Security vs. Civil Liberties

Question: What is an ethical democratic citizen's response to this question of security vs. civil liberties as detailed in this program?

Has data mining become inevitable? If we want more security, do we have to give up some of our freedoms? In this FRONTLINE episode, Larry Mefford, former assistant FBI director, believes that we do: "I always said, when I was in my position running counterterrorism operations for the FBI, 'How much security do you want, and how many rights do you want to give up? I can give you more security, but I've got to take away some rights. …' Personally, I want to live in a country where you have a common-sense, fair balance, because I'm worried about people that are untrained, unsupervised, doing things with good intentions but, at the end of the day, harm our liberties."

An ethical democratic citizen's response to this should be accepting, yet aware that we're being watched. And in being aware, we are then letting the government and National Security Agencies know that we are observing them. As long as they stay within their boundaries, that is to say, that they do not use or distribute our personal records for commercial or financial purposes, then it should be alright with citizens. Thus, "what happens in Vegas, will stay in Vegas", only if those happenings are legal and do not threaten our country's safety.

Let's face it, as ethical democratic citizens, it is our responsibility to obey the laws of the Constitution. And by all means, that does not mean that we have to do everything in an ethical manner. It's alright to do unethical things at times (gambling, partying, breaking the speed limit, etc.); that's the beauty of freedom in America. If the NSA or government ever issued those recordings of us doing unethical things to the public, then that is violating our rights. However, the government is currently using programs and surveillance to protect our country from terrorists, and unless we want another 9/11, then we must sacrifice some of our freedoms in order for them to take the necessary precautions to stop the Al-Queda.

Many argue that it goes against the Fourth Amendment, which states that we each have a right to be searched only when presented with a warrant. But since 9/11, the government has been "moving away from the traditional legal standard of investigations based on individual suspicion to generalized suspicion." Former White House privacy adviser to President Clinton, Peter Swire says: "Check everybody. Everybody is a suspect."

Of course, people who have nothing to do with terrorism will be mistakenly violated and intruded upon. The government and FBI admit that their technology and security programs are not perfect, therefore it will be inevitable that innocent people will be affected. But if we fight back, we are only making it more difficult for the government to legally find Al-Queda terrorists before they strike. But once the government begins to turn these "national security" programs around for other purposes when terrorism is no longer a threat, then the ethical democratic citizen should speak out. Think of George Orwell's novel, 1984, where the term "Big Brother is watching you" was coined, referring to the invasive surveillance systems used in the book. Yet, when do we draw the line? What if it is too late when we finally realize that the NSA's programs have turned into the telescreens in Orwell's novel? My only answer for that is: if we stay educated about the current issues around the world (and that we care instead of succumbing to the epidemic going through America called apathy), then we will together make things right in an ethical democratic way.