University
GOVT 230
Professor Spencer
September 20th, 2025
Introduction
In today’s tech-driven world privacy battles feel as loud as ever. Some folks think the
government should be allowed to pull data from tech firms, saying national safety may need it.
Others, pointing at the Fourth Amendment, say no one-to-be-searched without a proper warrant,
and that personal files stay private. The amendment reads, “The right of the people…against
unreasonable searches…shall not be violated,” which many interpret as a solid guard on digital
lives. Yet, the security argument appears convincing when terror threats loom large. Therefore,
the question becomes: How much privacy can we really keep while staying safe? Moreover,
could a middle path work limited data grabs with strict oversight? Some scholars worry about
abuse of power today. In conclusion the issue stays unsettled, and likely to shape laws for years.
Problem Articulation Statement
One might wonder how large the trade-off really is between personal privacy and national
security. Some say protecting Americans’ civil liberties is as vital as keeping the country safe. Yet
a balance seems required; otherwise, either freedom slips, or danger rises. Most agree both goals
matter, so a compromise may have to shape policy for future generations across all states.
Legislative History
After the 9/11 attacks the government started looking for ways to pull up people's data.
That moment seems to start a long debate about keeping the nation safe versus letting folks keep
their privacy. It may mean the law changed to let agencies watch phones and online accounts,
even when no court order is given. Some scholars point to an older example: during the Civil
War, the president stopped the writ of habeas corpus. That pause let soldiers hold someone
forever without charges. The idea appears again whenever a crisis hits. Is the pattern that power
stretches then shrinks? Probably not, because each time the balance tips toward security. Still,
citizens tend to feel the pull on their rights, especially when the threat seems huge. In conclusion,
history hints that security emergencies often push privacy out of the window. Rights may recover
someday, perhaps again.
Policy Alternative
H.R. 847, the Digital Privacy Technologies Act, looks like an option to fund research on
privacy-boosting tools. It says the money should go to projects that earn merit-review and
compete for grants. The bill calls device or software that helps study data and lower privacy
danger a 'privacy-enhancing technology.'
1. Cryptographic methods may help compute data, apparently keeping risks low while
secure.
2. Maybe sharing data publicly. Yet somehow it blocks clues about any person, isn’t easy.
3. Possibly, methods may let people manage how their data spreads, gets shared, and used.
4. Perhaps other tools could lower re-identification risks, especially if paired with extra data,
might even increase privacy. (Stevens, 2021)
Section three of the bill seems to tell the NSF director, together with other agencies, to
scout and hand out awards for the newest privacy-enhancing research. That could mean private
firms or even lone inventors get a chance to pitch ideas that might protect users’ data. It appears
helpful for openness, and I can’t spot any real downside at the moment. Could this really boost
trust in how we keep personal info safe today? On May 5, 2022 the bill cleared the House: 401
yeas, 19 nays perhaps support; it then seems to have reached the Senate on May 12 for further
consideration.
One possible fix for the policy problem might be transparency. The government and the
tech firms that hold consumer data should tell users exactly how their data is used, plain and
simple. Customers expect those companies to stay true to the services they promise, so all they
can really ask for is clear information. After the San Bernardino attack there was a heated clash
between the FBI and Apple. A federal judge asked Apple to help the FBI get more data on the
shooter because national security seemed at risk. Apple complied with some of the request but
refused to fully break the phone’s security lock. Tim Cook wrote a public letter saying Apple
would not cooperate with a full unlock, arguing that encryption protects personal information.
Cook’s stance appears to push for more transparency and more accountability in the phone’s
security system. In the end, consumers deserve to know whether their data could be decrypted or
stays safe, especially when they pick Apple for its strong protection. If Apple cannot guarantee
that feature, then it may have broken the trust with its users. Meanwhile, the government also
ought to be open about how it collects and uses citizen data, so that Americans do not grow
distrustful of its role in keeping the country safe. Both sides need clear rules; otherwise, the
balance between privacy and security can tilt too far. Some citizens argue that security agencies
should have limited exceptions when lives are at stake, suggesting a case-by-case approach could
work. Yet critics worry that any loophole might open doors for abuse, eroding confidence in
technology overall today.
Conclusion
Overall, the right to privacy vs. national security is a very divisive subject matter when it
comes to policy making. Both sides have pertinent point and they both to come to compromise to
make alternative policies that would include all the parties’ involved input and solutions.
References:
U.S Constitution. (n.d.). U.S. Constitution - Fourth Amendment Resources - Congress. U.S
Congress. Retrieved September 24, 2022, from
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-4/
Santa Clara University. (2016, January 1). Apple vs. FBI case study. Markkula Center for
Applied Ethics.
Stevens, H. (2021, February 04). H.R.847 – Promoting Digital Privacy Technologies Act. U.S
Congress. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/847
U.S. Marshal. (n.d.). Writ of habeas corpus. U.S. Marshals Service.
https://www.usmarshals.gov/what-we-do/service-of-process/criminal-process/writ-of-
habeascorpus
