Homeland Security and Privacy Expectations - Literature review Example

Debate between the needs of Homeland Security and individual-privacy expectations Debate between the needs of Homeland Security and individual-privacy expectations Introduction The department of homeland security came into being following the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001. The major objective of the department of homeland security is to fight terrorist attacks within the United States. Homeland Security works closely with other government departments to prevent domestic terrorism. This paper seeks to explore the debate surrounding the needs of homeland security and individual privacy expectations. More specifically, the paper will examine the arguments concerning how needs of homeland security conflict with individual privacy expectations. Discussion According to Haulley (2005), the devastating September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks significantly impacted on nations around the world. Following the attacks, the United States government made the safety of the public and nation’s security a top priority. Consequently, the government passed legislation that allowed the police and security forces to have more surveillance powers. Linden (2007) asserts that this saw the introduction of new controls on the verification of identity and physical movements, which monitored movements along borders and airports. For instance, biometrics technology came into being; the introduction of such technology has given rise to debates concerning the need to balance individual liberties and protect the nation against threats from terrorists. As the department of homeland security works hard to ensure that it maintains security within the United States, it faces challenges in addressing issues of privacy. The department has not succeeded in ensuring that the issues concerning privacy are addressed comprehensively and assessed when making programmatic changes (Sauter & Carafano, 2005). Federal agencies working under the department of homeland security have engaged in data mining, which entails analyzing a lot of data to make known hidden relationships. The issue of data mining has faced uncertainty and controversy as it interferes with individual privacy. Department of homeland security does not assess the privacy risks posed by the tools used in data mining (Rabkin, 2005). According to Rabkin (2005), with the inception of the department of homeland security, issues of national security and privacy have become core in the war against terror. Whenever privacy comes in during a debate for national security, issues of whether one should keep their information private and be safe from attacks dominate the debate. As such, antiterrorism has set up an unreasonable equation, where people have to choose between the need for security and keep their personal information private. Both issues can be regarded as crucial as the constitution protects against the interference with personal privacy. Therefore, the government should determine the value of privacy and how it ought to be protected. In its efforts to preserve national security, the department of homeland security should not undermine the rights of individuals to keep personal information private. Debates ensue over the privacy challenges, which the department of homeland security faces, especially in reassessing the risks of privacy when changes came into being in developing a prescreening program in airlines (Sauter & Carafano, 2005). The computer-assisted system for prescreening of passengers, also known as Secure Flight, aims at assessing passengers before they board airlines in domestic flights. In such an instance, homeland security does not fully disclose how it will use private information. This is contrary to the privacy act of 1974, which states that the use of private information should be fully disclosed (Thaler, 2005). The Department of Homeland Security also faces the issue of making sure that considerations on privacy remain confidential in an environment where the sharing of information has become a norm. The enactment of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 stated the need for establishing an environment, which would ensure sharing of terrorist information. Moreover, the act requires for the issuance of guidelines regarding privacy while carrying out operations on terrorism. The department of homeland security has failed in ensuring that information under its control can be shared with other agencies in ways, which ensure the adequate protection of individual privacy (Randol, 2010). According to Sauter & Carafano (2005), debate has also arisen from the failure of the homeland security to establish departmental guidelines. As a result, it has become extremely challenging for the department to ensure the implementation of privacy protections happens consistently and properly. Debate has also emanated from the issue regarding the control of the collection as well as use of personal information, which may be collected from commercial sources. Randol (2010) argues that federal agencies have faced the challenge of ensuring that the information obtained from resellers undergoes appropriate use and protection. Consistencies have also arisen on the ways such information should be treated. This stems from the fact that the federal agencies may not be certain about the application of privacy requirements regarding this information. For instance, the public may not be notified on  how information from resellers is used. Therefore, the department of homeland security should develop a policy in regard to how such information should be used. Under the United States constitution, citizens have privacy rights in regard to informational privacy, decisional privacy, physical privacy, as well as communications privacy. However, the measures undertaken by the department of homeland security undermine these rights, which should not be violated. The numerous aims to end terrorism do not allow persons to control their personal information, a requirement provided for in the constitution (Thaler, 2005). Moreover, homeland security significantly interferes with physical privacy; officials from this department carry out searches that tend to interfere with the control of one’s body and personal space. These violations of the various privacy rights have led to the discrediting of the methods used by homeland security to combat domestic terrorism (Sauter & Carafano, 2005). As Goldstein (2010) asserts, Homeland security has been accused of not ensuring that transmissions that use radio frequency identification technology (RFID) can consistently protect the privacy of persons. This technology uses wireless communication in transmitting data; as a result, people can be electronically tracked and identified. The inconsistent use of this technology has been subject to numerous debates. It can be discredited due to the risks it poses of creating unnecessary risks to the privacy of persons. Individuals should not be tracked without their knowledge; this tracking can be considered as a constitutional violation, which infringes the rights of American citizens. According to Linden (2007), the sharing of private information with other law enforcement agencies, which work in line with the department of homeland security, has also become a key issue of debate. In the sharing of such information, there is a possibility for the violation of departmental guidelines. The guidelines on the sharing of this private information should be revisited to ensure that the federal agents do not share private information regarding terrorist suspects. This concern should be addressed adequately, a thing that the department of homeland security does not handle properly. Debate has cropped up since the department of homeland security does not take the adequate measures to ensure that all the departments uphold privacy. The dissemination of information should only be for the purposes of security and not other non-security purposes. In its efforts to prevent domestic terrorism, homeland security has faced profound criticism. For instance, the agency abuses the Privacy Act, which prohibits the disclosure, use or even collection of personal information maintained in records. Homeland security accesses information about persons, which may be stored in records containing identifiers such as a person’s name (Goldstein, 2010). Under the Privacy Act, the agency maintaining the record of persons should notify the public when they want to make changes. However, this does not happen with the department of homeland security. Information regarding individuals is accessed without the agency notifying the public (Haulley, 2005). According to Goldstein (2010), other criticisms of homeland security in regard to privacy entail the massive powers accorded to the agency with regard to collection of information about terrorism. The department of homeland security can collect and tap information regarding e-mail and Web browsing, which happens without prior review by the judiciary. Moreover, internet service providers, administrators of networks, and universities can authorize that computer trespassers be surveiled. In addition, the department of homeland security has powers to search offices as well as homes without notifying the owners. Thaler (2005) observes that this happens both in terrorism and non-terrorism cases. These powers accorded to the department of homeland security lead to the misuse of its mandate. As a result, individuals have complained of excessive interference in personal affairs by the department of homeland security. Conclusion In conclusion, the United States government has made the safety of the public and nation security a top priority. Consequently, the government passed legislation that allowed the police and security forces to have more surveillance powers. This saw the establishment of the department of homeland security. The activities of the department have received widespread criticism from the public for a number of reasons. For example, a serious debate has ensued regarding the intrusion in private affairs by homeland security. People argue that homeland security interferes with their privacy by collecting personal information without authorization, especially from the owners of such information. In addition, the agency has faced criticism for unwarranted searched of premises. References Goldstein, M. L. (2010). Homeland Security: Greater Attention to Key Practices Would Improve the Federal Protective Services Approach to Facility Protection. New York: DIANE Publishing. Haulley, F. (2005). The Department of Homeland Security. New York: Rosen Classroom. Linden, E. (2007). Focus on Terrorism, Volume 9. New York: Nova Publishers. Rabkin, N. J. (2005). Homeland Security: Agency Plans, Implementation, and Challenges Regarding the National Strategy for Homeland Security. London: DIANE Publishing. Randol, M. (2010). Department of Homeland Security Intelligence Enterprise: Operational Overview and Oversight Challenges for Congress. London: DIANE Publishing. Sauter, M. & Carafano, J. J. (2005).Homeland Security: A Complete Guide To Understanding, Preventing, And Surviving Terrorism. New York: McGraw-Hill. Thaler, W. (2005). Emerging Issues in Homeland Security. New York: Nova Publishers. Read More