Feelings of anxiety, tension and overwhelming fear seized the nation in July of 2013. Countless confidential files had been leaked, exposing the NSA’s undercover surveillance programs to the public. The National Security Agency had monitored individuals’ browsing habits and gathered a bulk of their personal information. Former CIA employer and NSA contractor Edward Snowden, responsible for stealing these government files, is currently “wanted” for espionage. His efforts to inform America of the government’s actions has fueled the ongoing controversial debate between the right to privacy and national security. Was the NSA truly justified in their surveillance methods? While many American citizens believed their privacy was violated, others understood the government’s reasoning behind the programs--to prevent threats to citizens’ safety. Does more information collected on individuals result in greater national security? With technology advancing and the internet being accessible almost anywhere, challenging questions, like these, arise. Rather than selecting one side to this debate, a compromise must be found so that citizens may exercise their right to privacy without jeopardizing the security of the nation. In order to better understand how to establish greater national security, it must first be recognized that information is power.
…show more content…
Consider Los Angeles 2000, Detroit 2006 and Chicago 2014- times in which the FBI prevented both foreign and domestic terrorist plots from occurring. After surveilling the suspects to gather necessary evidence and subsequently issuing warrants for their arrests, each of the men were convicted of terrorism-related charges. In these three cases, using various surveillance methods and collecting vital information on the individuals contributed to the government’s success in protecting the lives of citizens. Information is undoubtedly essential for the government to defend the country. Using it wisely to stop threats before they happen and/or place the terrorists in custody is the authorities’ primary goal. Sometimes, unfortunate events happen unexpectedly. The bombings in Brussels and Paris as well as the mass shooting in Florida are recent tragedies that come to mind, which lead to the discussion: When is it acceptable to “violate” an individual's privacy? One of the most controversial incidents, the devastating shooting of December 2015 in San Bernardino, California, caused citizens to question their right to privacy versus security. Syed Farook, the person responsible for murdering 14 people, owned an iPhone; the FBI pressured Apple to unlock the shooter’s device. Due to the privacy agreement with their customers, Apple, specifically chief executive Tim Cook, challenged the FBI’s demands to ensure that all iPhone owners’ civil liberties remained protected. As a result, the FBI brought the case to federal court. Ultimately, the judge required Apple to provide the “reasonable technical assistance” for the FBI (Kharpal). This encryption dispute reveals that for matters of national security, the government must have immediate access to information so that individuals responsible for such attacks are brought to justice. Although citizens’ personal information is needed by the government at times to protect the country, advertising companies and online services should not have control over an individual’s personal details. “As businesses increasingly mine data about consumers, Americans are concerned about preserving their privacy when it comes to their personal information and behaviors” (Rainie, Maniam). In these instances, the lack of information does not threaten national security. Rather, it intensifies citizens’ anxieties about how to limit the amount of personal data companies can access. Numerous Americans do not feel confident that companies will be diligent in protecting their information. According to recent polls, 25% of Americans doubt credit card companies will secure their personal data, while 53% are hesitant about sharing details with online advertisers (Pew Research Center). Furthermore, 45% of Americans question whether their information is protected on social media sites. From these studies, it can be concluded that purchasing products online or creating social media accounts comes with a steep price--one’s privacy. In February of 2012, the Consumer Bill of Rights, proposed by President Obama, was introduced. The goal was for individuals to gain control of their information held by commercial companies. Currently, the bill has failed to pass. Without it, advertising companies and online services continue to abuse citizens’ personal information in the hope of increasing profits. Despite bipartisan support, government officials are not confident that the Consumer Bill of Rights will pass. As
Consider Los Angeles 2000, Detroit 2006 and Chicago 2014- times in which the FBI prevented both foreign and domestic terrorist plots from occurring. After surveilling the suspects to gather necessary evidence and subsequently issuing warrants for their arrests, each of the men were convicted of terrorism-related charges. In these three cases, using various surveillance methods and collecting vital information on the individuals contributed to the government’s success in protecting the lives of citizens. Information is undoubtedly essential for the government to defend the country. Using it wisely to stop threats before they happen and/or place the terrorists in custody is the authorities’ primary goal. Sometimes, unfortunate events happen unexpectedly. The bombings in Brussels and Paris as well as the mass shooting in Florida are recent tragedies that come to mind, which lead to the discussion: When is it acceptable to “violate” an individual's privacy? One of the most controversial incidents, the devastating shooting of December 2015 in San Bernardino, California, caused citizens to question their right to privacy versus security. Syed Farook, the person responsible for murdering 14 people, owned an iPhone; the FBI pressured Apple to unlock the shooter’s device. Due to the privacy agreement with their customers, Apple, specifically chief executive Tim Cook, challenged the FBI’s demands to ensure that all iPhone owners’ civil liberties remained protected. As a result, the FBI brought the case to federal court. Ultimately, the judge required Apple to provide the “reasonable technical assistance” for the FBI (Kharpal). This encryption dispute reveals that for matters of national security, the government must have immediate access to information so that individuals responsible for such attacks are brought to justice. Although citizens’ personal information is needed by the government at times to protect the country, advertising companies and online services should not have control over an individual’s personal details. “As businesses increasingly mine data about consumers, Americans are concerned about preserving their privacy when it comes to their personal information and behaviors” (Rainie, Maniam). In these instances, the lack of information does not threaten national security. Rather, it intensifies citizens’ anxieties about how to limit the amount of personal data companies can access. Numerous Americans do not feel confident that companies will be diligent in protecting their information. According to recent polls, 25% of Americans doubt credit card companies will secure their personal data, while 53% are hesitant about sharing details with online advertisers (Pew Research Center). Furthermore, 45% of Americans question whether their information is protected on social media sites. From these studies, it can be concluded that purchasing products online or creating social media accounts comes with a steep price--one’s privacy. In February of 2012, the Consumer Bill of Rights, proposed by President Obama, was introduced. The goal was for individuals to gain control of their information held by commercial companies. Currently, the bill has failed to pass. Without it, advertising companies and online services continue to abuse citizens’ personal information in the hope of increasing profits. Despite bipartisan support, government officials are not confident that the Consumer Bill of Rights will pass. As