Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Safety vs freedom
Surveillance and crime prevention
Surveillance and crime prevention
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Safety vs freedom
Security and liberty cannot be separated; furthermore it is a fallacy to think you can give up one for the other.
However, assuming that the government is a benign entity involved in our best interest, you might say that giving up some of our liberty to the government would be a reasonable trade for the security of ourselves and our families against both external and internal threats. This is not including the government itself.
With this assumption, and providing that the government would act appropriately on the information gained, with the relinquishment of our privacy the government then has the ability to prevent possible shootings, terrorist attacks, organized crime, gang activity, financial fraud, identity theft, and any number of crimes both large and small.
In this mindset, privacy is a very miniscule price to pay for the “greater good”. The average American citizen should have no fear of anything happening to them with this relinquishing of privacy. They are protected from both the government and any perceived threat, because an average American has no tendency to criminality and because the government may now be able to locate any threats before they become a problem, respectively. If a person has nothing to hide, they should not have any problem with letting the government take possession of mass amounts, if not all, of their personal information.
In the wake of the many attacks within our country in the past month alone, the idea of freely letting the government seize information in the interest of preventing these attacks and save countless lives becomes significantly more appealing. It means that now, we as citizens are directly involved in the security of our own nation. We then become part of that “greater good”. We can make a big difference in the lives of our fellow Americans just from the very simple act of surrendering something as seemingly small and insignificant as privacy.
The data obtained could be used to help promote the general welfare, individual and public health, individual and public financial stability by monitoring spending habits, and prevent self-destructive habits.
Law and law enforcement would become more effective and correctional measures could be implemented swiftly, therefore effectively preventing the wrong people from being convicted and placed in correctional facilities and reducing the massive strain on the economy and government resources.
The benefits of national surveillance go beyond merely preventing crime and acts of terror, we would be able to create a society in which everyone could live up to their greatest potential, deviant behavior and self and societal destructive lifestyles could receive intervention and be eliminated.
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.
Taylor, James Stacey. "In Praise of Big Brother: Why We Should Learn to Stop Worrying and Love Government Surveillance." Public Affairs Quarterly July 2005: 227-246.
Today’s America has a magnitude of issues, spanning from social (gay marriage and abortion) to political (immigration and Obamacare) to economic (tax cuts and higher wages). Problems have been accumulating over the years and we yet do not know the solutions to any of them. But, some of the answers may have been already addressed by our founding fathers, especially to the controversial NSA Surveillance in the United States. As one of the Founding Fathers, Patrick delivered the “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” speech, expressing his view on the topic of autonomy and freedom therefore; he would discourage and fully go against the NSA surveillance in the United States today.
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.
...merican soil, the question remains as to how much privacy Americans really possess. Yes, security in the person and home is still at the discretion of law enforcement, but how far will the government reach in what seems to be an elaborate effort to gain total control over what the Constitution defines as a free society? This, and many other questions remain unanswered today, but it must be remembered that this is a government of, for, and by the people, not a dictatorship that it has come to be in today’s world.
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.
...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).
Many would typically conclude that there is a trade-off between basic liberty and safety. In today's society, technology has been a predominant part of our lives that gives us the freedom to say and speak freely. But when our sense of trust in the liberty we live in is broken it breaks our sense of security. A recent example of this can be seen when the government collects data from our phone calls and text messages. The government claims to collect personal information in an effort to protect ourselves from criminals and terrorists. This idea should be rejected against the masses because our own personal security should not be violated and the liberty to text and say what we want should not be looked into. Liberation is not something we should take for granted. Liberation is a commodity people in history fought for and die for. Liberation is the power to act, speak, right and do as one pleases. Liberation should make us feel secure in a nation that is supposed to protect us and our rights and privacies. When we give someone information to convey our personal information, that's not just a violation are on our personal lives but I freedom of speech. We give the government permission to read what you typed and listen to what we say. We give up our own personal liberties to gain a temporary
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
There are a number of reasons why this freedom needs to be protected. The number one and most important is to keep the individuality of the American people from becoming controlled by the Government.
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.
The government gives each American citizen a set of unalienable rights that protect them from the government’s power. These rights cannot be broken, yet the government violates the Fourth Amendment daily to find ways to spy on the American public under the guise of protecting against terrorism. In 2007 President Obama said the American administration “acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our securities – it is not.” Americans need to understand that their privacy is worth the fight. The people need to tell their neighbors, their congressmen, and their senators that they will not allow their internet privacy to be violated by needless spying. American citizens deserve the rights given to them and need to fight for the right to keep them by changing privacy laws to include Internet privacy.
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.
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
Ben Franklin himself said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."