The balance between security and personal privacy is an issue that has been raised innumerable times since the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Some believe that even mentioning the 9/11 attacks in conjunction with security or privacy has become somewhat cliché, but the reality is that these issues have taken on a new light in years following the event.
This issue may be seen as a spectrum, with absolute security on one end and complete, anonymous privacy on the other.
Where we find ourselves along this spectrum, both individually and as a society, is the question at hand.
It is obvious that as a society we have given up some fairly large measures of security voluntarily, even prior to the 9/11 attacks. The era of the Internet, and all of its associated targeted marketing, spyware, and adware have eliminated the guarantee of absolute privacy online. Further, much of our privacy must be sacrificed in order to do even the most basic things: applying for credit, purchasing a car or home, seeking employment, and so forth all involve divulgences of vast amounts of personal information. While we have created an infrastructure that can largely handle this information without great fault, it is nonetheless a function of our modern times that privacy is perhaps only a shadow of what it once was.
When considering the impact of 9/11 and the global threat of terrorism, however, the security vs. privacy debate takes on a completely different flavor. Whereas our typical day-to-day invasions of privacy are either voluntary or routine (name, address, and phone number, for instance), the new privacy standards take the game several steps further. Background checks on employees and individuals have become more common, and workplace monitoring is a loathsome horror cum mundane reality (King, 2003).
But is this necessarily a bad thing? There are extremes, to be sure; the notion of implanting RFID chips in order to track individuals is a thought that makes most squeamish (Zalud, 2007). The national ID card program, an advancement of the current Social Security Number system, may also appear to many as a scheme to get “Big Brother” too involved in the lives of its citizens. Many will also point to the failure or underwhelming performance of such efforts and claim that these measures are overly invasive, unnecessary, unconstitutional, or morally reprehensible (Petersen, 2002).
And yet, despite these objections, one must take a look at the facts and understand that security is paramount in an era where terrorism and endangerment are at fairly high levels. Our current state of affairs is perhaps better than in eras past, where disease, famine, or incessant war could claim untold numbers. We are cleaner, more civilized, and arguably safer on a daily basis than ever before, and yet security remains a chief concern. Given that this is the case, might it be worth it to surrender some measure of privacy in return for enhanced security?
My opinion is as follows: we should be willing to give in order to take. In other words, we must be willing to sacrifice small measures of privacy in order to achieve greater security. Even with its myriad problems, I still feel safer flying today than I did even a few years ago. I don’t really mind if some database somewhere knows my name, my address, my birthday, or what color shoes I like to wear, so long as I get increased security in return. And while I understand that clear ties between the two (privacy and security) are sometimes difficult to draw, I genuinely believe that information is a powerful tool for the government and law enforcement officials. At the end of the day, the answer is this: the more they know about what is going on inside this country, the better equipped they are to understand and mitigate potential threats.
So the real question, then, is not if we should surrender some amount of privacy, but how much we should be willing to give. This is a matter of long and substantial debate, and the issue will not be solved here. I will say, however, that we as citizens should only have to give up privacy to a point somewhere beneath our tolerable threshold for releasing such information. That is, the government should never require that we provide more information than we feel reasonably comfortable with. This tolerance will likely shift, blur, or be removed completely in the coming years, but such a process should be progressive rather than abrupt. Indeed, at least as far as the workplace environment is concerned, it has been shown that productivity and honesty increase when workers feel that their rights and opinions are respected; this likely holds up for populations in other contexts (IOMA, 2007).
Again, I genuinely believe that I have nothing to hide and therefore have little to fear from those who ask me to surrender small measures of my personal privacy. Criminal intent notwithstanding, I think that the security we can gain far outweighs my fears over my pant size being made public, or pictures of my ugly mug existing in some colossal government database.
References
IOMA. (2007, July). Tightening security on technology devices without increasing worker resentment. IOMA Security Director’s Report, 7(7). Retrieved October 1, 2007 from Business Source Premier.
King, N.J. (2003). Electronic monitoring to promote national security impacts workplace privacy. Employee Responsibility and Rights Journal, 15(3). Retrieved October 1, 2007 from Business Source Premier.
Petersen, S. (2002,April 22). Can security, privacy coexist? eWeek, p. 72. Retrieved October 1, 2007 from Business Source Premier.
Zalud, B. Chipping away at privacy? Security. Retrieved October 1, 2007 from Business Source Premier.
