National Security or Freedom?

omej · Jan 16, 2009

Patriot Act. FISA. With all these bills that increase the power of law enforcement, which do you prefer.

Living in a society where an increased risk of danger, however also having absolute freedoms of your privacy.

Living in a society that is safer but your activities are more strictly monitored.

In my opinion, freedom wins here. I would rather have the ability to call somebody in another country or send an email to a friend without having to have it screened by somebody.

Not to mention the *huge* risk of abuse. Several months ago an investigating was opened into the FBI because people admitted to using warrant less wiretapping without any cause or "national security letter."

So in your opinion, how far does the government go?

Rick · Jan 16, 2009

I believe for the safety and security of society we should be strictly monitored to be honest it does make me feel uneasy at the thought of someone knowing every discussion I take part in and move I make but if that means more safety and less risk of attacks that could harm several hundreds of people then it's something I can live with.

My privacy being invaded does make me slightly uneasy but the point is it doesn't really affect my day to day life or living and if I know my life being monitored could help prevent lives or even save one life or one huge incident from happening then I am all for it.

I wouldn't however be up for getting like a chip or anything like that put into me like they are trying on some people that is to far I believe right now it's fine maybe laws need to be reviewed to decide a line that can't be crossed and procedures put into place on how much and when a person can be monitored but I think right now all measures in place seem fair.

For example phone calls cell phone signals CCTV SMS transcripts have all helped solve crimes where murders have taken place, where thousands of people could have died in national security incidents or where child abduction or crime has taken place.

To be honest I'm really not that concerned if I am constantly monitored lol.

Rick

omej · Jan 16, 2009

Rick said:
I believe for the safety and security of society we should be strictly monitored to be honest it does make me feel uneasy at the thought of someone knowing every discussion I take part in and move I make but if that means more safety and less risk of attacks that could harm several hundreds of people then it's something I can live with.

My privacy being invaded does make me slightly uneasy but the point is it doesn't really affect my day to day life or living and if I know my life being monitored could help prevent lives or even save one life or one huge incident from happening then I am all for it.

I wouldn't however be up for getting like a chip or anything like that put into me like they are trying on some people that is to far I believe right now it's fine maybe laws need to be reviewed to decide a line that can't be crossed and procedures put into place on how much and when a person can be monitored but I think right now all measures in place seem fair.

For example phone calls cell phone signals CCTV SMS transcripts have all helped solve crimes where murders have taken place, where thousands of people could have died in national security incidents or where child abduction or crime has taken place.

To be honest I'm really not that concerned if I am constantly monitored lol.

Rick

Yeah that is a rather common viewpoint, basically "if you aren't doing anything wrong, than don't worry about it." That's a perfectly valid viewpoint.

The cell phone example you gave requires a court authorized subpoena to check the records. I have no problems with that and other court ordered surveillance. But to me is the issue is the WARRANTLESS part of everything. Once that starts, it can only become more restrictive.

Rick · Jan 16, 2009

haha so that leaves me with the question what are you doing wrong lol?

No all joking aside I think every view point is valid here I mean it's totally understandable why someone would not like or respect there privacy being interfered with.

I suppose it's when government make mistakes which have been made where they have been monitoring someone and heard something wrong or looked into it wrong when problems occur.

I do agree thought it can only do GOOD to place a little more restrictions on how government officials can go about monitoring people as I am aware there have been cases where people in power have used there authority and abused it to gain evidence of a crime or to access personal files and records that shouldn't be accessed.

In this case I do believe authority members can be up to no good and it can do a lot of damage after all people in government are only human they get things wrong to.

Therefore I agree in the respect that stricter regulations should be put into place.

mrregularman · Jan 17, 2009

The constitution has to be respected at all times. There are already systems in place to obtain wiretaps, investigations, warrants.

The problem in America is these systems are slow, and depend too much on the specific judge in place where applications are made.

The answer lies someplace in the middle of the two points of view. I am willing to live with a larger presence of investigators concentrating on terrorist activities, but I do not want my life monitored without just cause.

Imagine when this site has thousands of members, if someone on the terrorist watch list were to join and post, does every person here deserve to have their bank accounts, emails, phone calls, friends and relatives interviewed and investigated? It is not only intrusive, it is a waste of $ resources.

I do not know the answer, but the Patriot Act went too far. There are too many people whose lives are disrupted without cause.

jessika · Jan 17, 2009

omeythehomie said:
Patriot Act. FISA. With all these bills that increase the power of law enforcement, which do you prefer.

Living in a society where an increased risk of danger, however also having absolute freedoms of your privacy.

Living in a society that is safer but your activities are more strictly monitored.

In my opinion, freedom wins here. I would rather have the ability to call somebody in another country or send an email to a friend without having to have it screened by somebody.

Not to mention the *huge* risk of abuse. Several months ago an investigating was opened into the FBI because people admitted to using warrant less wiretapping without any cause or "national security letter."

So in your opinion, how far does the government go?

Well, as far as freedom and safety are concerned, i think these two aspects of a person's life are inevitable and it's quite hard to choose one at the cost of another. In my opinion, when a part of absolute freedom is taken away for the sake of national security, it is quite justifiable as the price which we might have to pay due to lack of security and repercussions can be grave and severe. I don't feel any harm in disclosing a few secrets until they are used against me and as long as i am not doing something unacceptable to the society.

Creativeelement · Jan 17, 2009

For me, as far as freedom and safety are concerned, I would like to have a balence between the two but I don't think that could ever be accomplished as it would be to difficult to accomidate everyones wants.

clash · Jan 17, 2009

Freedom is far more important than safety. I would rather live a great life with few restrictions and die young than live a long, boring life with the government hounding my every move. I am STRONGLY against the patriot act. I think it is not only unconstitutional, it is inhumane.

Jan · Jan 18, 2009

Freedom for the win! Well honestly I think it's important to have both freedom and safety in our country. We have the safety (and we are paying SH*T loads to get that safety). That we miss to day is the freedom to walk the street without being afraid to getting mod or anything like that.

I think we have much to learn from our north neighbors, Canada. There can we talk about Safety and Freedom! Just watch mr Mores documentary about guns in USA.

K1nS · Jan 18, 2009

I would much rather freedom in this case, no matter how much the government change things, their will still be some danger around. People being more strict wont help much I don't think, people are so used to doing what they want now and not really having to answer to anyone so why would they change?

Creativeelement · Jan 18, 2009

All of you bring up really great points that I never even thought of before. Thanks to all of you guys for helping me see some things differently.

mike21 · Jan 18, 2009

So you are saying that on the name of national security the government should put a person in prison,torture him,doesn't allow him to get a lawyer and not to mention check all his personal belongings and he is in prison until he confesses,this ladies and gentlemen is the patriot act of u.s.a. after 9/11 it doesn't sounds really bad to have a law in America but ask those people who were caught walking on the road and those who were awoken in the middle of the night just because on the name of terrorism and not to mention the government who didn't have any proof against these people,this act is the biggest blow on the free spirit of America.

The Parakeet · Jan 19, 2009

Basic Benjamin Franklin. He who is willing to give up a bit of essential liberty for increased security will receive neither (paraphrased).

That said, I'm not exactly panicked by the US government's security. It seems pretty reasonable so far. I always find hatred of the Patriot Act funny, because I honestly believe it was meant as a fluff bill to please the masses (think of the name). They have always had the power to do these things under the established laws. This just made it public knowledge. FISA was mentioned which I find the most interesting.

The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has been around for 30 years. It has granted warrants to the intelligence community for a long time and it allowed post-search warrants. If they really need to do something quickly, then they were allowed to plant the bugs and ask for the warrant later when time allowed. It was evaluated based on the knowledge they had at the time.

I find it fascinating to watch Discovery Channel documentaries of intelligence work in recent history. There is a lot of procedure to make sure that they do calculated efforts that make a difference. The freedoms in place are vital, if nothing else, as a way to check their actions and make them take a moment to make sure they are right.

pingpong12 · Jan 24, 2009

Hey , I always like my police state mixed in with a little "for my own protection" and a little " to combat terrorism" sprinkled on top. Where is Emperor Palpatine when we need him most

repblue · Jan 24, 2009

National Security.

Principles and Freedom are of little use to you if you're dead.

pingpong12 · Jan 24, 2009

repblue said:
National Security.

Principles and Freedom are of little use to you if you're dead.

Thats what every elite leader wants you to believe right before you get into a police state. Hey didnt Hitler warn his people about this also?

myp · Jan 24, 2009

The government needs to protect the people from other countries and from killing each other, but this should not be at the risk of losing privacy or any of the freedoms in the constitution, including the right to bear arms.

pingpong12 · Jan 26, 2009

myp said:
The government needs to protect the people from other countries and from killing each other, but this should not be at the risk of losing privacy or any of the freedoms in the constitution, including the right to bear arms.

True, very true, but also thank god for the freedom of information act, without which we never would have truely known about things like mossadegh or the gulf of tonkin.

Jlk311 · Feb 10, 2009

Loose all my freedom or be free?

Now I know no one will condone losing all your freedom so that you can feel safe and secure.

How much freedom should we lose?

How much of the Constitution we just disregard?

How many people should be jailed INDEFINITELY with NO trial? With the proverbial key thrown away just so we don't have to be scared.

SIGNIFICANTLY more crimes and terrorist acts have been committed by Americans. Should we have started picking and choosing from the Constitution sooner?

The Parakeet · Feb 10, 2009

Way to blow it out of proportion. There is one American I know of who was held without a speedy trial. It was that one guy who was arrested for terrorism and held in a brig in Virginia while the Supreme Court thought about it. They ultimately decided it was wrong.

Believe it or not, it's possible to have freedom and security if the population is aware and the government is responsible. Big ifs...but its the best thing we got.

National Security or Freedom?

Similar threads