Personal Privacy or National Security

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).

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,

"59 Radio Address about the American Right of Privacy. February 23, 1974." American Reference Library - Primary Source Documents, Jan. 2001, p. 1. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mih&AN=32360825.

The National Security Agency has caused much controversy over the manner in which they protect the nation. It was revealed that the NSA has been reaching necessary lengths to keep citizens safe from the threats of terrorism, bombings, and murders, amongst others. But many citizens are angry and concerned about how far the NSA has gone to protect everyone. The NSA has analyzed private information of billions of phones, computers, and surveillance cameras. The N.S.A. watches and records Americans’ phone calls and internet data, following and intercepting in the lives of people in the most remote parts. The situation clearly makes American citizens uncomfortable, and some argue that the NSA has crossed the line by invading the “privacy” of

With the seemingly exponential propagation of inexpensive digital communications technologies over recent years, the general public is becoming more aware of the issues surrounding information privacy and government surveillance in the digital age. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a smart-phone has to be wary of how they use their private information for fear of that information being collected and used in a way contrary to their wishes. "Leaky" smartphone apps that transmit private information across the internet can be unethically used by government agencies. The issue of privacy is a balancing act; the public usually wants increased privacy and the government usually wants increased access.

“Big brother is watching you.” In the book Nineteen Eighty-Four (Orwell, 1948), the author presented a repressed and horrible Utopia with "Surveillance state", "Big Brother", "doublespeak" and "thoughtcrimes". Today, many people believe that the book Nineteen Eighty-Four has already become a prophecy in the United States because they are being surrounded by numerous cameras. Although January Mughal in her article “National Security Vs. Privacy In The Modern Age”(2016), insisted that surveillance is necessary to maintain the security of United States, but it is doubtful based on many research because the uses of government surveillance are inefficient, the surveillance cannot stop terrorist attacks, and the ethical issues of surveillance

Our privacy is more important than national security. I would say that is not okay and should not be allowed. In July 2013 Edward Snowden released documents about “the patriot act”. The patriot act was a document president bush issued in 2001. president Barack obama later reissued the document in June 2015.

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

I negate the resolution, "Resolved: When the United States is engaged in military conflict, national security ought to supercede conflicting claims of individual rights. My value for the round is Human Dignity, or what can be defined as a respect for the individual and his or her rights and virtues. John Stuart Mill states that "Everyone who receive the protection of society owes a return for the benefit... but not to the point that it violates constituted rights." Thus those rights which are the fundamentals of human dignity must be maintained. No fundamental goal should ever undermine this fundamental goal. The criteria which must consistently achieve is the maintenance of a legitimate government, or a govt. that maximizes the rights of

Security can be defined as the “freedom from danger, risk, etc. with the absence of threats to assimilated principles” or a “low chance of damage to assimilated principles.” However, the word security originates from the Latin Securus, which means “carefree”. Notice that the very definition of the word clues to the term “freedom”. The aforementioned definition of security is very general. It does not stipulate the individual whose security is at issue or the types of values pliable to being secured. The security of people (“human security”) is understood to extend beyond national security, also comprising of economic welfare, the health of the environment, cultural identity, and political rights. Security began to take on a diverse set of restrictions with the Alien and Sedition Acts of the 1790s. We would see a drastic change after September 11, 2011.

"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?

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

National security vs privacy is dependent on personal beliefs or needs. For me, in this day and age with terrorism being a constant threat to every individual; national security is more important than our privacy. If reading my messages and hearing my phone calls will prevent another terrorist attack than I am more than willing to give full access to my phone. We all know the importance of having national security, without national security it's the equivalent of another 9/11 waiting to happen. Privacy is a second-hand matter when comparing them to human lives against extreme terrorist groups such as ISIS. By collecting mass information through e-mails, phone messages and calls the government can sift through what's relevant and take preemptive measure

National security is more important than personal privacy because it concerns a much larger group of people. If someone is innocent, they should have nothing to hide. In a world where terrorism is a reality, it is more important to protect the safety of a country than for a few people avoid being