The question over government surveillance vs. private security has become increasingly controversial with the rise in technology. Democracy calls for a free flow of information and expression of ideas. We have a right to privacy of thoughts and communication with others. However, how much privacy should be guaranteed at the risk of national security? With the rise in technology and the age of the internet, terrorists and criminals are able to spread radicalism more easily. Much of the communication within terrorist groups occurs on technological platforms and through the internet. Therefore, a valid argument exists that the government should have access to these private communications in order to prevent possible disasters and attacks. Along with terrorism, the use of technology and internet facilitates sexual abuse and drug dealing. Again, if the government can get ahold of private information from sex offenders, rape, kidnapping, and sexual abuse could be combatted.
I think that government surveillance in order to protect the safety of the public is justified in most cases. The majority of Americans do not have private information worth investigating by the government. Therefore, if the government gets ahold of their private information, then they have no reason to worry because what they are communicating isn’t of any harm to others.
I don’t think companies, however, should be obligated to weaken their encryption or design back doors for the purposes of surveillance. If tech companies purposely make their systems less secure, then other hackers, not just government programs, would be able to get ahold of people’s information. Many times, we think that making information less private means keeping the public safe from criminals and terrorism, but security also affects everyday information such as social security numbers, personal identification, credit card numbers etc. I think that companies like Apple are responsible for protecting the privacy of users by making their systems robust. However, if the government is concerned about an individual based on reasonable evidence, the information should be investigated to some degree if people’s safety is in danger.
With the rise of terrorism in the world, the government has a duty to do what it can to keep its people safe. The world is new to technology and internet, and while they make life easier in many senses, their growth and power also pose risks. People from across the world can be connected in milliseconds because of the internet. While individual privacy is at risk when it comes to government surveillance, we need to evaluate what is more important: our individual privacy or the safety of the public? While I do believe that government surveillance should be limited, some intrusion is necessary to combat terrorism, abuse, violence, and criminal acts. In an ideal world, the government and tech companies will work together to find a solution to this fine line and work to find a balance.