More handpicked essays just for you.
Conclusion as to why security vs privacy is important
Why is privacy more important than security
Is security more important than privacy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
What's more important, privacy or security? There's an ongoing debate going on between two different groups of people, surveillance supporters and privacy advocates, over privacy. In Bruce Schneier's article, " The External Value Of Privacy", he talks about how privacy is better but in Chris Cillizza's article, " In The Battle Between Security And Privacy, Privacy Always Wins" he talks how security is more important. While Cillizza's article is more specific, it is weaker because he uses a lot of emotional appeals.
One of the greatest strengths of Schneier's article is a based on logic. In paragraph 4, he states, "privacy is important because without it, surveillance information will be abused: to peep, to sell to marketers and to spy on political enemies. " What makes this such a strong piece of evidence is that everybody has secrets to hide. This is important because everybody has a secret to hide and without privacy your secrets and personal information could go to the wrong hands. Another piece of evidence that showcases the strengths of Schneier's writing is in paragraph 7 where he comments, "a Constitution that it never occurred to them to call out privacy as an explicit right. This makes Schneier's the clear winner between these two articles because he uses logical reasoning to the readers that privacy is a basic inherited need in life and without it peoples' personal information could be abused. Opponents might point out that one of the weaknesses of his articles is based on emotions. For example, in paragraph 2, he writes, "privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and respect." Here he attempts to express that privacy is a basic human need, that everyone inhe...
... middle of paper ...
... his claim makes his opponent the clear victor in this debate.
What do you think is more important, your privacy or your safety? As Cillizza states, " fear is a very powerful motivator." Ever since 9/11, everyone was terrified to have another terrorist attack in the United States and Cillizza is telling us that if we give up our privacy we would have a bigger chance of not having anymore terrorist attacks. Schneier states " privacy is a basic human need" and he is saying everybody needs privacy and there are other ways to lower the risks of our country to get attacked. From these two articles, Schneier's article seems the most convincing. I side with Schneier because he says everybody needs privacy. As citizens of this country, it is important that we all have privacy so people won't have their personal information abused. After all, everybody has a secret to hide.
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.
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.
How much privacy do we as the American people truly have? American Privacy is not directly guaranteed in any manner under the United States Constitution; however, by the Fourth Amendment, Americans are protected from illegal search and seizure. So then isn’t it ironic that in today’s modern world, nothing we do that it is in any way connected to the internet is guaranteed to remain discreet? A Google search, an email, a text message, or even a phone call are all at risk of being intercepted, traced, geo located, documented, and stored freely by the government under the guise of “protecting” the American people. Quite simply, the Government in order to protect us and our rights, is willing to make a hypocrite of itself and act as though our right is simply a privilege, and without any form of consent from the people, keep virtual tabs on each and every one of us. In the words of Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis “The right to privacy is a person's right to be left alone by the government... the right most valued by civilized men." Privacy isn’t just Privilege, it is nonnegotiable right, and deserves to be treated as such.
In America we take freedom and privacy for granted, we as people are unable to comprehend how safe our country actually is, especially in today's society. With that being said there is something that we must all understand, in this age of technology if people are not surveillanced it puts everybody else in our country and the country itself at risk. There are aspects of our privacy and life that we have to sacrifice in order to secure the freedom that we do have. The NSA and U.S. government needs access to our private information in order to ensure the safety of our country and citizens.
...vil rights and losing protection. Protection is more important but unnecessary spying should not be tolerated. “The sad truth is that most Americans have already lost the battle when it comes to keeping personal information absolutely private.”( Lee, M.Dilascio, Tracey M.4).
But not only is it difficult to prove that corporations are more efficient with their privacy than individuals are, this also circles back to the policy’s affect on individual autonomy. And I believe it is necessary for Posner to consider the implications of his argument for humanity: an ethics argument that does not propose the betterment of society is unlikely to lead to better laws. For although Posner could use his claim that “history does not teach that privacy is a precondition to creativity or individuality” to argue against privacy’s relation to autonomy, it is inevitable that his policy would impact society for good or bad (Posner 407). Posner needs to address the effect by presenting contemporary evidence to support the view that privacy is unimportant to human emotion and individuality since his historical argument is irrelevant. Early philosophers such as Aristotle recognized the important “distinction between the public sphere of political action and the private sphere associated with family and domestic life,” and so while privacy may not have looked the same in these past societies, it nevertheless did exist (DeCew). Since cultures and social conditions have changed dramatically since Aristotle’s time, it is difficult to make a relevant comparison between privacy then and
Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the United States, once said “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” In America’s society today, some are willing to sacrifice their civil liberties in order to gain protection and security over some potential threat. Especially after the events of September 11th and several attempted bombings in U.S. cities. This sacrifice of individual freedoms such as the freedom of speech, expression, the right to information, to new technologies, and so forth, for additional protection is more of a loss than a gain. Citizens of the United States deserve equal liberty and safety overall, as someone should not have to give up one value in order to gain another. This concept of individual right goes beyond the simple idea of “individual comfort.” Personal liberties cannot be surrendered and are not to be compromised since these liberties are intangible. Individuals should not have their personal liberties exchanged for national security because individuals are guaranteed protection to these rights.
The critical issue that needs to be addressed in the argument for or against the use of public surveillance system in the USA is which one takes precedence, viz, whether safety of the public and property at large or the invasion of the rights of the individuals who are subjected to some sort of interference in their privacy. In other words, does a citizen have an unfettered right to privacy even when it comes to issues relating to the enforcement of law in prevention of terrorist attacks, crime and restoring security and peace of the citizens at large? I propose to argue in this paper in favor of the need for public surveillance system by advancing the reasons for its imperative and take the view that it does not amount to prima facie violation of individuals' rights and in contravention to the rights guaranteed under the constitution...
The word “privacy” did not grow up with us throughout history, as it was already a cultural concept by our founding fathers. This term was later solidified in the nineteenth century, when the term “privacy” became a legal lexicon as Louis Brandeis (1890), former Supreme Court justice, wrote in a law review article, that, “privacy was the right to be let alone.” As previously mentioned in the introduction, the Supreme Court is the final authority on all issues between Privacy and Security. We started with the concept of our fore fathers that privacy was an agreed upon concept that became written into our legal vernacular. It is being proven that government access to individual information can intimidate the privacy that is at the very center of the association between the government and the population. The moral in...
Solove, Daniel J. “5 Myths about Privacy” Washington Post: B3. Jun 16 2013. SIRS. Web. 10
As said by Eric Hughes, "Privacy is the power to selectively reveal oneself to the world. " 2 As written by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in 1928, the right most valued by the American people was "the right to be left alone". " 3 Previously it took a lot of equipment to monitor a person's actions, but now with technology's development and advancement all it requires is a computer. And there are many mediums which can be monitored, such as telephones, email, voice mail, and computers.4 People's rights are protected by many laws, but in private businesses there are few laws protecting an individual's rights.
If people feel comfortable in their surroundings then privacy is not a concern. At other times, people feel violated when they are subject to random searches; this random factor is what other people consider wrong. People feel intruded on when they see a roadblock ahead or a request to see their driver’s license when writing checks. Others are interrupted at dinner by the phone ringing from telemarketers. This selling of information is what the Europeans call data protection. If the data is not kept private, things such as credit card numbers could be stolen over the phone.
Privacy is a right granted to all American citizens in the Fourth Amendment which states “people have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and lives against unreasonable search and seizures”. Although our founding fathers could have never predicted the technological advancements we have achieved today, it would be logical to assume that a person's internet and phone data would be considered their effects. This would then make actions such as secretive government surveillance illegal because the surveillance is done so without probable cause and would be considered unreasonable search or seizure. Therefore, access to a citizen’s private information should only be provided using probable cause with the knowledge and consent of those who are being investigated.
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.