Running Head National Security versus Personal Privacy - Research Paper Example

?Running head National security vs. personal privacy Latisha Mitchell Matthew Minicucci ENG 122 February 27, Individual privacy vs. national security Individual privacy vs. national security is a current debate topic that has attracted a lot of controversy from various stakeholders. National security is paramount to both the people as well as the federal government. The relationship between individual privacy and national security is the basis of the controversies surrounding the topic. Although this topic is concerned with current issues that are of public concern, it is a wide topic. The importance of individual privacy vs. national security has attracted the interest of researchers from various academic fields. This is a broad research topic that requires to be narrowed down for it to become a manageable research topic (Sole, 2010). Narrowing down the topic to a manageable level was carried out in the first phase of the project. The second phase of the research involved discovering or finding relevant sources of information for the research topic. By an analysis of the research problem, the scope of the research project was established. The analysis of the problem established that the recent terrorist threats have contributed to the debate of personal privacy vs. national security. These findings led to the claim that national security could only be realized with limited flow of information. The research project aimed at establishing whether the proposed antiterrorism measures will compromise individual privacy. This paper therefore, analyzes how enhancing national security has compromised individual privacy. The paper follows directly from the previous work on individual privacy vs. national security. Fighting terrorists are the responsibility of the federal government; however, the government has responsibilities towards its people. For the government to achieve an appropriate balance between the two responsibilities, it needs to consider their long-term implications. The federal government also needs to establish which issue is of considerable importance to the country. The assessment phase of the project proved that invasion of people’s privacy concerned the people more than issue of national security. This did not imply that people were ignorant on the security concerns in the country and about the recent terrorist threats. People have direct interests in individual privacy as compared to their interest on matters of national security. Unlike matters of national security, invasion of personal privacy has direct impacts on the people. During the assessment phase of the research project, it was established that the federal government considered national security more valuable than people’s privacy. This implies that the government lacked concerns over long-term implication of invading personal privacy in expense of fighting terrorism. According to the openness, privacy, and national security debate bulletin, the government needs to reconsider its actions (Hardin, 2003). It was established that the government took extreme measures to fight terrorism after the September 11, 2001 attacks. The government, therefore, needed to reconsider its actions by enhancing people’s privacy despite the immediate needs to fight terrorism. This is because the measures taken by the government to fights terrorism had more negativity and less positive impacts. The measure taken by the government was also unrealistic since terrorism cannot be eliminated overnight. The people are more beneficial to the country than national security. This is because national security is meant to improve people’s livelihood and, therefore the government should enhance national security according to the interests of the people. Personal privacy is of interest to the people and, therefore invasion of personal privacy should be of interest to the federal government. The American government has a duty to the people as well as the country. The government also has international objectives that the country must achieve. The position of the country on matters of global interest makes US policies to be of broad interest to international communities. Historically the united state has always been emulated as a symbol of democracy and development. Personal privacy is a civil liberty in a democratic country. Although the federal government has, the responsibility of ensuring a secure nation it also has the responsibility of maintaining democracy in the country. Invading people’s privacy nullifies the existence of democracy in United States. America did not achieve its democracy easily and, therefore the government should be ready to defend the country's democracy. Enhancing individual privacy is one method through which the government can protect the symbol of democracy in the US. In addition, the measures the federal government employs to fight terrorism have little or no contribution to the American democracy. If the government has concern over the people and the country’s international obligations, then it should promote individual privacy despite the immediate needs to fight terrorism. Sunstein (2003) established that enhancing personal privacy was a complex issue of national security that is relevant to the country. The survey also established that issues of national security are beyond the countries boundaries. Terrorists are ordinary people and, therefore it is difficult for security agencies to distinguish between a terrorist and a citizen. In addition, terrorist conduct their terrorists act from within the people. Therefore, it is impossible to fight terrorism or to enhance national security and at the same time maintain individual privacy. In order to enhance national security, security agencies conduct their operations without differentiating between citizens and the terrorist. This implies that, in most of these operations, the security agencies assume that everyone is a terrorist unless proven otherwise. This move proves that the government has little concerns over the rights of the citizens. Enhancing national security on the expense of individual privacy is an expensive affair and therefore, the government needed to consider its actions. The efforts to fight terrorism are also unrealistic since terrorists live within the people and it is difficult for security agencies to distinguish between terrorists and civilians. Enhancing individual privacy despite the immediate security requirements in the country could have served as a complete solution to the problem. The federal government therefore, needed to maintain individual privacy since people are more important to the country. Maintaining national security is an expensive venture to the government and to the country. The country should therefore, evaluate the benefit the country achieve from any security measure it employs to enhance security. The government also needs to consider the opportunity cost of such action before implementing them. National security is crucial to both the people and the country. Maintaining national security has an opportunity cost that the federal government should consider before making its decision. Compromising personal freedoms and individual privacy is a direct opportunity cost from enhanced national security. In addition, the total population of the citizens is beyond the population of terrorists. This indicates that compromising personal privacy had greater cost to the country and the federal government should make an appropriate decision. Appropriate decisions are logical decisions that are based on benefits and cost. If the federal government makes this consideration, then it should consider issues of individual privacy to be more valuable than national security. The government incurs greater costs by compromising individual privacy in its efforts to enhance national security. The federal government should therefore, consider having policies that maintain individual privacy than policies that enhance a secure nation. Fighting terrorism is a responsibility of the federal government; the government also has responsibilities toward the people. According to Avery (2004), there is no appropriate definition of national security. This implies that national security is a relative factor that has no absolute definition or interpretation. The security level of a country at any given time depends on several factors. Some of these factors are beyond the control of the federal government and therefore, the country cannot achieve absolute security. National security is therefore, immeasurable while personal freedom has direct measures and implication to the people. A country that respects people’s freedom is better than a country with, the so-called absolute national security. Pursuing national security is therefore an unachievable effort that the government needs to reconsider. On the other hand, maintaining individual privacy is achievable and measurable. A perfect decision by the government will therefore, be biased towards individual privacy. It was also established that efforts to fight terrorism were fruitless since terrorism is more of an ideology than a reality (Gross, 2004). It was also established that terrorism is shifting phase that cannot be eliminated through the government’s antiterrorism efforts. The government should therefore, invest its resources and efforts into more rewarding activities. Maintaining individual privacy is more rewarding to the government and the people and therefore, the government needs to reconsider its decision. Fighting terrorism is not only important to the country but the entire world. However, the US has assumed full responsibility in ensuring a terror free world. This decision has considerable implications for the government and the country. Terrorism is a global problem and, therefore all countries should have equal contribution. It was established that assuming full responsibility over terrorism made the government to neglect its domestic roles. Enhancing individual privacy is a domestic role that the federal government neglected in its efforts to eliminate terrorism. In addition, the role of fighting terrorism has negative impacts to the country and, therefore, the government should reconsider its decision. A responsible government should prioritize on issues that directly affect the people. This implies that enhancing civil liberties is of enormous importance to the government and the nation than fighting global terrorism. In addition, the government bears global financial burdens that are met by the people. If the government has considerations over its people, then it should consider having a country that promotes individual privacy. This is because the government incurs heavy cost from its efforts to fight terrorism. Maintaining individual privacy is an immediate duty of the federal government. It is therefore, logical for the government to prioritize on issues of individual privacy despite the immediate terrorist threats. This is because promoting individual privacy has greater value to the government and the country than fighting terrorism. In addition, the government loses its credibility through its efforts to fight terrorism. Enhancing individual freedom will contribute to the credibility of the federal government and hence the best option. Conclusion National security is crucial to the country; however, the people are more relevant to the country. Efforts by the government to fight terrorism compromise individual freedom and; therefore, the government should establish an appropriate balance between the two roles. A logical decision by the government will consider a country that promotes individual privacy despite the immediate needs to fight terrorism. Enhancing individual privacy is a direct responsibility of the government. Fighting terrorism is a costly venture for the country. The people are forced to bear the cost of national security with their civil liberties such as individual privacy. If the government has considerations towards the people, then it will promote individual privacy despite the immediate security threats. References Avery, G. (2004). Bioterrorism, Fear, and Public Health Reform: Matching a Policy Solution to the Wrong Window, Public Administration Review 64, no. 3: 275. Gross, E. (2004). The struggle of a democracy against terrorism—Protection of human rights: The right to privacy versus the national interest—the proper balance, Cornell International Law Journal 37 (1), 27-32. Hardin, S. (2003). Openness, privacy, and National Security Post 9/11: A debate. Bulletin of the American society for information science and technology, Feb/Mar; 29, 3. Silverman, D. (2009). Doing a Qualitative Research. New York: Sage. Sole, K. (2010). Writing College Research Papers. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education. Sunstein, C. R. (2003). Terrorism and probability neglect, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26: 121-136 Read More