Digital Privacy
Without privacy there is no freedom. Conversely, without security there is no country. Imagine a chaotic world where citizens live in constant fear of what could happen to them, because of the lack of safety in their country. Terrorism has especially been an issue in America, and with the growing number of threats, it is impossible to tell when or where domestic attacks may occur. The government should have every right to access digital information of their citizens, to maintain security and prevent domestic and foreign attacks.
Terrorism is a major problem in the US, and without cyber monitoring, terrorist attacks can become more probable. It would be easier for a domestic attack to happen if the US government is unable to …show more content…
Citizens that are a threat to the country, are the only people who are at risk of their privacy. . Within the book , “Online Privacy,” author Stephen Currie explains that, “ [The Government] in the United States rarely exercise these powers against people who are not already under the suspicion of committing crimes”(60). Currie is trying to get the idea across that American citizens have a very little chance of getting their privacy compromised, because they are not a threat to the well being of the country. This shows that even though the government has the right to access one's private information, does not mean they will monitor it. Critics may say, however, that the government can abuse this power to access the digital privacy of its citizens. They argue that, “This is not to say that the United States is in any danger of becoming like Orwell’s imaginary country of Nineteen Eighty-Four anytime soon”(Currie 60). Any country can become one where everyone is monitored all the time showing that it is not impossible that the government can abuse this power. This argument is not true for the reason that if one were to be monitored for no probable cause , it would be ineffective and inefficient. The reason is the government has to constantly monitor everybody when they can significantly reduce that number by monitoring people under suspicion. According to President Obama, “‘[America has] pioneered the Internet, but we also pioneered the Bill of Rights, and a sense that each of us as individuals have a sphere of privacy around us… , I'm confident that we can be pioneers in crafting the kind of architecture that will allow us to both grow, innovate, and preserve those values that are so precious to us as Americans’”(Hudson para.13). Since there is no probable cause, a clean and moral person would not have its privacy
Without privacy there is no freedom. Conversely, without security there is no country. Imagine a chaotic world where citizens live in constant fear of what could happen to them, because of the lack of safety in their country. Terrorism has especially been an issue in America, and with the growing number of threats, it is impossible to tell when or where domestic attacks may occur. The government should have every right to access digital information of their citizens, to maintain security and prevent domestic and foreign attacks.
Terrorism is a major problem in the US, and without cyber monitoring, terrorist attacks can become more probable. It would be easier for a domestic attack to happen if the US government is unable to …show more content…
Citizens that are a threat to the country, are the only people who are at risk of their privacy. . Within the book , “Online Privacy,” author Stephen Currie explains that, “ [The Government] in the United States rarely exercise these powers against people who are not already under the suspicion of committing crimes”(60). Currie is trying to get the idea across that American citizens have a very little chance of getting their privacy compromised, because they are not a threat to the well being of the country. This shows that even though the government has the right to access one's private information, does not mean they will monitor it. Critics may say, however, that the government can abuse this power to access the digital privacy of its citizens. They argue that, “This is not to say that the United States is in any danger of becoming like Orwell’s imaginary country of Nineteen Eighty-Four anytime soon”(Currie 60). Any country can become one where everyone is monitored all the time showing that it is not impossible that the government can abuse this power. This argument is not true for the reason that if one were to be monitored for no probable cause , it would be ineffective and inefficient. The reason is the government has to constantly monitor everybody when they can significantly reduce that number by monitoring people under suspicion. According to President Obama, “‘[America has] pioneered the Internet, but we also pioneered the Bill of Rights, and a sense that each of us as individuals have a sphere of privacy around us… , I'm confident that we can be pioneers in crafting the kind of architecture that will allow us to both grow, innovate, and preserve those values that are so precious to us as Americans’”(Hudson para.13). Since there is no probable cause, a clean and moral person would not have its privacy