Privacy versus National Security
Introduction
The issue of privacy versus national security has been a debatable notion for the past years. In the United States of America, the heated topic majorly erupted in 2013 when the Federal Court decides to put orders of literally ‘depriving’ its people the right for privacy. This came after several terrorist attacks that ensued in the country. One of the recent occurrences is the battle between the National Security Agency requested the Apple company to share the data of some of the terrorists. Aa federal judge had ordered to comply with Apple in 2016. However, its CEO Tim Cook refused, saying that it will infringe the privacy security of its customers. The government insisted it was acting on its mandate to protect the US from any attacks. This story results in the unfold of hot debate in the USA. Nonetheless, national security overweight privacy since it’s for the common good of the entire nation.
The country is under attack, and such national security should outweigh privacy. Constitution refers to privacy as security at a personal level. Notably, privacy security is inscribed in the amendments. On the other hand, national security is referred to as the general security of the nation. With these two terms at hand, there is a need to look at the overweighing element. The country is under serial attacks that NSA is determined to combat to accessing the mobile data for surveillance.
National security calls for pluralism and inclusivity in dealing with security. There is a common good attitude when carrying out surveillance activities across the digitalized platforms. If NSA can watch the possible dealings of terrorism, it will round the attackers before they hit. That will be for the collectiveness good of national security. Additionally, if mobile users agree to let the surveillance team access their data (through the manufacturer), they will help the nation compart terrorism. Close monitoring of social media websites and platforms can help in dealing with criminal activities propelled through these channels. For instance, the widespread hate resulted in the 2006 Orlando nightclub’s shooting and 2007 bombing in Minnesota mosque.
It is the role of government to protect people’s general welfare. The constitution provides for the key function of government in ensuring that its citizens are guaranteed security without considering privileges. General surveillance across mobile phone tracking is among the measures put into achieving the law’s requirement. Therefore, every citizen should allow the government to exercise its mandatory for the common good of all the citizens. Mobile apps and their data encryptions should be accessible to the security reinforcement.
Laws cannot battle against each other in the same legal frame. Some people’s claims that their rights will be violated by placing the national security programs into action is absurd. Despite the 4th Amendment banning any “unreasonable seizure and sear,” it does not mean that the NSA cannot carry out a ‘reasonable’ search. This seizure will be commenced since the core aim is for the national security at large, but not as an individual. The law requiring a more weight matter will be applied in that case. Additionally, the security enforcement is a disciplined pillar that cannot poke into people’s privacy, other than for the concerns of national security
In conclusion, the matter debate concerning privacy security versus national security should be considered to build the capacity in the security system. Points argued for national security against privacy are critical in determining the high interests as far as the nation’s entire security is concerned. At the moment, the federal court’s order to Apple is rightful since the results aim to create the common good of people. However, the security agency should provide the general public a full assurance that it is going to protect their privacy once it gains access to the bulk data. A nation is great than an individual; privacy security cannot survive at times of national insecurity, but the latter can do. Thus, national security should prioritize national security over privacy with prudence and ethical uphold.