A Study of the Effects of Sacrificing Privacy and Liberty for Greater Security neither and will lose both. » Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayIntroductionIn the almost sixteen years since September 11, 2001, the world has experienced a very different version of international relations , military action, and liberal democracy than the world knew before that date. 9/11 and the so-called war on terror that followed changed the way liberal democracy is put into practice. For many, the security provided by the state in the wake of this terrible terrorist attack is seen as having come at the cost of the freedom and privacy ostensibly guaranteed by liberal democracy. For others, security measures taken by Western states are necessary to maintain the security of society. But can democratic societies like Canada and the United States simultaneously enjoy both security from terrorist threats and foreign nations and the privacy and freedoms guaranteed by liberal democracy? This is the major question that this discussion paper seeks to address. Specifically, the paper examines whether or not security measures taken by Western democratic states such as Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States can be reconciled with the ideas and practice of liberal democracy. In response, the newspaper asserts that these intrusions into freedom and privacy cannot be justified if the true nature of a liberal democracy is to be preserved in these countries. As Benjamin Franklin said, one cannot fully trade liberty for security, even temporarily. , and hope to keep it or get it back. Even though the measures taken by the governments mentioned above have not yet reached the point of completely compromising liberal democracy, the measures taken over the past fifteen years place these states and their respective societies at risk of losing both security and freedom guaranteed by liberal democracy. Using both specific examples of security measures that undermine the essence of liberal democracy and academic journal articles covering the topic, this discussion paper aims to support this claim with substantial evidence and clear logic. While certainly not exhaustive, this article is the start of a broader debate about the value of liberal democracy in the face of the need for security. private citizens is not an easy task. As one scholar writes: "The September 11 attacks, the war on terror, 'homeland security' practices, and the recent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq together produce a complex set of questions about what 'we must think, what we must defend. and what to organize” (Brown, 2003, 1353). This was written immediately after the 2001 terrorist attack, and the issue has not gotten any simpler in the years since. While the Western world appears no safer today than it did in the years before the September 11 attacks, one wonders whether the efforts of the past fifteen years are really worth it. This more liberal sentiment contrasts with another academic article, which argues that "if there is one idea that seemingly transcends today's partisan rancor, it is that the effort to protect Americaagainst terrorist attacks requires better intelligence” and that “intelligence services should gather more intelligence”. information and share it more widely” (Kreimer, 2004, 133). This statement also seems logical – after all, counterterrorism depends on intelligence. But at what cost was this intelligence obtained? Still another, more recent journal article states that "public access to government documents is essential to democratic autonomy" (Cuillier & Piotrowski, 2009, 441). Fortunately, this transparency is guaranteed to some extent by the Freedom of Information Act – but was it enough? Cases like those revealed by the now infamous Edward Snowden and Julian Assange make the answer to this question unclear. The fact that many security measures adopted in the wake of 9/11 were supported by the general public makes the issue all the more difficult (Hetherington & Suhay, 2011). All of these questions are not intended to further complicate the main issue of debate: this article – they are simply intended to show how difficult the question of security versus liberty and privacy can be, from a point of view. political, moral, personal and even philosophical view. Now that this has been established, the newspaper can turn to specific examples of how freedom and privacy have been compromised in the name of national security. have made inroads into the rights, privacy and freedoms of American, Canadian and European citizens. The most prominent example is the infamous NSA program revealed by documents leaked by Edward Snowden in 2013, known as PRISM. The revelations contained in the documents brought back thanks to Snowden have shaken the Western world and have certainly given voice to the debate around privacy and security. As one researcher states: “In 2013, the Snowden revelations served as a catalyst for some of the major issues underway. Internet-related problems” (Salvo, 2015, np). In a nutshell, the PRISM program gave the United States National Security Agency access to “electronic communications data held by private companies” (Kuner, Cate, Millard, & Svantesson, 2013, 1). Specifically, the program allowed the NSA to acquire records of citizens' digital activity from companies like Facebook, Twitter, and even Google. Of course, the Obama administration “was quick to assure the American public that PRISM and similar surveillance systems only targeted non-Americans” (Kuner, Cate, Millard, & Svantesson, 2013, 2). This did not prevent American citizens from being informed. concerned about their privacy and have even aroused suspicion among those outside the United States. The concern was only heightened by the fact that the documents leaked by Snowden also revealed that almost every phone company in the United States was providing their customers' phone records to the NSA. Unsurprisingly, no legislative reform regarding these so-called security measures was seen until the last two months of this year. As the article cited above concludes, “serious dialogue on all these issues is essential if fundamental rights – both privacy and privacy – are to be guaranteed.” and security – must be protected and people everywhere must have confidence in the rule of law” (Kuner, Cate, Millard & Svantesson, 2013, 3). In other words, American citizens and other citizens of liberal democracies must carefully consider the question of security versus privacy if their liberty is to be preserved. Another example of »..

Essay / A Study of the Effects of Sacrificing Privacy and Liberty for Greater Security neither and will lose both. » Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayIntroductionIn the almost sixteen years since September 11, 2001, the world has experienced a very different version of international relations , military action, and liberal democracy than the world knew before that date. 9/11 and the so-called war on terror that followed changed the way liberal democracy is put into practice. For many, the security provided by the state in the wake of this terrible terrorist attack is seen as having come at the cost of the freedom and privacy ostensibly guaranteed by liberal democracy. For others, security measures taken by Western states are necessary to maintain the security of society. But can democratic societies like Canada and the United States simultaneously enjoy both security from terrorist threats and foreign nations and the privacy and freedoms guaranteed by liberal democracy? This is the major question that this discussion paper seeks to address. Specifically, the paper examines whether or not security measures taken by Western democratic states such as Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States can be reconciled with the ideas and practice of liberal democracy. In response, the newspaper asserts that these intrusions into freedom and privacy cannot be justified if the true nature of a liberal democracy is to be preserved in these countries. As Benjamin Franklin said, one cannot fully trade liberty for security, even temporarily. , and hope to keep it or get it back. Even though the measures taken by the governments mentioned above have not yet reached the point of completely compromising liberal democracy, the measures taken over the past fifteen years place these states and their respective societies at risk of losing both security and freedom guaranteed by liberal democracy. Using both specific examples of security measures that undermine the essence of liberal democracy and academic journal articles covering the topic, this discussion paper aims to support this claim with substantial evidence and clear logic. While certainly not exhaustive, this article is the start of a broader debate about the value of liberal democracy in the face of the need for security. private citizens is not an easy task. As one scholar writes: "The September 11 attacks, the war on terror, 'homeland security' practices, and the recent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq together produce a complex set of questions about what 'we must think, what we must defend. and what to organize” (Brown, 2003, 1353). This was written immediately after the 2001 terrorist attack, and the issue has not gotten any simpler in the years since. While the Western world appears no safer today than it did in the years before the September 11 attacks, one wonders whether the efforts of the past fifteen years are really worth it. This more liberal sentiment contrasts with another academic article, which argues that "if there is one idea that seemingly transcends today's partisan rancor, it is that the effort to protect Americaagainst terrorist attacks requires better intelligence” and that “intelligence services should gather more intelligence”. information and share it more widely” (Kreimer, 2004, 133). This statement also seems logical – after all, counterterrorism depends on intelligence. But at what cost was this intelligence obtained? Still another, more recent journal article states that "public access to government documents is essential to democratic autonomy" (Cuillier & Piotrowski, 2009, 441). Fortunately, this transparency is guaranteed to some extent by the Freedom of Information Act – but was it enough? Cases like those revealed by the now infamous Edward Snowden and Julian Assange make the answer to this question unclear. The fact that many security measures adopted in the wake of 9/11 were supported by the general public makes the issue all the more difficult (Hetherington & Suhay, 2011). All of these questions are not intended to further complicate the main issue of debate: this article – they are simply intended to show how difficult the question of security versus liberty and privacy can be, from a point of view. political, moral, personal and even philosophical view. Now that this has been established, the newspaper can turn to specific examples of how freedom and privacy have been compromised in the name of national security. have made inroads into the rights, privacy and freedoms of American, Canadian and European citizens. The most prominent example is the infamous NSA program revealed by documents leaked by Edward Snowden in 2013, known as PRISM. The revelations contained in the documents brought back thanks to Snowden have shaken the Western world and have certainly given voice to the debate around privacy and security. As one researcher states: “In 2013, the Snowden revelations served as a catalyst for some of the major issues underway. Internet-related problems” (Salvo, 2015, np). In a nutshell, the PRISM program gave the United States National Security Agency access to “electronic communications data held by private companies” (Kuner, Cate, Millard, & Svantesson, 2013, 1). Specifically, the program allowed the NSA to acquire records of citizens' digital activity from companies like Facebook, Twitter, and even Google. Of course, the Obama administration “was quick to assure the American public that PRISM and similar surveillance systems only targeted non-Americans” (Kuner, Cate, Millard, & Svantesson, 2013, 2). This did not prevent American citizens from being informed. concerned about their privacy and have even aroused suspicion among those outside the United States. The concern was only heightened by the fact that the documents leaked by Snowden also revealed that almost every phone company in the United States was providing their customers' phone records to the NSA. Unsurprisingly, no legislative reform regarding these so-called security measures was seen until the last two months of this year. As the article cited above concludes, “serious dialogue on all these issues is essential if fundamental rights – both privacy and privacy – are to be guaranteed.” and security – must be protected and people everywhere must have confidence in the rule of law” (Kuner, Cate, Millard & Svantesson, 2013, 3). In other words, American citizens and other citizens of liberal democracies must carefully consider the question of security versus privacy if their liberty is to be preserved. Another example of »..

Navigation

« Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Get In Touch