That was the great panel discussion with such intellectual personal about the individual rights and government intrusion. After watching the video, I am on the both side of aisle but favoring most on security then comes the individual rights. It is a controversial topic, government is doing this for security purposes for the citizen but at the same time all of these surveillance activities are in violation of the privacy safeguards established by Congress and the US Constitution. It has both the pros and cons. In my opinion, nobody anticipates any problems but safety is imperative.
Many people believe that Snowden did a good thing by revealing what the NSA did, and that it benefited the general public. We, as Americans, all may feel that our privacy was violated by the government and that the government should be punished. However, we must also consider what the consequences of his actions are and how we all may be affected. In my perspective Snowden has done many damages to our country; not only made system to reworked in term of time and money but also hurt international relations as well. International community and terrorist groups knew that we are spying on them that makes us ever harder to find them and knew our spying habits and procedures.
Snowden claims that US government is watching us all the time, it is not entirely true US government is not violating our privacy all the time. While some may be unnecessary but many are for our nation’s safety. I will go with the security first then comes the privacy. For instance, for a decent man who does not do any crime, and have not involved in black market businesses would not have to worry who is watching him from behind. Now a day technology is far beyond that we have thought; the man in the middle (bad guy) can watch us what we are doing not only the government. Now we know that government is watching us and there is huge public outcry but you don’t know that bad guy right behind is watching you. I will let this question open for all, if you are not secure, why would you worry about your privacy? I don’t mean to say that it is appropriate and lawful if someone watching us behind the wall but government is bound to do that to avoid another terrorist attack. Chomsky has argued that mass surveillance is ineffective in stopping terrorism. But there hasn’t another attack after the 9/11 which means it is effective and has stopped terrorism.
I agree with you Ryan, I know I want my information safe, but I'd rather know that there won't be a potential attack and if that means the government has access to my information, then so be it. It's a really blurry line, but I think eventually we will come up with a way to create a balance between having privacy as well as keeping our country safe from harm.
ReplyDeleteYou only have balance when both parties are aware of the behavior. If one is hiding the information, and the other has to behave without knowing, that is not free speech. It really isn't a privacy/security trade-off. It's just what we are always told. If it were about finding the bad guys, then why retrieve all the personal data about everyone, everywhere?
ReplyDeleteIt's also true to say that no terrorists have been caught EVEN THOUGH everyone has been monitored. More importantly, if you are looking at everything, then what are you missing? If you think there are no terrorist attacks, then think again.
ReplyDelete