"They who can give up essential liberty to get a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin) Nowadays, we are living in a world that technology has become one of the most important parts of our lives. We are always hearing about social networks, search engines, clouds, etc. These tools are very useful and we use them to make our everyday living easier. But sometimes we hear that this tool that we use, are being used by the government as a way to extract information from the people; their justification is that they are going into people´s privacy to assure the safety of the countries. The main reason they are doing this is to avoid terrorism, and the country that has dedicated his resources to corrupt into the privacy of the people is USA. There are many reasons of why this is correct and why does it help to prevent terrorism. It is obvious that the USA wants to know everything and this is because it is the most powerful country in the world and as many people say; “knowledge is power” and after what happened in the 9/11 they don’t want to happen again. My opinion is that what they are doing is wrong, despite all the reasons of security; every person has the right to have at least some privacy. The government does not have the right to see what we do on the Internet, or have cameras in the bedrooms and bathrooms, or see us naked! They don’t have the right to judge us before we do something. The law says that you are innocent unless it is proved the other way, so they have to stop thinking that everyone is a bad person, or everyone wants to harm the country or the people. They should have security, of course, but now they are going beyond the law and starting to frighten the population because... ... middle of paper ... ... always guilty even tough you have never done anything wrong. We have to be careful because you never know who is watching or hearing every move you make. Works Cited • Mears, Bill. "El Debate Sobre Privacidad Y Seguridad Nacional Resurge En EU." CNN. CNN Mexico, 7 June 2013. Web. 15 Mar. 2014. • "Is a Citizen's Safety More Important Then a Citizen's Privacy?" The Premier Online Debate Website. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Mar. 2014 • Jaumealdabo. "Security Is More Important than Privacy. | WriteWordz." WriteWordz. N.p., 5 Aug. 2011. Web. 31 Mar. 2014. • Lejan. "TED Conversations." What Is More Important, Security or Privacty ? N.p., 22 Jan. 2013. Web. 31 Mar. 2014. • Gonchar, Michael. "What Is More Important: Our Privacy or National Security?" The Learning Network What Is More Important Our Privacy or National Security Comments. NY TIMES, 17 Sept. 2013. Web. 30 Mar. 2014.
Everyday we have the chance to make her own opinions and give reason to our own voice. We have the chance to live in a country that encourages freedom in society, which separate ourselves from any restrictions imposed upon by authority, actions or any political views. liberty is the power we possess to act as we please through freedom and independence. But what happens when we choose to give away our basic liberties for temporary safety? Benjamin Franklin once stated, “They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Those who decide to give away their personal freedoms for something that is temporary do not see the value in the long-lasting gift called freedom. In
The United States has lived through an age of terrorism and the citizens have come to realize that they would rather ensure the safety of the masses than protect their privacy. Works Cited Cunningham, David. A. "The Patterning of Repression: FBI Counterintelligence and the New Left." Social Forces 82.1 (2003): 209–40. JSTOR.com - "The New York Times" Oxford Journals.
Our nation seems as if it is in a constant battle between freedom and safety. Freedom and security are two integral parts that keep our nation running smoothly, yet they are often seen conflicting with one another. “Tragedies such as Pearl Harbor, 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombings may invoke feelings of patriotism and a call for unity, but the nation also becomes divided, and vulnerable populations become targets,” (Wootton 1). “After each attack a different group or population would become targets. “The attack on Pearl Harbor notoriously lead to Japanese Americans being imprisoned in internment camps, the attacks on 9/11 sparked hate crimes against those who appeared to be Muslim or Middle Eastern,” (Wootton 1). Often times people wind up taking sides, whether it be for personal freedoms or for national security, and as a nation trying to recover from these disasters we should be leaning on each other for support. Due to these past events the government has launched a series of antiterrorist measures – from ethnic profiling to going through your personal e-mail (Begley 1). Although there are times when personal freedoms are sacrificed for the safety of others, under certain circumstances the government could be doing more harm than good.
Is the American government trustworthy? Edward Joseph Snowden (2013) released to the United States press* selected information about the surveillance of ordinary citizens by the U.S.A.’s National Security Agency (N.S.A.), and its interconnection to phone and social media companies. The motion picture Citizenfour (2014), shows the original taping of those revelations. Snowden said that some people do nothing about this tracking because they have nothing to hide. He claims that this inverts the model of responsibility. He believes that everyone should encrypt Internet messages and abandon electronic media companies that track personal information and Internet behavior (op.cit, 2014). Snowden also stressed to Lawrence Lessig (2014) the importance of the press and the first amendment (Lessig – Snowden Interview Transcript, [16:28]). These dynamics illustrate Lessig’s (2006) constrain-enable pattern of powers that keep society in check (2006, Code: Version 2.0, p. 122). Consider Lessig’s (2006) question what is “the threat to liberty?” (2006, p. 120). Terrorism is a real threat (Weber, 2013). Surveillance by social media and websites, rather than the government, has the greater negative impact on its users.
Edward Snowden is America’s most recent controversial figure. People can’t decide if he is their hero or traitor. Nevertheless, his leaks on the U.S. government surveillance program, PRISM, demand an explanation. Many American citizens have been enraged by the thought of the government tracing their telecommunication systems. According to factbrowser.com 54% of internet users would rather have more online privacy, even at the risk of security (Facts Tagged with Privacy). They say it is an infringement on their privacy rights of the constitution. However, some of them don’t mind; they believe it will help thwart the acts of terrorists. Both sides make a good point, but the inevitable future is one where the government is adapting as technology is changing. In order for us to continue living in the new digital decade, we must accept the government’s ability to surveil us.
Following the London Olympics, The Australian Sports Commission set up the Winning Edge program and put more than $300 million into elite sport. (Mark, D 2016) Winning Edge, a 10-year program to restore Australia top-five status in the table at the Olympic. It was implemented after Australia’s eight place in the London Olympics, which involves handing sports money and letting them decide what to do with it. When the federal government cut its funding, in order to provide more funding to these historically successful sports, such as swimming, rowing, cycling, and sailing, ASC stripped more than $25m out of the high-performance arm the AIS and the bureaucracy of the ASC. That funding cut to the AIS which once had its own coaches, sports science
Richards, Neil M. The Dangers of Surveillance. Harvard Law Review. N.p, 20 May 2013. Web. 3 Apr 2014.
...on U.S. has access to and how this goes against the civil liberties of the people. Programs like PRISM, MAINWAY, MUSCULAR, Tempora, Boundless Informant and XKeyscore go against the Bill of Right and the US Constitution which clearly states in the fourth amendment that people have the right not to be searched without a proper warrant or valid reasons. The intelligence agencies state that they are doing this to protect U.S. citizens from further terrorist attacks, and even though that may be true, they are also granting access to private information to many people who most likely use it for themselves. It is an unacceptable government behavior since the government was created in order to ensure that the citizens are well treated and that their voice is heard. The agencies have crossed the line, they are going against the civil liberties and they need to be stopped.
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 of what the ‘law is”, causing a lack of circulated rule. The actual leaders with political purposes jeopardize our individual privacy rights, liberties, and freedoms.
Most people concerned about the privacy implications of government surveillance aren’t arguing for no[sic] surveillance and absolute privacy. They’d be fine giving up some privacy as long as appropriate controls, limitations, oversight and accountability mechanisms were in place. ”(“5 Myths about Privacy”). The fight for privacy rights is by no means a recent conflict.
LeRoux, Yves. "Privacy concerns in the digital world." 03 Oct 2013. Computer Weekly. 24 April 2014 .
There has always been surveillance of the general public conducted by the United States government, the usual justifications being upholding the security of the nation, weeding out those who intend to bring harm to the nation, and more. But the methods for acquiring such information on citizens of the United States were not very sophisticated many years ago, so the impact of government surveillance was not as great. As a result of many technological advancements today, the methods for acquiring personal information - phone metadata, internet history and more - have become much simpler and sophisticated. Many times, the information acquired from different individuals is done so without their consent or knowledge. The current surveillance of people by the United States government is unethical because it is done so without consent and it infringes on a person’s rights to privacy and personal freedom.
Powell, Robert. "Four Ways Technology Invades Your Privacy." Lovemoney.com. N.p., 5 Oct. 2011. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.
Along with Privacy and security comes the issue of terrorism, Constitutional rights, and Prisoners of War (POW). The privacy vs security debate has two sides to it. Many think that it has influenced governmental interaction with citizens. Sometimes the law focuses on the wrong interests. Just as security cameras are made for thief’s, there come along violations within a person’s workspace or personal life. Privacy emerged early on including Jewish and Roman laws safeguarding against surveillance. Once populations began to grow citizens around the world started filing complaints about noise and unlawful search and seizures. Security and Privacy become an internationally growing issue that affected the world. Security is known as a sort of Independence from danger. Privacy is a freedom from the Undesirable. “He noticed that the needle on his gas gauge was getting low and decides to pull over. As he walks into the gas station he pays for the gas with his credit card, steals a pack of cigarettes and a newspaper without the clerk knowing. B Horton proceeds out the doors and recognizes a security camera as he walks to his car. Later he is contacted and tried for theft. Some believe the camera was an invasion of his privacy but others say that Horton took from society” Webster 21) In America this was and still is a serious issue. The founders saw it coming and implanted laws against home invasions based on national security or to protect others. The fourth amendment in the Bill of Rights is one plan of action that the founding fathers implemented into the United States Constitution to give people a sense of privacy from law enforcement. Also the Fifth Amendment placed a specific procedure on how police go about arresting an individual. ...
Gonchar, Michael. “What Is More Important: Our Privacy or National Security?” New York Times. New York Times, 17 Sept. 2013. Web. 22 Feb. 2014.