Privacy Rights Vs. Security Of A Nation

Privacy Rights vs Security of a Nation: The Dissolution of our Protections The United States offers so many freedoms to the citizens who reside legally within the country’s borders. Such freedoms include the right to our own privacy and the right to be protected from any intrusion, be it physical or not. The understanding of that cohesiveness to these two facets of our rights is imperative in determining which has greater precedence. Many will argue that to offer more protection by way of national security our own privacy rights will be violated, yet the opposing side believes that the loss of privacy is ample justification for increasing our national security to continue to protect the country’s citizens and freedoms. Yet can we lose one
He, who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security. He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither. People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserves neither and will lose both, if we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both. Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither. Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither. Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve neither liberty nor security (Franklin n.p.)
The last line simply means people who would give up privacy for security will end up with neither. However, in taking away our privacy we fail as a country to allow those freedoms in which we are protecting. Privacy issues are much more important than national security since it is the foundations of our country; it prevails upon the simple idea that security is not inclusive to our privacy
We are offered a false dichotomy when choosing security over privacy. Think of it terms of Nazi Germany. For the sake of security, the warped security in which Hitler purported, the people under his regime had no freedoms. In his established attempts to keep his Aryan Nation secure from the Jewish threat, the society who agreed with him still were under his strict no privacy policies. They gave up their own person liberty to follow his belief that security is considered an overall tyrannical ruling of all people. His own tyranny caused a hatred and horror around the world and proved that implementing security (no matter how insane his ideas were) only provided justification for stealing society’s rights to