for prof samuel

Security Vs Privacy

The state should not intervene on the individual rights of privacy, as this constitutes a breach of the very basic rights envisioned in the Fourth Amendment. The privacy of personal information remains to be a puzzling subject in the United States. Privacy is vital to our humanity. It allows us to build and preserve private lives from which personal identity, freedom, self-determination, and, eventually, happiness. The Fourth Amendment was drafted and gained approval by individuals who appreciated the role of encryption in underground correspondence in helping win the Revolutionary War and later shared views and opinions on how to create a post-war form of government for their new envisioned nation. The Founders understood the importance of privacy and security in both private and governmental correspondence. In disparity, surveillance is a direct attack on privacy. It attacks and disregards privacy. Its scary effect compels and shrinks us through self-censorship of action and thought. Privacy should not be sacrificed at the cost of security. ‘

Personal freedom and liberties are what makes America great. So, we should not allow others to take these valuable rights away from us because we struggle a lot to achieve these rights. We were given rights from the very beginning of this great nation that supported our security and privacy; especially when it came to our families, and many articles protect us. Article 8 of the Human Rights Act states that 'Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and correspondence.' Snooping on guiltless citizens obviously breaches this agreement and is totally unfair to the public. If the state kept data about its citizens on computers, any brilliant hacker could access and use this info against any one. This might easily lead to blackmail, and a clear breach on communities’ safety.

Surveillance should be applied to both individuals and officials as well. I think government should secure its citizens as it does with her officials. Hillary Clinton had her e-mail account information and emails leaked during her time in public office and this seemed to annoy the former secretary of state, it was actually surprising to note that she had an independent server and therefore she plans to conceal and protect her ‘secure” communications from national security intelligence agencies. It is only suspicious since a speech by the President seemed to allude to knowledge of information collection using “backdoor” methods by senior officials and this would include her. Why would an individual propose to legislate an issue that they themselves are exempt? This paradoxical scenario suggests that the need for privacy overrides that of security.

The role of the government is not only to secure its citizens but also to protect their privacy. Many people think the role of the government is to secure the society even if it has to watch them. In other words, government should spy on in people to protect them. However, this is wrong because I think the role of government is to organize the life of the citizens. Assume that you should be naked in order to be secure. For me, it does not make any sense that the government takes all of the responsibilities. Each individual is responsible about his security without the need to watch naked bodies at the airports. Plus, some employees somehow might use personal information to threat people to get personal benefits or businesses.

Those opposing to this argument argue that the state’s intervention on individual privacy would improve the general state of security. That if one has nothing to hide, there is nothing to be worried about at all for now. But what should one expect after 10 years? The point here is it might appear fine today, but there is nothing that stops the system from going twisted and stalking political dissidents or snooping on CEOs or what have you. We would therefore become precisely which we fight now. If we let the government do this, then the terror has already won

Even though terrorism has spread in all over the world, it does not mean government has the right to screen everything its citizens whether they are suspicious or not. This will allow governments’ employee to access to that very personal information of a lot of people without their permission and authorization. More to the point, the battle of privacy started before the 9/11 terrorist attack. There are so many different ways to prevent any potential terrorist attack. The British tabloid The Sun has previously claimed that the paper aided the British authorities in stopping an ISIS attack after having one of their investigators pose as a potential jihadist and duping the leader of ISIS' "Cyber Caliphate" hacking operations. The secure messaging application of choice for ISIS contacts was “Surespot”, which is under the supervision of the Department of Justice to cooperate in sharing information it holds. The Sun's own journalistic investigation and infiltration on ISIS scraps the director of the FBI’s argument that encryption technology is prohibiting effective law enforcement in counterterrorism operations.

In conclusion, the individual right of privacy is deeply embedded in our culture for various reasons. It protects the essence of life; it allows us to go about our normal business on a daily basis without having to constantly worry that we are going to be judged by others now or sometime in the future for things we have done. It enables us to live with our mistakes and to become better people without being caught of our past. It frees us in making decisions and to lead our lives in ways that we believe ought to be right and without having to constantly justify ourselves to others who would otherwise condemn our decisions and that is an important part of what actually means to be free. Surveillance should be applied to all without any exceptions or no one. The role of government is to protect the security and privacy at the same time.

Works Cited

Geoffry R. Stone. “The Boston Bombing, The Right of Privacy and Surveillance Cameras. ‹http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/the-boston-bombing-the-ri_b_3223871.htm/›.

Patrick G. Eddington. “Secrecy, Privacy and the Future of American Liberty. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patrick-g-eddington/secrecy-privacy-and-the-future-of-american-liberty_b_7812016.html>

Lara Jakes and Darlene Superville. “Obama Defends NSA, Says America Has To Make Choices Between Privacy And Security. < http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/07/obama-defends-nsa_n_3406448.html>