1 Kegis

Liberty Vs Security Essay Topics

A Federal Court has ordered Apple to help the FBI unlock the cellphone of San Bernardino terrorist Sayed Farook. Apple CEO Tim Cook opposes that order, citing concerns over the privacy rights of all Americans.

The debate on this issue is the tip of a very large iceberg. It highlights a difficult question every modern state has faced but one that has intensified in age of high tech communication and international terrorism: How does a country balance collective security with individual liberty?

This question goes far beyond an argument over cellphone access. It touches a broad range of issues from surveillance cameras and airport screening through free speech and gun ownership. The most important thing for a free and democratic society such as ours is not, however, what we decide to do in each instance, but that we have an open and honest conversation on these difficult issues before we make decisions.

Freedom entails risk. North Korea has suffered no terrorist attacks, but no one wants to live there. Western Europe and the United States have been struck repeatedly, but they remain the destinations of choice for all those fleeing oppression or seeking opportunity.

Even democratic states must, however, struggle with how to protect their citizens. Collective security requires compromising some individual freedoms. Everyone acknowledges that no person has the right to yell 'fire" in a crowded theater, but some countries take restrictions on speech and expression much further.

Germany and Austria both ban any display of the swastika and have made denying the Holocaust a crime. The U.S. places no restrictions on flying the Confederate battle flag, which many consider an equally odious symbol of racism, and does not prohibit hate speech. Most countries restrict gun ownership and have correspondingly low murder rates. The U.S. allows almost anyone to buy virtually any kind of firearm, and the death toll from gun violence reflects that choice.

The debate over liberty and security has always been difficult, but the communications revolution coupled with the rise of al-Qaeda and ISIS have made it even more complicated. Wire-taps warrants were fairly straightforward in the age of the rotary dial, but they have little value in the era of mobile phones with satellite uplinks.

Small wonder law enforcement has resorted to devices such as Stingray, a scanner that mimics a cellphone tower, vacuuming up all mobile communication within a designated area, or that intelligence agencies want access to Facebook. Criminals and terrorists make extensive use of the Internet and cellphones. The security services are scrambling to catch up with them.

Unfortunately, threatened states sometimes employ new law enforcement/counter-terrorism technologies and measures without adequate public discussion of their benefits and costs and sometimes even without public knowledge.

In the climate of fear that follows a terrorist attack like 9/11 or San Bernardino, frightened citizens will often grant their government extraordinary powers. Following the 1933 Reichstag fire, Adolph Hitler pushed through the Enabling Act, a law granting him dictatorial powers allegedly to fight Communism. Congress enacted the first version of the U.S.A. Patriot Act in a similar atmosphere of heightened anxiety, only to modify it when the hysteria over 9/11 had subsided. "Fear," goes an old Dutch saying, "is a bad counselor."

While many Americans would willingly grant their government extraordinary powers, believing these would never be used against law-abiding citizens like themselves, others see no conflict at all between civil liberties and national security. They would fight terrorism, not with new law enforcement tools, but with blanket restrictions on the minority groups to which the terrorists belong. "Just keep out the Muslims," they argue, "and we'll all be safe."

Such people see no contradiction in demanding unfettered liberties for themselves while denying basic freedoms to entire groups. Their answer to mounting gun violence is not regulation but more guns. Some of them fear their own government more than the threats from which it protects them.

Staking out extreme positions on difficult issues will not produce good solutions to urgent problems. Law enforcement and the intelligence community must be given the tools to counter the terrorist threat, but compromises between security and freedom should only be made after careful consideration and open public discussion.

To take a single example, I am not concerned by the Chicago Police (and other law enforcement agencies) employing Stingray to catch criminals and terrorists, but I am very troubled that the public learned of this technology only after it had been deployed. The Illinois Legislature is considering a bill restricting its use and requiring prompt deletion of data unrelated to an investigation. This measure should have been enacted before the police used the technology. So, however the Apple cell phone controversy gets resolved, the public debate surrounding it is very healthy for the well-being of a free and open society.

Follow Tom Mockaitis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DrMockaitis

Civil Liberty Vs. Security Essay

Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the United States, once said “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” In America’s society today, some are willing to sacrifice their civil liberties in order to gain protection and security over some potential threat. Especially after the events of September 11th and several attempted bombings in U.S. cities. This sacrifice of individual freedoms such as the freedom of speech, expression, the right to information, to new technologies, and so forth, for additional protection is more of a loss than a gain. Citizens of the United States deserve equal liberty and safety overall, as someone should not have to give up one value in order to gain another. This concept of individual right goes beyond the simple idea of “individual comfort.” Personal liberties cannot be surrendered and are not to be compromised since these liberties are intangible. Individuals should not have their personal liberties exchanged for national security because individuals are guaranteed protection to these rights.
Individuals should not have to give up their personal freedoms for the sake of national security. In this case concerning national security, which seems broad, security can be differentiated into two aspects, internal and external. Internal security pertains more to the people because it represents the government. External security involves state laws and codes that help prevent attacks on the United States, terrorism and potential foreign invasion. Civil rights in the United States are the right of U.S. citizens to have privacy, freedom of speech, peaceful protest, fair trial, personal freedom, and equal protection. These rights belong to all individual citizens, and are not the rights of the government nor should they be exchanged for the sake of the nation’s security.
The rights of the people in America should not be infringed upon because these rights are guaranteed. And if abused, it not only infringes the rights of the people, but also diminishes the moral code of citizens of the United States. Furthermore, the civil rights that have protected people from the government now seem like they are being taken away from the government itself. The government has given itself the privilege to tap our phones, read and scan emails, access bank accounts, invade homes, and detain someone indefinitely. All of this is happening without any prior legal courses of action or our knowledge. This right to privacy, a fundamental liberty that is implied by the fourth amendment in the U.S. constitution, continues to be infringed upon by the government.
Ever since the Bush Administration and the events of September 11, 2001, the American people have dealt with the government taking away bits and bits of their constitutional rights. Such rights like the freedom of association, speech, unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to legal...

Loading: Checking Spelling

0%

Read more

American Civil Liberties: Do Americans Have Enough Protections for Civil Liberties, or Not?

1742 words - 7 pages American Civil Liberties: Do Americans have enough protections for Civil Liberties, or not?   In a world where terrorism, war, and economic instability are ever looming threats it’s not a wonder why the limits on the freedom of the individual can come into question. This is especially true when the country where these limits are brought into question is one of the world’s leading powers in: democracy, economics, social welfare, military...

John Locke's Social Contract and Natural Rights Argument in Relation to Free Will

2472 words - 10 pages Matthew Spann Payne Philosophy 100 May 1, 2014 John Locke’s Social Contract and Natural Rights Argument in Relation to Free Will One of the most significant philosophical and political issues for humanity is the conflict of freedom and security. This is often referred to as a balance between the two. This issue has been prevalent for as long as we have had society. In this paper I will discuss some of the theories of the 17th century English...

Berlin and Pettit: Can their accounts of liberalism be sustained when considering anti-terrorism laws?

2463 words - 10 pages Laws have the capacity to infringe civil liberties however they also provide a forum for its creation and development. For Berlin, his conception of liberty is based upon the idea of positive and negative freedoms. Liberty according to Berlin is viewed as freedom from interference; therefore laws which respect our freedoms are preferable as they allow for different paths of self-actualization. Pettit however considers liberty in terms of freedom...

We Must Regain Our Lost Civil Liberties

1676 words - 7 pages With our nation’s tragedy of September 11, 2001, arose a deeply shaken America, shocked by the extent of the cruelty. An act of terrorism of that magnitude had never been seen before in our country. Patriots quickly came together, supporting the president to pass legislation, known as the USA Patriot Act, to tackle internal and external threats to this nation. The debate ensued, focused on which types of surveillance technology should...

Limiting of Civil Liberties

1005 words - 4 pages Should the Government Limit Individual Liberties During Wartime?Since the construction of the constitution, there have been discrepancies about it's boundaries. Specifically, when it comes to limitations of our civil liberties. Many cases have gone through the supreme courts pertaining to just this subject, from very large cases i.e.

Analysis of Differnt Forms of Liberty

2141 words - 9 pages The concept of liberty is important to this very day. Liberty initially means to be fundamentally free within ones society from any types of oppression, either from higher authority or from having different form ideologies that can be political or social. Liberty is a form of power that lets one act on their sets and values. In this paper, concept of liberty will be discussed on behalf of two philosophers, John Locke and Jean- Jacques Rousseau....

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)

1170 words - 5 pages The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is a controversial law in the past as it is now in the present. I chose to write about this law because the concept of gay marriage is being liberally accepted today compared to its heavy intolerance in the past. Today, countless couples are trying to marry yet must face obstacles such as DOMA that hinders their freedom to marry. I, myself, is an advocate for same-sex marriage and learning more about DOMA lets...

The Bill of Rights and Protection of Civil Liberties

822 words - 3 pages The Bill of Rights and Protection of Civil Liberties When the English came to America to escape religious persecution, things commenced at a shaky start. For example, Puritans fled from England because of religious persecution. They were being physically beaten because of their religious beliefs therefore they attempted to create a Utopia or "City upon a hill" in the New World. There "City upon a hill" began with a government...

"Let the Government do its Job" A paper arguing in support of the government in the aftermath of Sep 11th. Touching on the PATRIOT Act, Military Commissions, and Classification of Doc.

1624 words - 6 pages I think that we can all agree that the reason government exists is to ensure the well being of its citizens. John Locke said that "man being free and equal can not be put under the power of another man without his consent".1 He and our founders believed that civil liberty is always a trade off between freedom and security. That the balance between civil liberty and security is ever changing due to our worlds changing circumstances and that...

American Civil Liberties

2269 words - 9 pages Terrorists attacks in America should not reduce or take away civil liberties because it unnecessarily increases government power, gives a false state of security, and goes against the concepts of liberty on which the United States was founded. In order to understand why these three things are important we must determine what are civil liberties. According to Wikipedia, “Civil liberties are rights and freedoms that protect an individual from...

From Biography to Archives

965 words - 4 pages Due to the escalating sophistication of technology during the information age, privacy has become a romantic myth, an urban legend newscasters and armchair politicians keep in circulation. Electronic surveillance has effectively banished privacy from the public sector. E.g., there are hidden cameras behind the mirror in the dressing rooms at department stores. Consumer demographics has led to obnoxious telemarketers calling you during...

Leave a Comment

(0 Comments)

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *