(Insert title)
The 21st century is full of crazy inventions that are forming the future of the world we see and love every day. As humans in developed countries, we idolize the use of computers, tablets, cell phones, printers, video cameras, music devices, and a plethora of other technologies. These newly found electronics allows humans to live much easier and opens them up to new possibilities that weren’t present in previous centuries. With all the great, and upcoming technology in the twenty-first century, another question arises that deals with basic human rights, and the right to privacy. This is a very hot topic up for debate in the United States and United Kingdom. The advancements and technologies that have been released for public use simply makes us question the moral security of oneself. Meaning, do we have a morally acceptable level of privacy in this kind of society? Personally I believe that we do not have a morally acceptable level of privacy, and that we are currently losing our levels of privacy. If nothing is done, soon we’ll have none left.
You’ll see in America today, an ongoing fashion in which we, as a people, are actually enjoying the process of losing privacy. This has steadily stayed on course with our development in electronics. Famous novelist, and writer, Huxley better explains this the point I am trying to present when he addresses the Tavistock Group at the California Medical School in 1961. During a lecture on the future of American revolution in the coming century, he states that, "There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution."
What Huxley is trying to say elaborates perfectly with the point I’m trying to get across. Huxley is simply saying that in the decades to come, citizens will be willing to give up their levels of privacy. Again, this is very apparent in American culture. In previous years our citizens have allowed president Obama to sign such acts as the NDAA, which allows detainment of any person as long as they have been deemed a “terrorist” by our government. Completely destroying our right to due process and privacy. Also, the Patriot Act in 2001 established by the Bush administration gives the government more leeway for use of bugs and wiretaps. This issue of privacy however, goes far beyond just written stature in the court of law. It effects the pieces of metal lying in your pocket as well. For instance, If you have downloaded the most recent Facebook app on your cellular device, you have agreed that the government can use your camera and mic built into the phone without your permission. Also, if you have anything saved on Google Drive, or DropBox, the government also has access to that content. Have you ever actually read the fine little print on the “Terms & Conditions” page? I didn’t think so.
A common opposing argument that I receive in regards to my position on this issue normally falls along the lines of, “In an age of technology, the benefit of giving up privacy is security, and can be used to protect citizens and against terrorist attacks.” America is the wealthiest country in the world, and with a population of 300 million. In a country liked this, a lot of individuals believe that privacy invasions that promote security and safety for its citizens should be considered luxury. A lot third world countries do not have the technology to prevent terrorist threats via wire taps, bugs, peer to peer computer interaction, unlike the US.
While this is a valid concern, I must once again disagree. This country was not founded upon giving up privacy for security. We were founded on the notion that no man should be held under tyranny. By having a government eliminate components of privacy through legislation, you create a very “slippery-slope” to corruption. As the great Ben Franklin once said; “He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.” With that being said from one of the founding fathers of the United States, I find the opposing argument of trading liberty for safety is extremely invalid. Indivudals of 1776 want to rid the government of any kind of method that would encourage tyranny. The moral level of security in the United States should never be effected by those who willing to trade liberties for security. This country was not found on those principles as you can see, and if you would like to trade liberties for security, go live in a different country, don’t change ours.
When it boils down to it, the mere fact that government tries to implement hypocritical legislation to control the masses through privacy violations baffles me. It’s even more disturbing that a large portion of people in the world are “okay” with these acts. We really need to wake up In America and realize what’s being done to our right to privacy. Yes, they’re valid concerns that deal with terrorism, or threats to national security, but this is nothing new. These things happen in every country, in any given time period. There is absolutely no reason to destroy the values in which a country was built on simply because somebody wants to use technology to infringe on our rights. We have no acceptable level privacy anymore, we are only going to continue losing our levels of privacy unless we make it known to our government, that infringement of personal space. Whether it’s psychical or digital, is simply not acceptable.
Sources:
DeCew, Judith. "Privacy." Stanford University. Stanford University, 14 May 2002. Web. 23 Nov. 2014. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/privacy/>.
"What Is the USA Patriot Web." What Is the USA Patriot Web. Justice.Gov. Web. 23 Nov. 2014. <http://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm>.
"Armed Services Republicans." FY 2014 NDAA -. ASR. Web. 23 Nov. 2014. <http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/fy-2014-ndaa>.
Craig, Kevin. ""Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." -- KEVIN CRAIG - "Liberty Under God" Beginning in Missouri's 7th Congressional District." "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." -- KEVIN CRAIG - "Liberty Under God" Beginning in Missouri's 7th Congressional District. Web. 23 Nov. 2014. <http://kevincraig.us/tempsec.htm>.
Liptak, Adam. "Major Ruling Shields Privacy of Cellphones." The New York Times. The New York Times, 25 June 2014. Web. 23 Nov. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/us/supreme-court-cellphones-search-privacy.html?_r=0>.
