Importance Of Secrets In The Lock Box

1677 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: National security and privacy rights

Caution: Don’t Open the Lock Box, It Could Be Deadly!
Imagine there are a bunch of secrets being kept in a lock box. Someone who doesn’t have respect or owner’s best interest in mind comes along and unlocks the box, spreading important secrets to the world. Now, there are people who are threatening the owner of the lock box, wanting to use the secrets found inside against the person. How should that person feel? Their own life became threatened because someone decided to unlock all their secrets and use them against them, exposing them to the world? The intruder felt that it was their right to expose the owner of the lockbox. The intruder feels that they should not be punished. If someone exposed me, I would want them to be punished. The perceived right to information and free will sometimes has to be taken away or limited due to the well-being of the owner. The goal of national security in the U.S is to keep those secrets in the lock box. If those secrets got out, we could all be dead.
If the nation is being threatened, the lives of millions of people outweigh the lives of a few who disrupt and threaten the wellbeing of everyone. The people who attack the nation should not go unchecked. If the government allows for citizens, officials, immigrants, political leaders, etc. to threaten national security, that would set a precedent that any and everyone could attack the U.S and its citizens, which is not a good message to send. Civil liberties are a nice luxury, but a government cannot be too lenient as to allow chaos to break out within a country, because that is how terrorist groups

Show More
Related

  • Write An Argumentative Essay On Thomas Paine

    807 Words  | 2 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Analysis Of We Should Relinquish Some Liberty In Exchange For Security

    872 Words  | 2 Pages

    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. Charen presents her thesis prominently at the beginning of her essay in her title. By doing so, she not only clearly expresses her thesis that we must give up some liberty to secure the United States, but also peaks the interest of the reader with a provocative and timely statement.

    Read More

  • American Civil Liberties: Do Americans Have Enough Protections for Civil Liberties, or Not?

    1449 Words  | 3 Pages

    Cole, D., & Dempsey, J. X. (2006). Terrorism and the constitution: sacrificing civil liberties in the name of national security. New York: New Press.

    Read More

  • Sacrificing Freedom for Security

    1407 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Clear and Present Danger: Book Review

    1862 Words  | 4 Pages

    ... the need of government to act whenever an issue threatens national security. Mechanisms should be put in place to ascertain the extent of the threat, and the acceptable measures of dealing with it.

    Read More

  • The Government Does Have The Constitutional Power To Suspend The Constitution During A Time Of Crisis

    1412 Words  | 3 Pages

    In the past, the U.S. Congress has passed acts in a time of crisis for the safety of our nation. With this information being acknowledged many ask, "If the government had previous powers to do so?" One act that was passed was the Sedition Act of 1798. This law was passed due to a threat of war with the French. This act basically stated that no person should conspire or scheme any plans against the government. This includes conspiracy by mouth, actions, or any other way possible. Even though the Bill of Rights state that the people have the right to freely express themselves through speech, the government revised or revoked that amendment during that particular time. This act became null and void on March 3, 1801 which was stated in Section 4 of the Sedition Act. Another act that was passed through Congress was the Espionage Act of 1918 during World War I. This act says that no one should slander the name of the U.S. government nor the naval forces and the military. It also states that no one should speak, print, or publish anything disloyal or scurrilous concerning the U.S. as a whole during the time of war. These rules are located in Section 3 of the Espionage Act. This goes against the 1st Amendment which allows the freedom of expression through speech and press, but as you can the government still passed the act. The act wasn't repealed until the year of 1921. Two more important cases where the government exemplified their power is in the Supreme Court: Hirabayashi v.

    Read More

  • The Patriot Act vs Civil Liberties

    1016 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...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).

    Read More

  • War On Terror and The USA PATRIOT Act,

    595 Words  | 2 Pages

    Long a polarizing issue, a balance between civil liberties and national security has constantly trailed America’s pursuit of happiness. Civil liberties are defined as rights for each individual person that serve to protect said individuals, by law, from unjust governmental interference, and encompasses all interference that may infringe on given rights. Incidentally, America has sucumb to such infringments within its lifetime, some early in its history, and some with recurring now with vestiges of the more prominent liberty violations which had reigned before. A much more recent example, terrorist attacks offended on September 11 shook our nation and brought with it government reform that many had not seen before. And with these governmental reforms, America has begun to backlash after more and more information about these unjust offenses has begun to leak from both prolific media outlets and workers in government themselves. The attacks committed on September 11, 2001. Although initially intended to protect America, the war on terror has begun to encroach on civil liberties and the ...

    Read More

  • Goffman Self Analysis

    631 Words  | 2 Pages

    A clash that arises when we talk about privacy is the question of what should be given preference - our rights or our safety (which the State claims is taken into consideration and is usually the driving force for the creation of surveillance projects). Those who agree with the State assert that they’ve got nothing to hide and therefore have nothing to worry about . Trent Lott, a former Senate majority leader asked rhetorically whether the reason for

    Read More

  • The Veldt, A Literary Analysis

    1236 Words  | 3 Pages

    whatever they feel necessary to protect the things that they love or are obsessed with, proves that

    Read More

  • Essay On The Patriot Act

    2034 Words  | 5 Pages

    ...ed to be worried. It simply is not possible to not to have some measure of national security precautions without jeopardizing the security of the populace, especially with new technology that America has now. The Patriot Act does not infringe upon the rights of citizens; it ensures that those who wish to harm this country have limited means to do so. The Patriot Act was passed as a means to allow better protection of citizens given the current state of technology today. The aftermath of the attacks on September 11th demonstrated that this was necessary. The Constitution is not designed to render the nation defenseless against people who have no value for human life, and who will use whatever means necessary to harm others to advance their goals In conclusion the Patriot Act gives the government the tools in which are necessary to keep America and its citizens safe.

    Read More

  • Individual Privacy versus National Security

    1933 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Internet Privacy: Edward Snowden

    1686 Words  | 4 Pages

    The American government used to be able to keep the people in happy ignorance to the fact that they watch every move they make. After certain revelations of people like Edward Snowden, the public knows the extent of the government spying. On June 5, 2013 Edward Snowden leaked documents of the NSA to the Guardian (The Guardian 2). The whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed to the world how the American government collects information like cell phone metadata, Internet history, emails, location from phones, and more. President Obama labeled the man a traitor because he showed the world the illegal acts the NSA performs on US citizens (Service of Snowden 1). The government breached the people’s security, and now the people are afraid because everyone is aware of how the US disapproves of people who do not agree with their programs. Obama said that these programs find information about terrorists living in the US, but he has lit...

    Read More

  • Argumentative Essay On Edward Snowden

    646 Words  | 2 Pages

    It is reasonable to argue that, governmental institutions or people with authority are subject to withhold a great deal of information from society. Many may argue that secrets are kept to ensure the safety of the nation. Thus, upholding the governmental duty of protecting the nation against possible threats. On the other hand, many believe that secrets may exist which violate our constitutional rights. Over the last year, Edward Snowden, has made headline news for leaking sensitive governmental information to the press. Edward Snowden is a 29-year-old high school drop-out, who was a tech specialist for the National Security Association. Snowden had discovered and later exposed the NSA for monitoring the nations e-mails, phone calls, and internet searches. As the allegations spread like wild fire, Edward Snowden sought asylum in Russia for one year. Snowden had a valid and justifiable reason to expose the NSA to the world because they were in violation of our fourth Amendment rights to unreasonable searches and seizures. The government called him a traitor, while others viewed him as a hero for exposing the government. Edward Snowden is a whistle blower because he felt that it is up to society to decide if governmental practices are just or unjust. Snowden does “express the highest respect for the law”, and he wanted to protect the right of privacy for American citizens.

    Read More

  • Democracy: Loyalty, Security, and Liberty

    1409 Words  | 3 Pages

    Within democracies there is great dilemma between security (keeping the country and citizens safe) and liberty (honoring individual rights and freedoms). Many would attest that having both is vital to having a democracy. However, during specific periods, the government may value security above liberty or vice versa. In the particular scenario where a country goes to war, the true significance of the debate between security and liberty unveils. More specifically in a situation where a country orders a draft and enacts laws ordering those who protest against the war to be thrown in jail. In this situation, the government is placing the value of security above the value of liberty. Security is necessary, especially in times of war, but ignoring liberties jeopardizes the principles in which democracy was built. In addition, a lack of liberty can cause a country to be divided and citizens to become disloyal. All of which is a recipe for disaster during wartimes. While at the same time, it is important to respect people’s liberties, giving to many liberties threatens the security of the country by allowing citizens to protest and rebel against the government. Thus, a society must decide the right amount of both. People in a society with restricted liberties might begin to feel fear, anger, and resentment. This leads to protest, revolts, and mutinies such as it did in the scenario. Therefore, while security is imperative, undermining citizen’s liberties threatens the structure of democracy by restricting freedom, creating chaos and generating disloyalty in citizens.

    Read More

More about Importance Of Secrets In The Lock Box

Open Document