Individual Privacy vs. National Security
Privacy is the desire, by which individuals or people have the ability to choose the circumstances, and the extent, to which they may expose themselves, their attitudes and behaviors to other people. National security encompasses both internal and external security, and it covers the safety of a country from attack of foreign enemies and domestic terrorists. Internal security is critical, and over the past decades, it has clashed with individual privacy. Computer security is the protection against attacks on systems and networks, damaging or revealing information to people. One of the fundamental items with regard to human rights is privacy according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Various countries across the world have adopted article 12 of this declaration and perceive privacy as a fundamental human right. In addition, privacy forms a significant part of the common law traditions. In the same light, individual security and national security continue to raise debates in the recent past. As people focus on enhancing personal security, the state has also put measures to ensure the national security. In the information era, national security may come before individual privacy with regard to computer security. This is because the rise of the information era has led to various circumstances that have put national security before individual privacy. One question that people may ask is whether national security has any moral or legal justification in watering some individual privacy with regard to computer security. This paper written by https://wewriteonline.com/services/buy-a-dissertation-introduction/ discuses delves into developments in ICT, and gives reasons as to why national security may come before individual privacy with regard to computer security.
Key words: Privacy, Security
Introduction
One of the fundamental items with regard to human rights is privacy according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Various countries across the world have adopted article 12 of this declaration and perceive privacy as a fundamental human right (Cavoukian, 2003). In addition, privacy forms a significant part of the common law traditions. In the same light, individual security and national security continue to raise debates in the recent past. As people focus on enhancing personal security, the state has also put measures to ensure national security.
Many times, this has led to various compromises that have infringed personal security in order to support national security. In the information era, national security may come before individual privacy with regard to computer security. This is because the rise of the information era has led to various circumstances that have put national security before individual privacy. One question that people may ask is whether national security has any moral or legal justification in watering some individual privacy with regard to computer security. The answer to the question will depend on the side of the debate or the reasoning that individuals, societies, and the state put into perspective with regard to security. This paper discuses, delves into developments in ICT, and gives reasons as to why national security may come before individual privacy with regard to computer security.
Key Definitions
Privacy remains one of the difficult terms to define and the scope of privacy emanates from culture and social norms that exist in a country or a region. Privacy constitutes the individual’s freedom (Cavoukian, 2003). One of the earliest definitions of privacy embodied the individuals’ right to be left on their own. Privacy is the desire, by which individuals or people have the ability to choose the circumstances, and the extent, to which they may expose themselves, their attitudes and behaviors to other people (Marsoof, 2008).
National security encompasses both internal and external security, and it covers the safety of a country from attack from foreign enemies and domestic terrorists. Internal security is critical, and over the past decades, it has clashed with individual privacy. Nissenbaum (2005) defines security as safety and freedom from the undesired effects of an enemy, or the conditions that facilitate protection from danger, attacks, and threats. Computer security is the protection against attacks on systems and networks, damaging or revealing information to people (Nissenbaum, 2005).
Reasons
The events of September 11 in the United States changed the view the American society had with regard to individual privacy. The terrorist that strike the Pentagon and the World Trade Center had their training in America. With this information, the Bush administration put in place tough sanctions, on which to safeguard the United States. At this time, the people in the country felt that it was essential to curtail some civil liberties in order to protect mainstream America. History has had it that at times of crisis, the American civil liberties face some form of curtailment. The events of September 11 repeated this history.
Various experts on civil liberties and those on national security continue to give reasons as to which part that is relevant. The information age has made it possible for terrorist to spread information easily in the digital world. National security is today the central focus and more than often, curtailment of individual privacy has taken place. The primary responsibility of the state is to protect its citizens and resources against the threats that terrorism poses (Walker & Raschke, n.d). The bombings and attacks in the United States remain to be some of the reminders of vulnerabilities to terrorism. Thus, in a progressively more global society, where individuals have the capability to move to different countries, the government continues to find a balance between individual privacy and national security. However, national security has come before individual privacy to protect people (Walker & Raschke, n.d). This is one reason, why national security must come before personal security.
The establishment of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) by the Congress in 2003 came with certain powers. The powers that DHS have are unprecedented, and they relate to collection, correlation, and action upon enormous volumes of digital data from individuals. The governments say that this level of monitoring of individual data is vital in eliminating the occurrence of disastrous events that the 9/11. Although privacy activist and civil rights proponents counter this form of data mining, as one of the unjustified invasions of individual privacy, that erodes and undermines civil liberties and constitutional protections, national security proponents say that national security must take precedence. This is the ultimate desire to protect the nation from any form of threat (Konstantaras, 2012). Understanding what information individual store and pass through the internet and computers will provide security agencies the means that will protect the state.
The main goal of national security is to protect the community and the state. Thus, issues that relate to personal computers and information may serve as a basis of finding the information that may protect the community. The violation of individual privacy rights to protect and serve the population is a justification for the importance of national security (Cavoukian, 2003).
Today, security measures remain to be intrusive, more proactive because antiterrorist policies have given the government the power to collect and analyze large volumes of data on individuals’ online activities (Konstantaras, 2012). This is essential, since the information era has changed human interaction over the past two decades. In this light, national security concerns must take precedence over individual privacy in order to ensure the safety of the nation.
Cyber security is another measure that governments can take to ensure national security. Networked computers form a medium of information sharing and grounds, upon which individuals may stage antisocial or dangerous communications. This may include threats on critical infrastructure, such as banking, utilities, education, government administration, communications media, and manufacturing. The argument here is that the government ought to protect these infrastructures from exposure to threats. Potential attackers both in the United States and outside may use this to stage Cyber wars (Nissenbaum, 2005). Thus, in order to protect the country, it is fundamental to assess if individuals have accessed information about these infrastructures. This is possible if national security measures seek to protect the American population, rather than random individuals, who want to destroy the security of a nation.
Terrorist often communicates using satellites and some of the state of the art technologies. Surveillances of communication system from individuals, who use phones, faxes, emails, and internet, though touching on personal security, it will form the basis for revealing the plans that suspects may have and serve to provide advance warnings to the law enforcing agencies. Monitoring through the internet, wireless, satellites, and wirelines and other forms of communications surveillance are fundamental in enhancing national security. In addition, measures, such as wider wire-tapping, will form the basis, on which to protect assets (Krishnamurthy, 2001). This will go ahead in enhancing national security.
The implications of counterterrorism also call for the trumping of privacy to enhance security. This often comes at the expense of minorities’ rights (Nissenbaum, 2005). Technological advances and the delivery of information have come at a cost. The personal computing systems enhance efficiency and are convenient. However, they continue to facilitate Cyber attracts and other acts of terrorism. National security will form the basis, on which to protect innocent people from harm’s way. Thus, if the law enforcing officers eavesdrop and listen to personal communication, it is only relevant in ensuring the security of the state. This is because, when people are safe, they can enjoy their civil liberties and rights. The ability of the government to snoop into private lives of the population occurs without undue exposure (Walker & Raschke, n.d). This is essential, as it does not directly infringe on the rights of individuals.
National security is more vital than individual security in the information age era because of the continually evolving Cyber threats. Thus, in checking individual information and data lays a foundation of finding out the key changes that new threats impose on the security of the state. This is quickly available if the government has information and knowledge about the emerging threats. This information is available for law enforcement officers so as they make national security decisions.
National security has led to the evolution of the computer security sector. For example, the Federal Intrusion Detection Network detects computer viruses, and the intrusion into critical infrastructure by hackers and even terrorists. If an individual uses their computers to perform acts that may harm other innocent people, it demands that national security takes precedence. The patterns of intrusion by hackers and terrorist form the basis for planning and keeping information safe and protected from hackers. Additionally, the usage of systems, such as ECHELON, does not constitute nay direct intrusion into personal privacy with regard to computer security. Various governments use this system to gather intelligence information, upon which they make security plans. This is useful in preventing cybercrimes, security breaches, and terrorist activities (Walker & Raschke, n.d). This is the first fundamental principle for any government, as the security of its people comes before their own.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) over the years continues to improve its cyber security capabilities in order to facilitate computer security. The emerging dangers from the emerging computer technologies often call for tough measures. It is imperative that the Department puts in measures that will defeat any attack within cyberspace. To perform this task comprehensively, it is vital to collect information that will facilitate the national security (DHS, 2010). This is even vital because national security may face difficulties without adequate information.
The Patriot Act also sets up rules and guidelines in pursuance of national security. This draws clear boundaries with regard to data mining and information gathering from people suspected to have ulterior motives (Cavoukian, 2003). The expansion of the traditional tools of conducting surveillance forms the foundation of putting national security ahead of individuals’ privacy.
Conclusion
One of the greatest fears is that the debate on national security and individuals’ privacy may have an inclination on one side, and that in periods of insecurity; the state may curtail civil liberties. It is necessary to remember that security lays the foundation and is a prerequisite for the enjoyment of other values like individual privacy. The creation of the databases and the use of profiling remains a sanitized approach to search and seizure. In addition, these new technologies do not impose any direct privacy violations. For instance, surveillance technology goes far in enhancing law enforcement officers’ capabilities in gathering information without participation. Thus, national security must take preference over individual security since it sets the pace for civil liberties. In addition, it is essential for privacy to give way for national security, as privacy is enjoyable, when the state is secure.
References
Beehner, L. (2006, February 5). Q&A: NSA eavesdropping: Privacy vs. national security? Retrieved November 13, 2012 from New York Times Web site: http://www.nytimes.com/cfr/international/slot2_020506.html
Cavoukian, A. (2003, May). National security in a post-9/11 world: The rise of surveillance … the demise of privacy? Retrieved November 13, 2012 from IPC website: http://www.ipc.on.ca/images/Resources/up-nat_sec.pdf
Chandler, J. (2007). Privacy versus national security: Clarifying the trade off. Retrieved November 13, 2012 from Identity Trail Web site: http://www.idtrail.org/files/ID+Trail+Book/9780195372472_kerr_07.pdf
DHS. (2010, February 19). Computer network security & privacy protection. Retrieved November 13, 2012 from Department of Homeland Security (DHS): http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_cybersecurity_white_paper.pdf
Konstantaras, A. (2012). Understanding the balance between privacy and security. Retrieved November 13, 2012 from Tech Target: http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/Understanding-the-balance-between-privacy-and- security
Krishnamurthy, B. (2001, September 11). Privacy vs. security in the aftermath of the september 11 terrorist attacks. Retrieved November 13, 2012 from Santa Clara University: http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/briefings/privacy.html
Marsoof, A. (2008). The right to privacy in the information era: A South Asian perspective. Retrieved November 13, 2012 from University of Edinburgh Web site: http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed/vol5-3/marsoof.asp
Nissenbaum, H. (2005). Where computer security meets national security. Ethics and Information Technology, 7, 61-73.
Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. (2011). Fundamental privacy rights within a shared vision for perimeter security and economic competitiveness. Retrieved November 13, 2012 from Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada: http://www.priv.gc.ca/information/pub/sub_bs_201106_e.asp
Walker, B., & Raschke, G. (n. d). Right to privacy vs. national security. Retrieved November 13, 2012 from Georgia Tech Web site: http://www.library.gatech.edu/security/privacy.htm
