Surname 1

Name

Professor’s name

Course

Date

Privacy versus Security in the USA

The debate about privacy and security has been recurrent in the United States for a long

time. The country has had to deal with this topic for many years and it seems like in the past, the

United States opted for privacy over security. In 1967 in the case of Katz v. United States, the

Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement could not tap into people’s telephone calls even if

they were held on a public phone (Iannacci). Additionally, the law also mandated that intrusions

into citizen’s privacy had to be overseen by the courts. However, after 9/11, the United States

has leaned more towards security than privacy. Numerous security measures have been adopted,

with the government pushing for more access to information. The proponents of privacy argue

that compromising privacy for security is a disregard for the rule of law and the Fourth

Amendment. However, in the current era of technological advancement, the government is not

able to provide adequate security without having to compromise on citizen’s privacy. Notably,

everyone wants to feel safe from the threat of terrorism. Thus, the government has to use

everything in its power to ensure that it provides this security. Therefore, security is more

important than privacy since compromising security leads to more severe consequences than

compromising privacy.

Many citizens have already compromised their privacy for convenience and thus the

government is also justified in trading privacy for security. Many people have a lot of

information about their lives on the internet. People share a lot of information about themselves
 Surname 2

on social media sites. While this information is usually meant to be shared with friends, it is also

accessible to other unknown people in the public that are linked to the individual’s social media

profile. Moreover, customers also upload a lot of information about themselves on e-commerce

websites such as their credit card information and other personal information. Additionally, these

websites also collect customer’s information such as their preferences and purchase trends. This

information can then be used to target customers with products such as targeted advertisements.

Moreover, this data might also be sold to other companies that might want to manipulate the

customers. All this is done with consent from the clients as these sites disclose their data

collection habits to the public (Miyazak and Fernandez 55). Therefore, it is clear that citizens are

willing to trade in privacy for convenience as it allows them to shop more easily online.

Therefore, since security is a more serious issue, then people should also be willing to trade in

some bit of privacy for security.

The compromise of privacy for security helps to protect citizens against other threats to

their security and privacy. Notably, the government has recognized software flaws on private

commodities on numerous occasions. The National Security Agency has identified many flaws

in different software products and informed their creators to fix these flaws (Menn). Notably,

many of these identifications are made as the NSA is looking for a way to perform its

surveillance objectives. Therefore, allowing the government to compromise privacy enhances

privacy and security from bad actors. The tips that the NSA gives to these software

manufacturing companies help to seal the vulnerabilities in the software and thus prevent hackers

from obtaining the software user’s private information which might be used to harm these

people.
 Surname 3

Recently, the judicial system has appeared to rule in favor of security. A landmark case in

the debate of security versus privacy was the case involving Apple Inc. versus the F.B.I. In 2016,

the F.B.I needed to access the information contained in the phone of one of the attackers in the

San Bernardino mass shooting incident in California (Lichtblau and Benner). However, they

could not get past the encryption on the iPhone device. Thus, the F.B.I. contacted Apple and

asked them for help in unlocking the device. Apple denied this request which then led to the

F.B.I. seeking a court order from a court magistrate. The magistrate granted the request by the

F.B.I. and ordered Apple to create a backdoor into the device to allow law enforcement officials

access to the information (Lichtblau and Benner). While in the end Apple did not have to comply

as the F.B.I. managed to break the encryption on its own, the order by the magistrate shows the

support for security over privacy. Apple had argued that creating a backdoor into their devices

would be a privacy risk to all its customers. However, the court granted the court order

nonetheless.

The government has also favored security over privacy in the past. The most notable

example of this prioritization is the case of Edward Snowden’s NSA data leaks. Snowden, who

worked for the NSA, leaked information that showed the NSA was surveilling American citizens

indiscriminately (Van Vleet 1). This revelation by Snowden showed that the government of the

United States preferred providing security for its citizens over preserving their privacy (Van

Vleet 1). Notably, technology has vastly grown in the 21st century. This has given the

government the tools needed to surveil most of the population so that it can perform preemptive

measures on people who wish to perform criminal activities such as terrorism. However, the

restriction due to respecting privacy prevents the government from fully utilizing these tools. On

the other hand, criminals are utilizing these advanced technologies to carry out their acts. Their
 Surname 4

actions are not hindered b any consideration factors. For instance, ISIS uses propaganda videos

on social media to entice people to join the terrorist group (Awan 141). Therefore, the

government also needs some leeway in surveillance so that it can effectively function against

such threats. Moreover, many Americans hold the belief that the government should be allowed

to surveil its citizens to increase security. A research published by the Pew Research Center

found that 54 percent of Americans felt that the government was right to monitor its citizens

(Rainie and Maniam). Therefore, this shows that citizens understand the importance of security

and they are willing to let the government conduct surveillance activities if it will increase the

security in the country.

The USA PATRIOT Act has granted the government these needed tools of surveillance

in the past. The act was passed by Congress right after the 9/11 attacks. It gives law enforcement

more powers of surveillance of terror-related suspects. The act was passed by an overwhelming

majority in Congress. This act substantially led to the limitation of privacy as it allowed for law

enforcement to increase their surveillance tactics in the country and also internationally

(Whitehead and Aden). However, the head of the F.B.I. in 2004, Robert Muller, stated that the

PATRIOT Act was extremely beneficial to the agency since it helped them to thwart numerous

planned terrorist attacks (FBI). He stated that the F.B.I.’s counterterrorism activities greatly

relied on the Act. Therefore, this shows that the United States has benefited from compromising

privacy for security.

Further, everyone suffers in the case where security is compromised for privacy. Many

people are able to walk around freely due to the sense of security that the government provides.

Without this feeling of security, many would not feel free as the fear of an attack would diminish

the quality of life. Gaining this security requires people to let the government perform
 Surname 5

surveillance activities. Notably, the government does not perform surveillance on every

American citizen but rather, on the people it suspects of being a risk to the security of the nation.

Thus, surveillance affects only a few people in the country. Moreover, the government also does

not use any data that is not relevant to the security of the country. Thus, most of the data that

people consider private remains private. In reality, people’s privacy is more compromised

through the data they hand over to companies. Data leaks usually expose critical information

about citizens that they wished remained private. Therefore, government surveillance benefits

the country since it protects the majority. Many people are also content with surveillance by the

government since they feel that they have nothing to hide. Law abiding citizens should not have

a problem with the government performing surveillance on them since they do not have anything

to hide. This, therefore, means that government surveillance is a positive thing since it helps to

increase security in the country.

While the Fourth Amendment protects citizen’s right to privacy, this right, like many

others, is no absolute. The amendment guarantees the right for people to be secure in their

possessions against unreasonable searches and seizures. This amendment is meant to protect

citizens from intrusion by the government. This is especially so that citizens may not be

victimized by the government unreasonably. However, the amendment also provides a condition

where this right can be taken away. In this case, the government is justified to search all private

possessions when there is probable cause. Thomas Clancy argues that this condition shows that

the Fourth Amendment is not meant to protect a person’s right to privacy, but rather, to exclude

the government from intruding into personal possessions (Clancy 307). This, therefore, means

that the government can gain access to personal possessions through when permitted by the

court.
 Surname 6

Additionally, the nature of threats has changed in recent times. Ever since 9/11, the

United States has realized that it is dealing with threats that have the power to cause catastrophic

outcomes. Therefore, it is reasonable that the government should do everything in its power to

prevent such threats from occurring. Stopping these actions from taking place requires

preemptive action where law enforcement officials apprehend these terrorists before they can

carry out their plans. This form of security provision is only possible through the application of

surveillance which the government can use to identify such criminals and hence pursue them in

advance. Proponents of privacy argue that the government should conduct this mandate through

other means such as border security. However, these alternative means are unlikely to provide

the level of security required on their own since they have already proved ineffective in the past.

Notably, previous government surveillance which is authorized by the Patriot Act deals with

national security threats. Therefore, this means that surveillance should not be used to target

individual citizens for unlawful behavior that does not amount to a national threat.

The main issue in the debate of security versus privacy should not be which one prevails,

but rather, the extent that each should be compromised for the sake of the other. With this

mentality, it is clear that security should always prevail over privacy since it is privacy is of no

use when one is not secure. However, the extent of intrusion by the government should also be

limited to acceptable standards where the citizens do not feel insecure from being monitored by

their own government.

Despite these arguments in favor of security, there are those who argue that privacy is

more important than security. One of the arguments against increased government surveillance is

that it may be used to discriminate against certain groups due to past patterns (Fuchs 14). Since

the government is not able to provide surveillance on every citizen, it has to form algorithms that
 Surname 7

help it determine the most high-risk individuals in the country. These algorithms are likely to

discriminate against Muslims and immigrants since a significant portion of past terrorists has

come from this group. This would mean that even innocent people from these groups might be

targeted for surveillance until they are proven innocent. Notably, this form of discrimination is

against the United States Constitution which prohibits any form of discrimination based on race,

gender, or ethnic profile. Moreover, increased surveillance also increases the government’s

power over its citizens and decreases the power of individuals to hold the government

accountable (Fuchs 14). While these arguments are valid, measures can be instituted to prevent

the government from abusing this power. Congress can make laws that limit the use of

surveillance data other than its intended purpose. However, the issue of profiling is much harder

to tackle. The country should be willing to bear such consequences while working to improve the

detection algorithms. Security agencies should also not victimize any suspected people without

probable cause.

All in all, security is more important than privacy since the presence of security allows

citizens to enjoy privacy. Additionally, the consequences of compromising on security are more

severe than those of compromising on privacy. The current era of technology has seen many

citizens give up most of their claim to security by engaging in social media websites as well as

participating in e-commerce. This has shown that the citizens are willing to compromise on

privacy and thus it is reasonable that the government would also do so for the sake of the security

of its citizens. Additionally, unlike in the past, the judiciary has shown its support for

surveillance processes by granting requests to law enforcement that compromise on privacy for

the sake of security. The government has also favored security in the past with actions such as

enacting the Patriot Act that enhanced the power of law enforcement to monitor people suspected
 Surname 8

of being a threat to national security. However, the argument of security over privacy can only be

valid if the citizens trust their government. in cases where the government is untrustworthy or

corrupt, decreasing privacy in favor of government surveillance would be detrimental to security.

In such a scenario, it is better to maintain privacy, for the government cannot be trusted with the

data it collects. Therefore, governments that compromise the people’s security have to be

competent bear integrity.

 Surname 9

Works Cited

Awan, Imran. "Cyber-extremism: Isis and the power of social media." Society 54.2 (2017): 138-

149.

Clancy, Thomas K. "What Does the Fourth Amendment Protect: Property, Privacy, or Security."

Wake Forest L. Rev. 33 (2009): 307.

FBI. “USA PATRIOT Act.” FBI, 24 May 2004, archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/testimony/usa-

patriot-act.

Fuchs, Christian. "Privacy and security in europe." PACT, 2013.

Iannacci, Nicandro. “Katz v. United States: The Fourth Amendment Adapts to New

Technology.” National Constitution Center – Constitutioncenter.org, 2017,

constitutioncenter.org/blog/katz-v-united-states-the-fourth-amendment-adapts-to-new-

technology/.

Lichtblau, Eric, and Katie Benner. “Apple Fights Order to Unlock San Bernardino Gunman's

IPhone.” The New York Times, 17 Feb. 2016,

www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/apple-timothy-cook-fbi-san-

bernardino.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-

heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news.

Menn, Joseph. “NSA Says How Often, Not When, It Discloses Software Flaws.” Reuters,

Thomson Reuters, 7 Nov. 2015, www.reuters.com/article/us-cybersecurity-nsa-flaws-

insight/nsa-says-how-often-not-when-it-discloses-software-flaws-

idUSKCN0SV2XQ20151107.

Miyazaki, Anthony D., and Ana Fernandez. "Internet privacy and security: An examination of

online retailer disclosures." Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 19.1 (2000): 54-61.
 Surname 10

Rainie, Lee, and Shiva Maniam. “Americans Feel the Tensions between Privacy and Security

Concerns.” Pew Research Center, 19 Feb. 2016, www.pewresearch.org/fact-

tank/2016/02/19/americans-feel-the-tensions-between-privacy-and-security-concerns/.

Van Vleet, Emily. "Edward Snowden and the Privacy vs. National Security Debate." (2017).

Whitehead, John W., and Steven H. Aden. "Forfeiting enduring freedom for homeland security:

A constitutional analysis of the USA Patriot Act and the Justice Department's anti-

terrorism initiatives." Am. UL Rev. 51 (2001): 1081.