Edward Snowden released Top Secret information regarding the collection of data by the National Security Agency. In the article "NSA Files: Decoded" that was published by The Guardian in 2013 explains how the NSA and other security agencies argue that the collection of cellular data are necessary to combat existing terrorist threats against the United States. The issue with the colossal collection of data is many citizens argue that it violates their Fourth Amendment right. However, the NSA believes that what they are doing preserves the lives of Americans. The Patriot Act that was put into action after 9/11 allowed the NSA to exercise this program, but many citizens believe they have gone to far and have violated their Constitutional rights. But what if the NSA is able to prevent another 9/11 due to their massive collection of data? Is the life of the citizen more important than the right of the citizen?
According to Hobbes, the government must protect the lives of their people at all costs. As long as the government protects the lives of the people then it is a just government. Locke agrees that the government must protect the lives of the people, but he believes the people's rights to liberty and property are just as important. After 9/11 people felt threatened within their own country, which was not the case before the attacks. Due to the fear of the people and the threat of Al Qaeda the government took a Hobbes like approach to policy making. The government was empowered more and security agencies were more aggressive in tracking potential threats. However, with 9/11 in the history books and the revealing information released by Snowden, some citizens feel that the government has violated their 4th Amendment rights by collecting cellular data. Hobbes would most likely feel that the collection of data is just because the government is making the lives of the citizens the number one priority. Locke, however, would feel that the government is being unjust because it is taking away the rights of the citizens. Personally, I feel that the collection of data is necessary because I am certainly willing to give information that could possibly lead to the apprehension of terrorists cells living within the country. I also want to ensure the protection of my family, and the prevention of another 9/11. The Al Qaeda network and lone wolf attacks such as the Boston Marathon bombing have proven that terrorists have the capability to infiltrate this country with intention of murdering its people. Therefore, I believe that it is just for the people to sacrifice their rights in order to guarantee the protection of the citizens living in this country. With the increase in technology use and the increase of terrorist threats in the country the argument between protection versus rights will continue.
In the circumstances of public safety and national defense, I totally agree with you that we definitely need to sacrifice some rights in order to gain the security of the whole nation. However, to search everyone's phone records is obviously a violation of the Bill of Rights. I believe the government now needs to figure out a way to filter the phone records and aims specifically towards dangerous groups that my potentially cause hazards to the country, also, it is important for the government to use our records for the safety reason only, and this will remains the protection of the privacy of our records a huge problem to the government.
ReplyDeleteI think that is much harder than it sounds. In order to filter out specific groups of dangerous people we need to first find which people are dangerous. In order to find those people, searching colossal amounts of phone records is necessary in my opinion.
DeleteYeah, I guess in this circumstance we do not have any other choices but to let the govenrment look after our phone records though it is a violation of justice itself. Just like John Rawls points out in his book A theory of justice that "An injustice is tolerable only when it is necessary to avoid an even greater injustice." Potential terrorist attacked is clearly an "even greater injustice"
DeleteWill,
ReplyDeleteVery interesting. I think you are right to point out the potential differences from Locke and Hobbes here. However, Locke is willing to countenance taxes and forced military service so he certainly believes that there are some rights we need to give up. So the question is, does the case above violate liberty enough to make it unjust? Going even further, is it even possible to protect both life and liberty?
I do not believe that this case violates liberty enough to make it unjust. The collection of data is done in order to stop potential threats from affecting the lives of citizens. From my understanding, the NSA will not dig deeply into a person's private information unless there is a legitimate reason. Why would they waste their time on someone who doesn't have some sort of tie to a threat? Secondly, I do believe that it is possible to protect life and liberty. I believe that the United States and other western countries are doing a fine job of doing so. I have the liberty to attend college and pursue goals without any legitimate government intervention, and the military and national defense agencies are simultaneously protecting my life.
ReplyDeleteI think the main problem in the Patriot Act is what it could lead to. I too have no problem partially giving up my right to privacy in order to prevent another possible attack. However, by doing this I am by all means giving up a right that the 4th amendment is suppose to grant against. For instance, while you may not have a problem with this, what if you would no longer able drink alcohol, under the impression that is would end fatalities and keep Americans safer? Where is the line drawn between what is keeping us safe and what is taking away our too much of our rights?
ReplyDelete