In the
recent aftermath of the NSA leaks by Edward Snowden, we have come upon an interesting debate on whether NSA/Government spying is justified.
Is the government really just spying on its citizens?
To what extent is the government doing its spying on? Or perhaps, the U.S
Government is spying on everything it possibly can, including its allies to
“mine data” which can in turn help secure the country in any way shape or form
to prevent another 9/11 attack from happening. Has the government gone too far
to anger its citizens, and its allies? Probably, but if history repeats itself,
who are we to blame next?
I believe on
this very issue, NSA Spying, or so called “data mining” is justified. Why you
ask? Well after the 9/11 attack, we the people determined that the
“intelligence community” failed to connect the dots and allowed one of the
biggest terrorist attack in history. As a result almost 3,000 good people died
on that tragic day. Attacks like this could have been prevented in many ways.
Post 9/11 implemented many changes that enabled the government to monitor
telecommunications. This is the need for change.
In June of
2013, President Obama made a bold statement in regards to Snowden leaks. He claims “there have been at
least 50 threats averted because of phone records and Internet information the
agency was able to access”. These threats were not just located in the U.S but also in
other countries. If true, which I believe it is, we have
proactively made a change where lives could have been taken. Could it have been
any different? Probably, but should we have to wait until something has
happened before acting upon?
Last April, The Boston Marathon was held right in our backyard. Two pressure cooker
bombs exploded killing three innocent people and injuring 264 others. The head
of NSA stated the surveillance program aided in the investigation of the
Marathon Bombings but were not able to prevent it. In wake of the bombings, the
authorities feared that the Tsanaev brothers had accomplices. With the “PRISM”
program in effect, the government was able to retrieve archived phone data, and
examine calls to and from the brothers which
might suggest there could be others involved.
The data analysis allowed them to learn major breakthroughs and answer
questions previously not possible without human interactions. Though the
program was not able to prevent this attack, it allowed the government to have
a better understanding of the situation and what they were dealing with. They were able to
properly identify the people involved, and secure our city and its citizen.
Anyone who says otherwise probably did not witness the event like I did.
Ideally, I
do not agree with everything the government has done, but the fact remains,
history has proven time and time again that terrorist attacks need to be taken
seriously. We cannot endure another 9/11 attack and simply idle while thousands
of lives could be in jeopardy. Security concerns are the biggest issues here.
Between citizens feeling their privacy rights being invaded, and the government
trying to stop terrorist attacks, we have to find a common ground where we can
and should agree on. The ends justify the mean, and how we approach and achieve
that mean is debatable. As long as lives are being saved,
the government has their right to spy on me because I have
nothing to hide. We should not have to live in fear of terrorism as the Marathon
bombings has proven.
Security vs. privacy--this is a really important issue, Megaman. "The ends justify the means," you say, and you're willing to give up privacy if it means security. Fair enough. But is that true for everyone? To play the devil's advocate, I might argue that the government needs to get people's consent before spying on them, to see if everyone (or at least a majority) would make the privacy/security tradeoff you want to make.
ReplyDelete