More handpicked essays just for you.
Tension between freedom and security
Personal liberty vs national security
Tension between freedom and security
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The United States is in a tricky situation. First and foremost, we are a country that prides itself on being free. Even the fourth amendment to our Constitution declares, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Yet we are also a country that demands security. Americans expect that our government will keep us safe. These two ideals, freedom and security, are often at odds. How can we expect our government to stop terrorism without infringing on our rights? Recent disclosures, that the government has access to American phone calls and emails, have brought this debate to the forefront of public discourse.
Tension between freedom and security has been prevalent in America since its founding. In 1798, President Adams responded to the threat of war with France with the Sedition Act, which made opposition to the government practically illegal. During the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus to prevent disputes regarding the legality of arrests. President Roosevelt authorized Japanese internment during World War II. Clearly, our government has often felt at liberty to put personal freedoms on hold for safety and control.
Of course, a certain level of safety is necessary in order to maintain a livable society. We must abridge total freedom in order to assure a maximum amount. No one can live comfortably in a country with constant terrorist activity. At the same time, however, no one can live comfortably in a country with constant security checkpoints. Somehow, we must find a balance: security measures must be thorough, but restricted; enforced, but monitored; and advantageous, but just. On top of that, laws must be understood and approved by the general public. If a security measure is determined to be helpful and not overly pervasive, and if it reduces crime significantly and in proportion to the infringement of rights, then the security measure should be acceptable.
The government’s recent surveillance does not pass this test. This is unwarranted bulk screening that goes against some of our country’s most basic values. What make this security measure different from others, such as airport security, are the consent and pervasiveness factors: Plane passengers choose to fly, and the rights suspended are limited (Although TSA officers may discover the contents of your bag, they do not truly learn about you). This new all-encompassing surveillance, however, is unavoidable.
Adam Penenberg’s “The Surveillance Society” reminds Americans of the tragic events of September 11, 2001 and the instant effects the that attacks on the World Trade Center had on security in the United States. Penenberg discusses how the airports were shut down and federal officials began to plot a military response. Although those were necessary actions, they were not as long lasting as some of the other safety precautions that were taken. The Patriot Act, which makes it easier for the government to access cell phones and pagers and monitor email and web browsing, was proposed. Politicians agreed that during a war civil liberties are treated differently. From there, Penenberg explains that for years before September 11th, Americans were comfortable with cameras monitoring them doing everyday activities.
In her essay “We should relinquish some liberty in exchange for security,” Mona Charen, a columnist and political analyst, speaks on the issue of security in the United States of America. She uses many significant techniques in her essay to persuade her readers of her argument. However, I feel that her essay fails to make a great argument because she relies heavily on assumptions, misses opportunities to appeal to pathos and ethos, and overall uses a degrading tone.
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.
... must gather information from citizens. The question is how much freedoms are we willing to sacrifice in order to feel safe, when does it become a slippery slope and more is taken from us than we wanted. Is the price of safety is worth the price of freedoms? And do liberties and freedoms outweigh the price of safety? Domestic terrorism is causing more damage than just the exterior of what can be seen immediately, and the difficulty to stop it has brought on some unwanted results. There is no doubt that Radical Islamic domestic terrorism will happen again, and when it does how far will America go to stop it. Will domestic terrorism cause America to lose who we are? Or will we find new ways to combat the evil that it is? Only the future will tell, but one thing is for sure and that is we as citizens can do a lot to help, and we must stand strong on what we belive.
David Grayson once said that "Commandment Number One of any truly civilized society is this: Let people be different". Difference, or individuality, however, may not be possible under a dictatorial government. Aldous Huxley's satirical novel Brave New World shows that a government-controlled society often places restraints upon its citizens, which results in a loss of social and mental freedom. These methods of limiting human behavior are carried out by the conditioning of the citizens, the categorical division of society, and the censorship of art and religion.
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.
Since the terrorist attacks at Sept. 11, 2001, the surveillance issue often has turned away the table in the debate of individual privacy or counterterrorism. By passing the Patriot Act, Congress gave President Bush an immense law enforcement authority to boost U.S's counterterrorism, and the President used his enlarged powers to forward specific programs in order to reduce the threat of terrorism and defend the country’s safety.
It is a well-distinguished fact that the government loves using surveillance – a surveillance’s easy accessibility, regardless of the threat they pose, verifies the government’s love. Surveillance is a part of the government’s life. According to ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), just six weeks after the September 11 attacks, the government passed quite a lot of legislative acts, such as the USA/Patriot Act, that would allow the government to watch doubtful actions. The act was a revision of the nation's surveillance laws that allowed the government's authority to spy on the citizens. The Patriot Act made it easier for the system to gain access to records of citizens' actions being held by a third party. Similarly, Section 215 of the Patriot Act allowed the FBI to force many people - including doctors, libraries, bookstores, universities, and Internet service providers - to turn in information on their clients (“Surveillance Under the USA PATRIOT Act”).
The recent terrorists attacks of 9/11 has brought security to an all-time high, and more importantly brought the NSA to the limelight. Facts don 't change however, terrorist attacks are not common as history has shown. So what has domestic surveillance actually protected? There are no records to date that they have stopped any harm from being caused. If it is well known by every American that they are being watched, then why would a terrorist with the intention of harming use these devices to talk about their heinous acts? The real criminals are smarter than this, and it has shown with every attack in our history. Petty acts of crime are not what domestic surveillance should be used for. Terrorism has been happening for decades before any electronics were introduced, and even in third world countries where electronics are not accessible. The government needs a different way to locate these terrorists, rather than spy on every innocent human being. Andrew Bacevich states in his article The Cult of National Security: What Happened to Check and Balances? that until Americans set free the idea of national security, empowering presidents will continue to treat us improperly, causing a persistent risk to independence at home. Complete and total security will never happen as long as there is malicious intent in the mind of a criminal, and sacrificing freedoms for the false sense of safety should not be
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.
Domestic Surveillance 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 obtaining enough intelligence to protect the safety of the nation and the preservation of basic human rights is not extremely skewed, Congress has set forth requisites in FISA which aim to balance the conflicting goals of privacy and security; but the timeline preceding this act has been anything but honorable for the United States government.
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.
A large percentage of the people in the world get no choice in their life, such as jobs, religion, or family. Instead they get to be safe. They don't get to choose a job, or even what clothes they wear. They just live how the government tells them, with the promise of safety. They can't protect their own homes or families, instead they rely on the government.
However, government agencies, especially in America, continue to lobby for increased surveillance capabilities, particularly as technologies change and move in the direction of social media. Communications surveillance has extended to Internet and digital communications. law enforcement agencies, like the NSA, have required internet providers and telecommunications companies to monitor users’ traffic. Many of these activities are performed under ambiguous legal basis and remain unknown to the general public, although the media’s recent preoccupation with these surveillance and privacy issues is a setting a trending agenda.
There are many privileges we take for granted in our everyday lives, such as our personal freedom. The government impacts this personal freedom by violating it on numerous occasions through the use of security cameras. Examples of these are seen at airports, traffic lights, and neighborhoods. There are many reasons why we should think of this as problematic. I claim that we should limit government surveillance because it is a threat to our democracy, not only because it infiltrates the people’s freedom and privacy, but because the government is irresponsible on how they use their power.