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 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...
... middle of paper ...
... life.
Much has changed in our governments view on what is considered to be violations of our individual rights. The argument is not about the ideal of privacy or the ideal of security, it is about the improper use of data collected by the government that is misrepresented and improperly utilized in violation of our very own Civil Rights and Liberties. This is allowed through silver tongued legal representation sponsored by the government for the government to exercise the ability to use loopholes in the legal system. The very Supreme Court in which we entrust to make the legal and moral decisions on privacy versus security is a judge nominated by the same political system (government) that has enacted such distrust. Our forefathers warned us in their speech and tried to save us in their laws. We have failed them by our actions and with our greed.
The word “privacy” has a different meaning in our society than it did in previous times. You can put on Privacy settings on Facebook, twitter, or any social media sights, however, nothing is truly personal and without others being able to view your information. You can get to know a person’s personal life simply by typing in their name in google. In the chronicle review, “Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have ‘Nothing to Hide,'" published on May 15th 2011, Professor Daniel J. Solove argues that the issue of privacy affects more than just individuals hiding a wrong. The nothing-to-hide argument pervades discussions about privacy. Solove starts talking about this argument right away in the article and discusses how the nothing-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.
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.
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.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”-Benjamin Franklin. We live in an age where governments invade the private lives of its citizens in the name of safety. Ironically, anyone who displaying a hint of paranoia when it comes to government surveillance or secrecy is automatically labeled a conspiracy theorist or a kook. It seems that in the U.S., it has become frowned upon to believe that our government would ever infringe on our rights, unintentionally or deliberately. After all, they can’t, it says so in the constitution! But, alas, it turns out “Big Brother” has been very busy the past decade. It seems as though every year new government scandals arise, from cover ups to spying on U.S. citizens. Law enforcement and government agencies are slowly finding “loopholes” through problematic areas of the constitution, with little regard for citizens’ rights. It is our duty as citizens, to not tolerate violations of the law that our nation was founded upon. By examining history and other countries’ policies regarding privacy and freedoms, it becomes clear that if these breaches of our rights are allowed to go on, we will be living in a country of fear and oppression.
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.
Privacy postulates the reservation of a private space for the individual, described as the right to be let alone. The concept is founded on the autonomy of the individual. The ability of an individual to make choices lies at the core of the human personality. The Supreme Court protected the right to privacy of prostitute. The autonomy of the individual is associated over matters which can be kept private. These are concerns over which there is a legitimate expectation of privacy. Privacy has both a normative and descriptive function. At a normative level privacy sub-serves those eternal values upon which the guarantees of life, liberty and freedom are founded. At a descriptive level, privacy postulates a bundle of entitlements and interests
Privacy (Pri-va-cy) n.1.the state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people. Americans fear that technological progress will destroy the concept of privy. The first known use of wiretap was in 1948. It’s no secret that the government watches individuals on a daily bases. According to the constitution, the Fourth Amendment serves to protect the people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Unreasonable is the word that tips the balance On one side is the intrusion on individuals’ Fourth Amendment rights and the other side is legitimate government interests, such as public safety. What we consider reasonable by law, the government might not think so. The word ‘privacy’ seems to be non-existent today in the 21st century; the use and advances of technology have deprived us of our privacy and given the government the authority to wiretap and or intervene in our lives. Our natural rights we’ve strived for since the foundation of this nation are being slashed down left to right when we let the government do as they wish. The government should not be given the authority to intervene without a reasonable cause and or consent of the individual
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.
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.
James Madison once said “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” To gain a better understanding of a society, one must gain knowledge of the needs and wants the citizens’ demand from the country’s representatives. In every country the needed to protect its citizens is the same. In some nations, security is a higher priority which causes sacrifices to be made to obtain an indefinite protection against all rivals. In Peter Singer’s essay titled “Visible Man: Ethics in a World without Secrets” he states that there is a way that governments can collect information by using technology; to allow more ‘openness’ and exposure as an increase of unknown surveillance that the public is not aware of. Singer’s essay also talks about how also with the rise of secrecy within politics; organizations such as ‘WikiLeaks’ and ‘Anonymous’ reveal to the world what is really going on within their privacy. Benefits come from both sides in a world where surveillance exists to the highest priority with or without privacy.
The world erupted in outrage following revelations by Edward Snowden regarding the extent of surveillance perform by the National Security Agency. Privacy becomes one of the hottest topic of 2013 and was chosen by the world’s most popular online dictionary, Dictionary.com, as the Word of the Year. However, the government is not the only one that conduct data gathering and surveillance. Employers often monitor their employees, and businesses collect data on theirs customer. The morality of these practices is a topic that generates heated debate.
As society has progressed, there have been many new innovative and unbelievable developments in almost all aspects of life that have ultimately created an impact. More specifically, advancements in technology have rather had a much larger and intense impact on society as it continues to grow. Technology has allowed for many great and useful applications that has made life much easier and convenient. However, many aspects of technology have given a rise to a number of social and ethical issues, causing numerous debates and concerns. One of the more prominent concerns deals with the issue of privacy rights.
Americans’ personal privacy is being to be ruined by the rise of four different types of surveillance system. The four are: federal government agencies; state and local law enforcement entities; telecoms, web sites and Internet “apps” companies; and private data aggregators .The right to privacy is not derived from any source; however the Declaration of Human Rights states that "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor attacks upon his honor or reputation"(Stone 348). The right to protection is also secured by the Privacy Act of 1974 and found through the in the first, fourth and fifth amendments of the United States Constitution.