More Freedom or More Security: What Is More Important? - Paper Example

The balance between national security and liberty is an issue facing the lawmakers. In the process of ensuring maximum security, it requires security agents to invade personal privacy. For instance, in the airport, the security search monitors who are entering and leaving the country which is an approach towards ensuring national security that protects citizens from things like terrorism. The issues involving the security measures that are put in place in areas such as airports, borders, and other government institutions include access to personal information such as phone calls, emails, and other platforms of communication as well as luggage inspection. The major concern of this evaluation is whether these measures after breaching personal privacy will facilitate full security as compared to ensuring citizens their freedom of speech, movement, and access to various institutions in the state. The majority of the people have not yet realized the benefits of the security measures, and therefore they will value their security. Freedom is the best way to promote unity in the nation whereby through unity, citizens can unite and be the first security agents for the nations. When privacy is invaded, peoples are left with questions such as is the government for us or against us? Is it my security of the government's security? In this discussion, it will focus on the balance between state's security and citizen's freedom.

According to Hatzopoulus, (2008), a state's security is for all citizens and freedom is a personal right and therefore policies top regulate both security and freedom are essential to balance this process. From a constitutional perspective, the concern of solid security is to ensure citizen's freedom in the country especially freedom of movement without fear of attacks as observed with terrorist attacks. Those individuals who opt to trade their freedom for just a temporary security, they deserve neither, and they end up losing both. In most occasions, laws and regulations will have to diminish personal freedoms with the goal of increasing security. The government forcibly imposes the security laws and regulations and they, therefore, restrict the liberty of the people. The fact behind exchange of freedom for security is that people who are insecure will be very much willing to give their freedom and also money to acquire security. Again, there is proof that people fear insecurity and it is by nature. If the security laws and regulations are withdrawn, same people will work hard and seek government efforts to return their security. Another factor to evaluate regarding this balance is that the government can invest much on measures such as deploying military forces so as to ensure states security and protect the freedom of its security but this is costly and doesn't achieve maximum security. Those individuals who are against the laws and regulations to conduct a search on personal information are again termed enemies of the people. The interest of these laws focuses on security for every person, unlike freedom that is an individual right.2

When evaluating the current and future security events, the greatest threat is terrorism and therefore investigating those getting into the state as well as their intentions is an obligation of the security officers. According to the US intelligence measures, they have the authority to monitor phone calls although this has posed some threats to personal freedom of speech. Through many debates, the effectiveness of surveillance measures such real-time CCTV cannot be guaranteed as the best way of ensuring security. Those individuals whose their phone calls and other personal information are monitored should not pose threats to the nations but promote their patriotism. Sacrificing freedoms to provide security has no danger to their privacy if this process is regulated. One of the positive supports of having the right to breach personal freedom for security is that the intelligence agents should observe the integrity of then information obtained thus promoting privacy and freedom. According to the USA Patriot Act 2001, it was right for the law enforcement agencies to conduct a search on personal information to promote total security.

From the current events again, the Apple company which is the developer of iPhone 6, it has provided an iOS system that prevents any malicious access of personal information from the gadget. This ultimate system advancement is a threat to the security levels. Following the security needs, it is essential to have the accessibility of personal information regardless of the need for freedom. Monitoring communication is a surveillance method, and it requires monitoring all the communications and data from the various gadgets. Additionally, the balance between security and freedom has to observe equality and avoid discrimination. As a state, it is not clear who is the insecurity target and therefore monitoring every person is recommended. Concerning the intelligence steps to investigate movements, communication, and other forms of data from everybody has promoted equality and as much as racial discrimination is concerned, the security target should not be biased. As citizens, therefore, they have to sacrifice their freedom for maximum security.

Concerning the need to have personal freedom, the intrusion of personal privacy in the process of ensuring total security has raised issues. When people allow this to the government intelligence agencies, they will promote more intrusions to the personal information apart from communication. Concerning the federal order to have an iPhone unlocked which belonged to a terrorist Sayed Farook, the CEO of the Apple Company opposed the order by claiming that the person had the right to privacy rights. The debate on iPhone iOS system has created a lot of controversies regarding the movements to balance total security and personal liberty. The freedom debates have also touched the surveillance cameras with the claims that they invade personal privacy. Concerning freedom, the key concern for a free and democratic society is that there is an honest and open conversation, movement, and exchange of information. Citizens deserve freedom, and therefore they have the right to protect their privacy rights.

Another debate is about the amendment of the privacy rights Act. The surveillance measures where personal information in accessed, there are no informed consents to the target individuals even at the instances where they are no target suspects. Concerning patriotism, citizens who are patriotic, they protect the nation by all means, and therefore their privacy needs to be promoted to ensure their freedom. Due to immigration and foreigners invasion, the intelligence team has experienced difficult times trying to identify those who are for security and threats to the country such as terrorists. As much as security is important so is the freedom of the citizens and it should not be breached without their consent.

The balance between security and freedom has three aspects to consider after evaluating the benefit of each. The three factors to consider include discrimination, equality, and patriotism. Concerning discrimination, it is right to search every person at the airport regardless of the citizen status to ensure equality among all people. Discrimination which can cut across ethnic boundaries is a critical issue when people from specific nations are investigated regarding the security matters. Again, by exercising equality for all, there is an assurance of freedom. Concerning patriotism, it is very much okay to offer your freedom for security reasons in the country. The citizens that are willing to promote their security will not mind the government monitoring their communications and access their data if everything is up to the standard of law and order.

Conclusion

To sum up, more security is more important as compared more freedom. When balancing the weight of these two issues, citizens need to evaluate the cost each and what can promote the other. Ensuring freedom regarding promoting privacy is not comparable to having total security. Again, with maximum security, one can be assured their freedom. We need to achieve security to promote the existence of freedom. Citizens, therefore, will have to let go their freedom for the purpose of security to have their freedom in return. Following the issues such as terrorism and national intelligence, the governmental intelligence bodies have heightened their mandate tom guarantee the safety in the states. Concerning the factors behind this balance, they include the elimination of discrimination, ensuring equality, and promoting patriotism. Another concern is the advancement of technology as seen in the Apple Company through their inventory of iPhone iOS system that's hard to hack. Such technologies are there to promote personal privacy, but on the other hand, they are deteriorating the level of security.

Bibliography

Bryant, M. "Apple denies iCloud security breach despite evidence from

hackers". TheNextWeb.Com. 2017-03.Deruiter, R., and Gert V. "Balancing between human rights assumptions

and actual fundamental human rights safeguards in building an area of freedom, security and justice: a : cosmopolitan perspective". European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research. 22(2016): 731-749.

Haarscher, G. "Balancing Security and Freedom in an Age of Terror". International

Terrorism : a European Response to a Global Threat?. (2006)129-149.

Hatzopoulos, V. "With or without you -- judging politically in the field of Area of

Freedom, Security and Justice". European Law Review. 33 (2008): 44-65.

The Right Hon Lady Justice Arden DBE. "Balancing human rights and national

security". South African Law Journal. 124 (2007): 57-75.