The Right To Privacy

Privacy has become a major concern for Americans all across the country. In most recent years, millions of Americans became victim of privacy fallouts. “How has the internet changed the meaning of privacy”? It is evident that Americans are more aware of the issue of privacy. Many have argued that privacy should not be opposed to because it helps the government to keep us safe from the bad guys, while this argument could eventually take away our right to privacy. But perhaps, there is a middle ground where citizens can still keep their privacy and dignity, and the government still get the necessary information needed to keep us safe.

Proponents against privacy have argued many key points to prove their arguments. One of the claim is, what do you have to hide? A claim that questioned the right to privacy. It is their intention to divert

Solove’s ”Nothing to hide” that describes the false tradeoff between privacy and security, in which people don’t understand the concept of privacy. Privacy advocates often refute this argument by focusing on things people want to hide, whereas the problem is being concealed by the assumption that privacy is more about hiding bad things. Solove stated “what if the government thinks your financial transactions look odd, even you’ve done nothing wrong, and freezes your accounts?” The government can have an adverse effect on personal information.

My second source is a book entitled, “After Snowden: Privacy, Secrecy, and Security in the Information Age” by Ronald Goldfarb and associates. This book illustrates the concerns Americans have about privacy, and government surveillance practices on Americans. The Author raises very important points on national security and the right to privacy. National Security advocates often argue there is no evidence that collection of personal information cause any damages, and the author stated that “civil libertarians argue that the mere fact of the incursions alone is the