National Security VS. Perosnal privacy.

12. Allen sets up a case where national security duels with personal privacy.  Where does she think the line should be drawn when it comes to spying for the sake of national security?  Arguably, she doesn't offer much reasoning to defend her claim.  Help her out.  What reasons could you come up with to defend Allen's idea about the right way to balance national security and personal privacy?  Do you agree?  Why or why not?
                  
     
 The author introduces the big dilema that has been going on through many years, NAtional security spying on people's lives. Allen give us an argument that line of spying for the sake of national security"These rules recognize the need for spying in the interest of protecting national security and
the need for safeguards for privacy." (the virtuous spy. p 13). yes there is need of spying on others, but these needs should be bounded by the rules, of weather the interest of spying involves National Security. " However, where the target of spying a US. person, a finding of probable cause of involvement in unlawful spionage must be made" (  the virtuous spy.p 13). she clearly states that the line of spying for National Security matters, should not cross the line of personal privacy. That only under probable causes can the goverment spy on the US citizen, and even so they need a warrant isued by the FISA court." Restrain is call for all around" ( The Virtuous spy p 13).

    I agree that there has to be a balance between National Security and personal privacy. "When police have a wiretap warrant they are required to discontinue listening to conversations that do not relate to the subject-matter or target of inquiry." ( The virtuous spy.p 13). This is one of her arguments, that if the police or goverment has a warrant to spy, or do surveilance on any normal person for a certain motive, they should only focus on that motive and discard the rest of the conversation which doesn't have to do with that.
       ,
      Is understandable that after Sept 11, 2001, National Security has grown paranoid being afraid of other attack. But that doesn't give them the right to " secrely listen to conversations betwwen U.S citizens and persons oveseas without first obtaining approval of FISA court judge, as required by law." (the virtuous spy. p14).  We as citizen of the U.S, we have the right to our personal privacy, we all have secrets that is part of life, if we tell the other all of our self, then what is left of us?.  With they spying on us, we automatically loose every right and the integrity to ourselves which is what many times can hold us together.

    By the goverment spying on us, they have violated our rights, rights that where established by them with the intention of fair ruling goverment. I believe that National Security, should deal with the problems of the nation, and no the ones of the citizen. "Moral authority to spy comes without general authority or run rough-shod over legal rights, social expectation and Human feelings" " ( The virtuous spy.p 15). We have the right to privacy, and the goverment shouldn't target on us, unless we ahve been ID as a potential target to National Security, only there the govermetn should be authorized to spy on us.
    What we do in our life, is no business of the goverment, no matter what they say, or why they say they do it. As Human beings, and people living in the US, our rights shouldn't be violated by some agency or person that has more power and money than us.
National Security should really draw a line of spying for the sake for the sake of the nations' well being and personal privacy. probably they would argue taht we live, and are the nation and they try to protect us, well i tell them to first Idnetify possibly threats to national Security and then take actions.