To Spy Or Not To Spy - Diego Talbot

To Spy or Not to Spy?

“The conversation, however, troubled me. Only a few days before, we would have liberally shared our thoughts and openly talked about our friends. Now trepidation haunted our every word. Not knowing who might be listening, each phrase was guarded, cautious, obscure, full of allusions and double meanings. “I heard Amanda's father is in the hospital,” Angélica said, relaying that the singer and political activist Victor Jara had been arrested. “In intensive care?” I asked, wondering if they'd killed him. “The doctors won't say,” she replied. And so it went.” - Ariel Dorfman. The debate of whether or not the US should be able to spy on it’s citizens is a interesting one. On one hand, there is the threat of the US getting too much power over it’s citizens, like this anecdote (which happened in Chile) suggests. But, on the other there is the benefit of stopping potential terrorist attacks, so what would be the best for our country? Privacy or Security? In my opinion we should have a mix of both, so neither the government nor people who wish the country harm have too much power. We should do this by allowing the government to spy but placing limitations on what they can do.

It’s important for national security to be able to see what citizens are texting and writing privately  to be able to identify potential terrorists or criminals. Not only is this just something that we might have to use but it has been used and we may have to use it again imminently. ¨FBI Director James Comey warned last week that potentially, thousands of terrorist sympathizers in the United States are being self-radicalized online by foreign terrorists associated with the Islamic State who are urging them to conduct attacks against Americans in our cities and towns¨(Honorof).  This shows that law enforcers need to see what kind of messages are being sent so that they can stop terrorist attacks.

This is the most effective way for the government to stop terror attacks and crimes before they happen. Other ways could be hard to pull off or just not as effective. Now believe it or not, the majority of government officials have the country’s best interest at heart. We know this because if people in leadership positions wanted to create an Orwellian society, then they could (just look at North Korea) so if there was a way to have both total security and privacy then the government would take that route. This being said we should also look at what could happen if we had either extreme "Total security means zero privacy. Total privacy means zero security," Graham said. "The extremes are what we have to fear … The NSA should be monitoring people. It's just the issue of monitoring Americans without probable cause that really bothers the heck out of me."(Honorof). This quote shows that neither extremes are good.

While security is necessary there’s also the question of whether or not viewing people’s private messages violates the U.S. constitution. It says that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”  So does looking at people’s text messages before they have a criminal record or are proven to be dangerous violate this? In my opinion, not completely. I think that if the government starts using texts and other things on your phone of that nature in the court of law that has nothing to do with the prevention of a criminal act before it happens, then it is a violation. But if someone is proven, beyond a reasonable doubt to have criminal intentions, and you apprehend the perp then, no it’s not a violation. My reasoning for this being it was by stopping an attack on national safety then the “searches and seizures” have proven themselves to be reasonable.

Some might say “the NSA’s spying hasn’t done anything for the US” but that, unfortunately, is a faulty assumption. I say this because it actually has helped stop plenty of terrorist attacks. In the last decade there were 54 terrorist attacks planned only 8 of them were successfully carried out. "What we're talking about is future terrorist attacks," Alexander said, discussing a number of planned attacks that the NSA foiled over the last 10 years. "It is worth considering what would have happened in the world if those attacks — 42 of those 54 were terrorist plots — if they were successfully executed. What would that mean to our civil liberties and privacy?" This shows that as well as the NSA’s spying helping keep america safe, it also can protect our civil liberties by not making the world, government, and America more paranoid than it already is.

Some other people might also say “There are other ways of combating terrorism before it happens”. That is true, but the other ways aren’t nearly as effective. If there was a way we could find out what terrorists are going to do without infringing on privacy, we would be doing things the less intrusive way. As I previously stated, the government generally has our best interests at heart, so we would be using the best and least intrusive method of finding out who has the intent of harm towards our country.

We should have a mix of both privacy and security, so neither the government gets too power or criminals get too much privacy for planning nefarious deeds. I can make a text to world connection about how the government needs to be able to see what people are ding to be able to be secure. I can see this because just like the government you need to see what other people are doing for your own personal security, if you couldn’t see what people are doing around you then you would be susceptible to being mugged or murdered. So if this is the case for everyday people imagine it would be for the government who have protect millions of people. So if you care about America be open minded, and know that the government is trying to protect you, but also don’t just take everything everyone says for granted. Try to find a balance of privacy and security and advocate for it, and remember: neither extremes are good.