In a follow up to yesterday’s article on US v Shahzad, today’s discussion revolves around what civil liberties should and shouldn’t be off limits when it comes to protecting America and our allies from future terror attacks. Each of us cherishes our inherent right to privacy, but because of the heightened concern for attempts by terrorists to destroy American targets, many of these rights are being bent to the breaking point in the name of national security. For instance, in order for our intelligence agencies to thwart future terror threats, cyber units need to have access to any computer they deem to possibly contain evidence of a threat to America. They must also have access to a certain degree of private web traffic, including e-mail and instant messages, in order to determine whether a cell is developing, or if a group or individual is showing signs of acting upon a radical thought. In 2010, the fact is that we are an interconnected world with new kinds of threats appearing on a more frequent basis. The US Government must be able to determine whether there has been a hack attempt into their secured networks and without a certain level of access to previously private information it is nearly impossible to do so without alerting the suspect.
Having learned our lesson from tragic past events, most Americans are willing to give up a certain degree of their personal privacy in order to ensure the safety of their communities. The passing of the USA Patriot Act in 2004, 05’, and 06’ was an example of Congress putting the security of the nation ahead of the basic constitutional rights granted to us in the First and Fourth Amendment’s. The act essentially allows law enforcement agencies to spy on their citizenry in order to detect potential terrorist suspects. However, as hard as it may be to accept that authorities can monitor our behavior on the internet, along with our financial transactions, there is no other feasible way to assure the absolute security of a populace as large as ours. Eyes and ears on the ground can only get us so far. As we saw in Times Square, and with the Christmas Day bomber, we usually find out about these kinds of attempts after the fact. Sure, we caught the guy before he left the country, and sure, a brave street vendor did lead law enforcement to the scene, but the fact is that we missed the vital signs that this man was going to act out such a potentially deadly attack.
Post 9/11, as the national priority quickly changed to preventing future attacks on our soil at all costs, those costs essentially meant that our private internet activity and financial transactions would be monitored minute to the minute by the fed’s. The resources necessary to effectively spy on ourselves are financed by our very own taxpayer dollars. It’s in nobody’s best interest to have homeland security agents spying on the day to day, non-criminal activities of American citizens. Thus, the good intentions of our intelligence agencies must be balanced out with the possible ability of rogue agents to access private information on the American citizenry. These agencies must be stringent in their commitment to verify the backgrounds of all who are allowed access to the secure information of ordinary citizens. These privacy concerns, if correctly addressed, can make the accelerating transition into an age of transparency easier for all Americans.
The balancing act between prioritizing privacy rights and security concerns will be an ongoing point of contention in the affairs of the US and other countries worldwide. Our constitution must continue to guide us in the 21st Century, and the rights of American citizens must never be in jeopardy. However, we know that if we hinder the ability of our intelligence agencies to detect our biggest threats, we do more harm to ourselves than good. In finding this difficult balance, our leaders must be mindful of the privacy concerns of all Americans, of all races and all religions. Our privacy is something we hold dear, and in no way should we let our basic rights slip away because of outside or homegrown threats. We must also adjust our idea of what constitutes true privacy to match the realities of the world we live in. As citizens, we must do a better job of assisting the government when it comes to policing the internet and the streets. It is my opinion, that if we can reach a decent balance that is both effective and preserves our civil liberties with regards to our right to privacy, we can secure the sanctity of the constitutional rights which we are so fortunate to have as Americans. If we approach our networked activity with an open eye for suspicious behavior, we can prevent our privacy rights from being pressed to the brink in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment