National Security Vs. Digital Privacy

Today, electronic surveillance remains one of the most effective tools the United States has to protect against foreign powers and groups seeking to inflict harm on the nation, but it does not go without a few possessing a few negative aspects either. Electronic surveillance of foreign intelligence has likely saved the lives of many innocent people through prevention of potential acts of aggression towards the United States. There are many pros to the actions authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) pertaining to electronic surveillance, but there are also cons. Looking at both the pros and cons of electronic surveillance is important in understanding the overall effectiveness of FISA. [1]

The tragic events of September 11th, 2001 showed the vulnerabilities of this country as a whole, reflecting the lack of attention this nation gave to terrorism. Following September 11th, it was clear that drastic preventative measures needed to be taken in order to avoid reoccurrence of a destructive and deadly act of terrorism (Simon, 2009). As a response to the attacks, The Patriot Act was passed in October of 2001 in order to give federal agencies a substantial increase in power in accessing, monitoring, and examining records and citizens who have been identified as, or could potentially be, risks to this country. This act also allowed federal agents to single out and watch potential individuals labeled as terrorists without evidence linking them to an actual terrorist organization, as well as allowing for an increase in wiretapping phones of potential suspects (Banks, 2010).

The NSA, or National Security Agency, is an American government intelligence agency responsible for collecting data on other countries and sometimes on American citizens in order to protect the country from outside risks. They can collect anything from the people’s phone data to their browser history and use it against them in the court of law. Since the catastrophes of September 11 attacks, the NSA’s surveillance capabilities have grown with the benefit of George W. Bush and the Executive Branch (Haugen 153). This decision has left a country divided for fifteen years, with people who agree that the NSA should be strengthened and others who think their powers should be limited or terminated. Although strengthening NSA surveillance may help the

The primary initiatives of the Patriot act is to prevent terrorism by effectively utilizing already available tools; improving the information sharing process; utilizing technology to identify terrorists; and by increasing the penalties to those who commit terrorist attacks, terrorist related crimes as well as those who conspire and help terrorists (Department of Justice, n.d.). Prior to the Patriot Act, many of the tools that already existed, that could also be useful to prevent a terrorist attack but were not being used to their full potential, and that have been used for many years by law enforcement officers and federal agents to combat other crimes such as drug trafficking or murder crimes, were too difficult to utilize to combat terrorism

The USA Patriot Act, a backronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, is a vital weapon in fighting terrorism. The basis of the act is to allow law enforcement and intelligence authorities’ unprecedented domestic authority, and the tools already available to wield that authority, in order to thwart plots against the United States and facilitate information sharing among government agencies involving terrorism and foreign intelligence related activities. As a swift reaction of our executive and legislative branches in response to the deadly terrorist attacks that occurred on 9/11, the Patriot Act expanded intelligence gathering capabilities by granting authority

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

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,

By wiretapping specific people, the government is making it harder for terrorists to communicate and share their plans over long distances without revealing their plan. In addition to wiretapping, the power to access old records of people also gives more control to the national government of peoples' future intentions: "The USA Patriot Act allows for government access to Database Search Records, Circulation Records, Computer Use Records, E-mail Records, Inter-Library, Loan Records, and Reference Interviews" (Johnson 1). These key provisions are what the United States needs to ensure the well-being of its people.

The United States has increased its surveillance through programs by the National Security Agency that collect and examine data on Internet and communication by Americans. Innocent civilians are tracked in search of international terrorists hence sparked the debate on civil liberties over national security. However, according to Thomas Friedman, there was the need to shift from ‘war on terrorists’ to ‘war on terrorism’

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.

The government offered the domestic surveillance programs to reinstate a feeling of safety. Although comforting shell shocked citizens, current programs are becoming unnecessarily invasive, financially costly, and controversially uneffective. Many people believe that these programs undermine the fourth amendment of the Constitution of our nation. It is certain that we need domestic surveillance with jihadist groups continually growing but it is obvious that systems in place today are not working.

Citizens feeling protected in their own nation is a crucial factor for the development and advancement of that nation. The United States’ government has been able to provide this service for a small tax and for the most part it is money well spent. Due to events leading up to the terrifying attacks on September 11, 2001 and following these attacks, the Unites States’ government has begun enacting certain laws and regulations that ensure the safety of its citizens. From the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 to the most recent National Security Agency scandal, the government has attempted and for the most part succeeded in keeping domestic safety under control. Making sure that the balance between

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, and should continue to be, a fundamental dimension of living in a free, democratic society. Laws protect “government, credit, communications, education, bank, cable, video, motor vehicle, health, telecommunications, children’s and financial information; generally carve out exceptions for disclosure of personal information; and authorize the use of warrants, subpoenas, and court orders to obtain the information.” (Protecting Individual Privacy in the Struggle Against Terrorists: A Framework for Program Assessment, 2008) This is where a lot of people feel as though they have their privacy violated. Most Americans are law-abiding citizens who do not commit illegal acts against the country, they want to go about their lives, minding their own business and not having to worry about outside interference. The fine line between privacy and National Security may not be so fine in everyone’s mind. While it is the job of government agencies to ensure the overall safety of the country and those living in it, the citizens that obey the law and do not do anything illegal often wonder why they are subject to any kind of search, when they can clearly point out, through documentation, that they have never done anything wrong.

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?