Chapter 1: Is Security More Important Than Liberty?
Overview: National Security and Civil Liberties in America
Charles Stimson and Andrew Grossman
Ideally, there is no tradeoff between security and freedom— these should be mutually reinforcing values. The framers of the Constitution designed the US political system with checks and balances to prevent any branch of government from becoming too powerful. There is every reason to be optimistic that this structure will enable the country to withstand future threats to liberty and security.
Yes: Security Takes Precedence Over Privacy
Let’s Not Worry About Privacy, Security is More Important
Ron Iphofen
In the digital age, privacy may already be an antiquated concern. Facebook, Google, and other companies know quite a bit about us already. But this is not necessarily a cause for alarm. Rather, we should harness this technology for the greater good and to prevent atrocities and harm.
Enhanced Counter-terrorism Measures are Reasonable
Tim Mayfield
In Australia, the threat of “lone wolf” terror attacks may be serious enough to justify minor infringements on personal liberty. Although unscrupulous politicians use fear to advance an agenda, the privacy tradeoff for increased national security may nonetheless be necessary.
No: Privacy is More Important than Security
Our Constitutional Rights Are Disappearing
Peter Van Buren
In post-9/11 America, the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are becoming weaker in practice. Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure is violated constantly through NSA spying, while “border searches” and other quasi-legal tactics are of dubious legality. Citizens who passively allow these rights to be jettisoned should be aware of the slippery slope to losing these civil liberties altogether.
The First Priority is to Protect Citizens’ Rights
Onan Coca
The cost of increased measures of keeping the population safe is too high. Although the goal of keeping the population safe is rational, we need to fight vigilantly for free speech and other liberties to maintain a robust democracy that is worth protecting.
Chapter 2: Does the Government Have the Right to Monitor Its Citizens?
Overview: Privacy Versus Security
Lee Rainie and Shiva Maniam
It should come as no surprise that Americans favor tighter security in the aftermath of terrorist attacks, as illustrated by polls taken after the 2015 Paris and San Bernardino shootings. In contrast, when Edward Snowden exposed NSA surveillance two years earlier, a greater percentage of Americans thought this program went too far in undermining privacy.
Yes: The Government Can Monitor its Citizens for Safety Reasons
The Government Should Monitor its Citizens for Safety Reasons
Pew Research Center
A narrow majority of Americans are willing to trade some privacy for security, according to a national survey. Citizens are also on board with controversial telephone metadata collection efforts by the NSA, as long as these heighten safety. A smaller portion of the American public believes the government should track online activity such as email and web browsing.
Survillance Is Fine, but Secrecy Isn’t
Josh Stearns
Americans believe that being informed is essential to a functioning democracy. But the controversial actions of Edward Snowden have brought that fundamental belief into question. Snowden’s leaking of documents that uncover dubious NSA activity has provoked fierce debate about how informed the American public should be, or even wants to be.
No: The Government Does Not Have the Right to Monitor its Citizens
Government Is the Negation of Freedom
Andrew Napolitano
The US government has falsely equated safety with freedom. Our founding fathers created the Constitution to limit government in the interest of liberty. Liberty is our default. Safety is merely something the government has been tasked with maintaining.
The Role of Bulk Data in Thwarting Terrorism is Minimal
Bailey Cahall, Peter Bergen, David Sterman, and Emily Schneider
In response to political fallout from Snowden’s revelations, the Obama administration defended NSA metadata collection as essential for national security. Upon closer scrutiny, however, traditional investigation techniques played a far larger role in successful counterterrorism efforts, while bulk data played only a minimal role.
Chapter 3: Should Consumers Have Expectations of Privacy?
Overview: How Corporate Data Collection Affects Consumers
Timothy Morey, Theodore Forbath, and Allison Schoop
Companies seeking to capitalize on consumer data must do so ethically if they wish to provide value and gain the long-term trust of their customers. Corporations have a choice between transparency and control over this personal data. Since regulation is incomplete, companies that voluntarily adhere to stringent privacy standards are most likely to gain consumer trust and avoid litigation.
Yes: Consumers Should Expect Privacy
Young People Oppose Online Surveillance
Tatsuhei Morozumi and Marie Wachinger
For young people, the Internet is the central location of social and professional life. Thus, a greater percentage of youth are rejecting government and corporate data mining. This data can be put to nefarious purposes, such as crushing political dissent. Although Western democracies have not resorted to this on a large scale, many fear that as inequality and other social problems worsen, this tactic will become more likely.
We Need Stronger Laws to Protect Data from Government and Corporations
Ethical Consumer
The major Internet players such as Google, Facebook, and Amazon have access to enormous amounts of data. Although these companies claim they do not give this information out, government often does not ask permission. Violated privacy and more entrenched inequality is a possible result of such profiling.
No: Consumers Should Not Expect Privacy
The Coming “Internet of Things” Will Have a Dark Side
Catherine Crump and Matthew Harwood
In the future, omnipresent online surveillance will migrate to real space, such as the home and workplace. Corporations that already have access to massive amounts of data will have even more at their disposal. This could easily be shared with government. Moreover, we are unlikely to know what private information is being collected and how it is disseminated.
Corporate Data Collection Raises Alarms
Kaveh Waddell
Congress recently curtailed the NSA’s bulk data collection program, but private tech firms are picking up the slack. Government still has “backdoor” ways to access this information, which alarms many privacy advocates. In response to growing political pressure, tech companies are now taking privacy more seriously, but some say they are not going far enough.
Chapter 4: Does Video Surveillance Make Us Safer?
Overview: Video Surveillance Helps Solve Crime but Jeopardizes Privacy
Michael Jonas
From the suicide bombings of the London transit system to the Boston Marathon, fixed cameras and crowdsourced videos have helped law enforcement solve high profile crimes. Since video surveillance has little oversight, opponents worry that once facial recognition software is integrated into the system, it will be easy for governments to violate civil liberties.
Yes: Video Surveillance is Important for Public Safety
Potential Benefits of the Coming Surveillance State
Stuart Armstrong
A canon of dystopian literature chronicles the many negatives of ubiquitous surveillance our future may hold in store. However, there may be positive aspects to this as well. The author cites fighting crime, stopping domestic abuse (which often goes unreported), and disaster relief as possible upsides to widespread video recording.
Surveillance Keeps Us Safe, Even From the Police
Russell Dean Covey
Recordings are essential in order to make police activity more transparent. The wearing of body cameras will decrease incidents of police brutality and make officers accountable to the laws they enforce. Body cams offer a level of reliability that eyewitness testimony does not, as well.
No: Video Surveillance is Intrusive and Does Not Ensure Safety
Too Much Surveillance is Contrary to Human Rights
Angela Watercutter
A state that encourages tremendous levels of general surveillance is not a free society. For example, journalists fear they will be spotted speaking to a whistleblower, which limits freedom of the press. The author poses the question “how much surveillance should democracy have?” and recommends far less than our current level.
Surveillance Inhibits Moral Decision Making
Emrys Westacott
Even if surveillance efforts did increase safety, what is the moral impact? If the presence of cameras hampers criminal acts, it does so for the wrong reasons. Declining to commit a crime because you’ll get caught is not the same thing as declining to commit a crime because it’s the wrong thing to do. Surveillance will hinder our moral development.
Surveillance Cameras Are a Slippery Slope
American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois
As the technology of video surveillance systems becomes more sophisticated, concerns arise. Given the history of unlawful political surveillance in cities like Chicago, measures must be taken to protect the rights of those being recorded.