Joey Schmitzer

Ms. Thomson (Pd. 8)

A.P. Lang. and Comp.

20 January 2017

Which is more important: the privacy of U.S citizens, or the U.S.s national security?

John Locke, a brilliant political philosopher from which many of our Constitutions main

ideas were based from, had a theory about the social contract between man and government. In

order to have peace between government and people, under this contract the people must give

some (or all) or their rights to the government to ensure a comfortable living (Social Contract).

Here we are, under a government with a Constitution greatly influenced by John Lockes ideas

over three-hundred years later, posing the question, security or privacy? The opposing sides can

each develop a substantial argument as to why they are correct, but not one side is completely

correct. National security is more important than the individual privacy of people, the price of

freedom and the Fourth Amendment, and the relationship that must be formed between the

people and the government to best defend our country and rights.

We are living in a time period dominated by social media. According to recent research

done by the U.S. Department of Labor, the average American checks their social media accounts

seventeen times per day. Americans on average are awake a little over fifteen hours per day. Of

those fifteen hours, the average person is on their phone for 4.7 hours (Chang). We are living in

an era where peoples lives revolve around social media for communication, popularity,

businesses, advertising, etc. The general public does not have a problem with putting the

information about their personal lives on the internet for the world to see, but as soon as the NSA
gets involved it is said they are violating our rights to privacy. While using Facebook, one could

say there are options regarding whether to make your profile public or private. That is true

and other Facebook users would not be able to see your profile if it was private. However, to

make a Facebook account, you must fill in required spaces pertaining to age, gender, name, etc.

Other people may not see this if you are private, but regardless this is information you are giving

to Facebook itself. The author conducted a small experiment consisting of sixteen friends and

family members as a small, random sample asking them to fill out a form with basic information.

The survey also asked whether they would use it to make a Facebook account or give it to the

NSA to help ensure their security. Fifteen out of sixteen people said they would make a

Facebook account. The purpose of this is to show the kind of light people see in our government

these days, where they trust a social media site more than an organization that exists solely to

protect us and our nation.

Personal information can be used by the government to learn about the people its

protecting. If they can learn about peoples day to day activities, they can crack down on small-

time crime to possibly plans for an attack, which have increased in recent years. If another

terrorist attack were to occur, who would the people who do not think risking their privacy for

added surveillance blame for not protecting the country?

The selfishness of people and their privacy is degrading the value of others lives to a

value lower than their own personal information which has the potential to save them. One of the

greatest things about living in America is the right to freedom, but it comes with a price. That

freedom is protected by our government and its agencies that were created to protect those rights.

The price for this freedom is that in order for our government and those agencies to protect our

freedom and rights the best they can, we all need to contribute to that effort for the sake of all
American citizens. If that means the government has to monitor some of things we do to protect

the U.S. citizens from another 9/11 scale attack, then we shouldnt fight against it. The fourth

amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized( Constitute).
Some could argue, Government surveillance is unconstitutional or violates our undeniable

individual rights. There is one flaw in this opposing argument and it is the argument itself. The

top-secret government surveillance programs do not violate our rights in any way, and they are

indeed justifiable and constitutional. When these programs were leaked by a government

contractor, Edward J. Snowden, it was discovered that the National Security Agency gathers

phone logs and Internet data from millions of Americans Millions is a large amount, but with

a population of 318.9 million in the U.S. as of 2014, its understandable to have a watch list

into the millions of people that could potentially put others in danger (U.S. Population). The

fourth amendment says, in short, the government cannot interfere with individual privacy in an

unreasonable way and it must include a supported, probable cause(Constitute). These top

secret surveillance programs are certainly being done for a reason, and a good one at that, to

more effectively prevent the possibility of more terrorist attacks similar to that of 9/11(Gonchar).

Is it unreasonable to monitor cell phones and Internet data? Not at all because those are the most

prime if not only ways in which attacks could be coordinated over distances. As stated earlier,

over fifty attacks have been claimed as prevented by these methods of surveillance(Nelson). The

reason for these programs secrecy is to increase their effectiveness against the enemy and the

attacks being plotted. If the enemy knows of these programs like they do now, they know what

they are up against and can better plan to bypass our security. In addition, the recent events of
9/11 and bombings in Boston and the U.K. should support the fact that more steps have to be

taken to prevent these horrific events from repeating themselves in the future. With these

preceding points being taken in consideration, the programs being run by the NSA have not

violated the Constitution or our individual rights.

In 2013, news of the surveillance programs being used by the NSA broke out(Gonchar).

Some of the information from the surveillance had been leaked which again shines a bad light on

the NSA. According to a New York Times article, 57 percent, said that the leaks about the

surveillance programs would not affect the ability of the United States to prevent future terrorist

attacks, while 30 percent said the fact that the programs had been made public would weaken the

governments efforts to prevent terrorism. Despite the failure of the leak, NSA Director Keith

Alexander testified that they had prevented approximately fifty terrorist attacks since 2001, ten

of which targeted the U.S. If those attacks werent prevented, who knows how many lives could

have been lost(Nelson). If the leak of information wasnt worth the possibility to save so many

lives, then what is?

You have probably heard of the saying, History repeats itself. Throughout the history of

the United States, compromising has saved this countrys unity time and time again.

Compromising is how a balance was found between opposing sides during the building of this

great country and its what needs to be done again. The United States uses a democratic form of

government that is run by the people. In a sense we are fighting against ourselves and that is

inevitably a losing battle in every circumstance. The relationship between the people and the

government should consist of more trust and honesty which is difficult to come by these days.

There must be a compromise in which both sides sacrifice something that will benefit the nation

as a whole. The people should compromise and sacrifice not all but some of their privacy to
better enable the government to do its job in protecting the people it is sworn to protect. On the

other hand, the government should step back as a whole and try understand peoples problems

and how to better help and protect them. We are living through another division forming in our

nation, a split between the people and the government, and the argument of national security

versus individual privacy is just a small crack in that split that must be sealed to prevent more

from emerging.