The Monitoring of the Public by the Government - Essay Example

Does The Government Have The Right To Monitor The Public? Right or Wrong? The need to monitor the public by the government has become inevitable particularly with the rising levels of insecurity. Although the government has the responsibility of maintain and enhancing national security, it has an obligation to protect civil liberties of its citizens. Civil liberties include personal privacy, which the public claim that the government has neglected or violated. The issue of public privacy became a controversial issue following the September 11 terrorist attacks in the country. Since then, the government through various security agencies has been accused of highhandedness in dealing with the public. In addition, different government agencies have been involved in actions that jeopardize individual privacy (Pollock 45). It is therefore wrong for the government to monitor the public. This essay will discuss why it is wrong for the government to monitor the public. The essay will establish the discussion in relation to the current individual privacy vs. national security debate. Following the September 11 attacks, the federal government established the Patriot Act to enhance national security. According to Sunstein, the Act was introduced to monitor the public in order to prevent any future acts of terrorism (23). Fighting terrorism is an excellent idea for the country and the world. However, the American government seems to have taken the fight to an extreme end. This is because the war on terrorists has ended up on people’s doorstep making them to become victims of the war. Since the implementation of the Patriot Act, the First and Fourth Amendment were changed to heighten war on terror. This led to a compromise on people’s freedoms by invading their personal privacy. According to the Act, the authorities have the rights to vary the degree of monitoring the public in their efforts to protect state’s welfare. According to the constitution, individual privacy is a civil liberty that the federal government has a duty to protect. The patriot Act designed to enhance national security made has made the government to incur heavy cost. The cost incurred by the government in ensuring national stands out as an opportunity cost. The government needed to consider the opportunity cost that it suffered in ensuring national security at the expense of civil liberties. In particular, the government suffered Loss of credibility and trust from the people. If the government considers these costs then it could realize that it is unnecessary and wrong to monitor the public. Maintaining national security is the responsibility of the government while monitoring the people is not a government’s responsibility. Every American citizen believes that war against terrorist compromises people’s democracy and should be controlled. Democracy was established to enhance people’s freedom on their movement, speech, and personal privacy among other civil liberties. Personal privacy is a civil liberty and hence a symbol of democracy. It is evident that authorities always have difficulties distinguishing terrorists from citizens. Similarly, the authorities do not have the ability to differentiate between civil property and properties used by terrorists. This implies that it is difficult to respect people’s privacy and at the same time intensify the war on terrorism. As a nation, America has been emulated around the world as a symbol of democracy. The act of intruding of personal privacy has nullified the existence of democracy in the country (Gross 74). The federal government should consider introducing policies that that reduces monitoring of people despite the immediate needs to fight terrorism. A democratic country has the freedom of movement and speech as basic rights of the citizens. Democracy also considers socialization and formation of social groups as a basic right of the citizens. With the needs to fight terrorism, America has stopped considering these as basic rights in a democratic nation. The government’s effort to enhance national security introduced conditionality into basic human rights. It has been established that the needs to fight terrorism has also made the federal government to restrict people’s movement. Restriction of movement was normally imposed to protect places of national interests or high-risk areas from terrorist attacks. This move restricted people’s freedom of movement and this has increased questions about American democracy. The country also needs to consider its international credibility and the symbol of democracy bestowed on it. Historically America had been considered as a symbol of democracy and all nations across the world always admired the level of American democracy. Ensuring national security is critical to the country. However, the government cannot afford to lose the value at hand in pursuit of unknown value. National security that surpasses American democracy is unknown value for the nation and therefore the government needs to consider the issue before taking the security measures that it has taken (Hardin 98). In addition, democracy has more value to the country than the proposed secure nation. If the government values its national and global duties of maintaining democracy then, it will prioritize individual privacy over security. Maintaining national security through excessive monitoring of people is an expensive venture to the government and to the country. The country should therefore, evaluate the benefit the country achieves from such measures in relation to the value it loses. The government also needs to consider the opportunity cost of such action before implementing them. National security is crucial to both the people and the country. Maintaining national security has an opportunity cost that the federal government should consider before making its decision. Compromising personal freedoms and individual privacy is a direct opportunity cost from enhanced national security. In addition, the total population of the citizens is beyond the population of criminals. This indicates that compromising personal privacy has greater cost to the country and the federal government than the results achieved from excessive monitoring of people. Appropriate decisions are logical decisions that are based on benefits and cost. If the federal government makes this consideration, then it should consider issues of individual privacy to be more valuable than national security. The government incurs greater costs by compromising individual privacy in its efforts to enhance national security. The federal government should therefore, consider having policies that maintain individual privacy than policies that enhance a secure nation. According to Hutchings, there is no appropriate definition of national security (102). This implies that national security is a relative factor that has no absolute definition or interpretation. The security level of a country at any given time depends on several factors. Some of these factors are beyond the control of the federal government and therefore, the country cannot achieve absolute security. National security is therefore, immeasurable while personal freedom has direct measures and implication to the people (Hutchings 145). The intensity at which the government monitors the public determines how the government acknowledges the significance of individual privacy. Pursuing national security is therefore an unachievable effort that the government needs to reconsider. On the other hand, maintaining individual privacy is achievable and measurable. A perfect decision by the government will therefore, be biased towards individual privacy. It is obvious that fighting terrorism is a fruitless venture since terrorism is more of an ideology than a reality (Gross 204). In addition, terrorism is shifting phase that cannot be eliminated through the government’s antiterrorism efforts such as monitoring the public. The government should therefore, invest its resources and efforts into more rewarding activities. Maintaining individual privacy is more rewarding to the government and the people and, therefore, the government needs to reconsider its decision. Conclusion Monitoring the public is wrong and an unnecessary effort by the government. Although maintaining national security is an important duty of the federal government, the government still has the responsibility of maintaining people’s rights and freedom. The government should therefore, establish a balance between the two roles in order to maintain democracy. Ensuring national security at the expense of civil liberties is costly to the country. The recent financial crisis that affected the country and the world must have resulted from the misplaced priorities. The country would perform better with policies that promote personal privacy. The federal government should therefore prioritize on personal privacy since it is beneficial to the government and the country. Works Cited Hardin, Steve. “Openness, privacy, and National Security Post 9/11: A debate”. Bulletin of the American society for information science and technology, Feb/Mar (2003); 29, 3. Web. Gross, Emanuel. “The struggle of a democracy against terrorism—Protection of human rights: The right to privacy versus the national interest—The proper balance”, Cornell International Law Journal 37, (2004): 27-32. Print. Hutchings, Vincent. Public opinion and democratic accountability: how citizens learn about politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003. Print. Pollock, Jackson. “Ethics and the Criminal Justice Curriculum,” Journal of Criminal Jus-tice Education, 4.2 (1993):377-391. Print. Sunstein, Cass. “Terrorism and probability neglect ‘, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26. 21(2003): 21-136. Print. Read More