Privacy versus Security Debate - Essay Example

Privacy versus Security Debate Number Privacy versus Security Debate The global debate on the importance of individual privacy and national security continues to trouble governments and citizens alike. As such, the level of privacy which is adequate for optimal security remains contentious. Since the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States, the government has capitalized on the incident and other similar potential security threats to slowly cut into the privacy of the citizens (Editorial Board, 2013).

As a result, various security agencies search and collate massive amounts of individual data as part of ‘fighting insecurity.’ But just which side between privacy and security is more important? This paper argues that insecurity can be fought without necessarily invading privacy. Following the recent leaks of the spying operations of the National Security Agency (NSA), it is evident that the government sees is traditionally rational to eavesdrop on almost all Americans’ communications for suspicious actions (Editorial Board, 2013).

This breach shows that the security agency downplays the privacy rights of the citizens. Even though the society has become increasingly dependent on digital technologies, with most of the details being readily available online, the government has forcibly argued that security is one of its primary mandates. On the contrary, the fact that data gathered by the NSA is normally obtained without the consent of the originators raises some serious questions: why would security threats within the American population find the NSA activities as tactic threatening?

Should individuals suspected of posing security threats to millions of innocent civilians enjoy immunity from eavesdropping? If yes, what should be the extent of their privacy? In light of these questions, one might think that the recent breaches of privacy would underscore the American society’s security scares as legitimizing their deliberate loss of own individual privacy (Editorial Board, 2013). If this is factual, it would imply that the citizens have become used to the notion of sacrificing their individual privacy in order to stay safe from terror activities.

This is not the case, however. As such, the government forcefully argues that an individual who surrenders essential freedom would be safer. Regardless, Editorial Board (2013) said the likely loss of both privacy and security calls for a proper way to balance the two fundamental issues. Instead of gathering personal data on virtually all American citizens, the security agencies need to concentrate on real threats to security. This way, the government would be able to balance privacy and security.

As Moore and Parker (2011) noted, success would depend on the ability of the government to create incentives which are aimed at improving the overall security of the nation, rather than limiting its cost. The strategy would then enable the American citizenry the opportunity to enjoy the security while safeguarding civil liberties. However, the fact that surrendering more privacy does not have a direct impact on higher levels of security and vice versa, raises the issue of just how much trade-off of security and privacy would result in maximum gains on both ends (Editorial Board, 2013).

In response, however, the government has used several rhetorical devices to justify infringement on privacy such as euphemisms, down-players and dysphemism in chapter 5 for silencing critics of shrunken privacy (Moore & Parker, 2011). In chapter 6, scare tactics suggesting that terrorists could strike again anytime, forceful arguments that America would never be cowed by terrorists, show of pity to victims of insecurity and invoking nationalism in the war on terror have also been used to justify shrinking privacy rights (Moore, & Parker, 2011).

In chapter 7, justifying that security requires sacrifice of citizens’ privacy and that that is common or traditional are some of the fallacies used to rationalize breaches of privacy for perceived citizen safety. These rhetorical devices are important because the state uses them to justify violations of individual privacy in the name of fighting crime and terror. References Editorial Board. (2013). NSA scandal: National security vs. individual privacy. Retrieved from http://www.startribune.

com/opinion/editorials/210901661.html Moore, B.N, & Parker, R., (2011). Critical Thinking. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.