Limiting civil liberties and the right to privacy in the name of defending a liberal democratic nation is the ultimate hypocrisy. Modern, western liberal democracies exist to protect the rights of their citizens.
Limiting civil liberties and the right to privacy in the name of defending a liberal democratic nation is the ultimate hypocrisy. Modern, western liberal democracies exist to protect the rights of their citizens. The great John Lockespiritual father of the modern liberal democracies, believed that all people were born with god-given rights, one of which was liberty, and that the purpose of governments was to protect those rights.
If that same government is attacking our liberty and our privacy under the guise of keeping us secure, than it is betraying its very essence.
Yes, governments are beholden to protect the natural rights of their citizens, but that is just one of many tasks of governing.
Without the social contract we are nothing but intelligent animals, writhing in the state of nature.
When we sign the social contract figuratively that is we give up some of our rights to the government in order that we may be protected, and sometimes that government might have to infringe on our other rights in order to protect us. Overvaluing the Risk of Terrorism In many cases, invasive surveillance laws are passed amidst panic, often right after a terrorist attack when citizens are scared and desperate for anything to make them feel secure again.
It was in such a climate, just after the September 11 terrorist attacks, that the US government passed the Patriot Act.
In these desperate times people rally together, but they are also easily manipulated. It is these moments of crisis that prudence is more important than ever.
The hysteria caused by terrorist attacks is largely caused by a cognitive bias rampant in the human race known as the availability heuristic. The availability heuristic causes people to consider something more dangerous or more imminent when they can easily bring it to mind and imagine it.
It is almost always because of these types of exaggerated risks that our governments take away our freedoms in exchange for security. First of all, the reason that there have been so few terrorist attacks in the last ten years is the direct result of measures such as the Patriot Act.
It is true that people tend to over-value the likelihood of a terrorist attack, but I for one would like to keep it that way so that we remain vigilant. National security is a constant project.
It is more than preventing individual terrorist attacks, it is knowing what our enemies are doing at all times. Why Not Use Legal Channels? These legal channels exist for a reason, so why should our governments bend the law and spy on us? Terrorism is a much different beast than drug trafficking.
Our governments generally deter crime through punishment. By punishing perpetrators of a given crime would-be criminals are discouraged from committing that crime in the future. However, in the case of terrorists, the attacks are often suicide attacks.
The perpetrators of terrorist attacks are so ideologically driven that their personal well-being is of no importance to them. These kind of actions can not be deterred, they can only be prevented. In addition, terrorist attacks are designed to cause as much damage as possible with as few resources as possible.
The aim is destruction and terror. Terrorism is a different beast and thus requires more advanced weapons to be slain. When it comes to anti-terrorism policy, we are extremely susceptible to security theatre because of the availability heuristic discussed above.
Because terrorism is an over-blown threat and politicians know it, they can dazzle us with security theatre and gain our admiration even if nothing effective is really being done. Meanwhile this wasted money could have been spent on something useful like healthcare or education.To understand how the issue of privacy and safety relate to security scanners fully, we must define first the function of the security scanner.
A security scanner is a machine that creates a virtual image of a body and shows everything “opaquely” under a person’s clothes (USA TODAY).
Educating healthcare providers about patient safety and enabling them to use the tools and knowledge to build and maintain a safe system is critical to creating one of the safest health systems in the world. Traffic Camera Monitoring Systems: Safety vs Privicy Essay Words | 3 Pages have seen an increasingly common sight: the onslaught of electronic monitoring devices being placed at traffic lights and intersections with the sole purpose of recording driver behavior to issue citations; all in the name of safety.
The privacy argument used to stop certain government advances; yet again the line between privacy and safety has never been well defined.
To keep majority of the population safe law enforcement officers and government agencies are sometimes faced with the need to infringe on some individuals right to privacy under the idea of common welfare. View the Stony Brook academic calendar, registration deadlines, tuition deadlines, relevant holidays, breaks, final exams, commencement and semester start/end dates.
Let’s start with the philosophical fundamentals. Limiting civil liberties and the right to privacy in the name of defending a liberal democratic nation is the ultimate hypocrisy.