Privacy vs National security

// Posted by on 02/21/2014 (11:16 PM)

The internet is a tool that came into this world to revolutionize it. It has had a positive side in it: the internet can be a medium which gives the opportunity to talk to other people, do homework, etc. However, it is a double-row because the freedom of this service can be used for bad purposes such as pornography and theft, among others.

The internet can be used by all people around the world, giving us the opportunity to create accounts with passwords and freedom to use it according to our needs. But what happens when someone starts to get into your account, review your information and what you’re doing? What if it is the government who are doing it? Would you accept it or would reject it?

After the attacks of 9/11 United States looked to increase their safety. It began to do research to discover terrorist and possible terrorist suspects who attacked its. However, in my opinion that does not justify the fact that the government is in the networks of its citizens who had never been involved in any trouble for being “suspicious”.

Checking the internet was something that the government was not difficult because nobody knew about it, but at the moment this was released ,not only affect the USA for the other countries that found that espionage was being done to them , as Mexico , who discovered recently that the U.S. government had been reviewing their phone calls. This information was released by Snowden and draft hack President Calderon was authorized by the NSA (Lara , 2013) . Moreover people also must have felt anger and distrust of the government know that they were not getting information from the government for all documents were exposed, but this (the government) had the information  about them because of the espionage.

It is understood that probably all governments around the world use some kind of intelligence to maintain their position in front of others, to know what plans against them and ensure which is on its side.

“I’m willing to sacrifice all (…) because I can’t in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they’re secretly building” (Snowden)  The government U.S. should have no rights of abuse of his power to investigate people who have done nothing against him.

It is clear that the government is playing with a double face. This is because it is not considering their society, which makes it a non-democratic country. Likewise, the facts show a crafted way to getting other governments to support the war in Afghanistan is wrong.  WikiLeaks has shown through the exhibition of documents that have been violations of human rights, military attacks on civilians, among others;  Where is the American country that wanted to be the example for everyone else?

The rules are essential in everything. That’s why they should be placed on the internet and it would continue being free. Applying standards could prevent child pornography and trafficking online. In the same way, citizens should be able to ask the state for information and receive it. I support Snowden in his position that in need to be two-way communication between citizens and government, likewise, should not be able to investigate the information from someone else unless there is an approve letter from a judge.

WikiLeaks and Snowden are an example of knowing and doing the right thing and injustice. Clearly, the got into trouble with the law, but did so because they want the U.S. government is as it was before:“ The example of all other countries, not a corrupt one”.





Lara (2013) “Calderón dio aval a espías. y lo espiaron; EU intervino su correo electrónico” Excelsior. Disponible en obtenido el 20 de febrero de 2014.

Categories: Uncategorized


Cora said...

In the beginning of your blog post, you ask readers if they would still use the internet and share information if they knew that their government had access to it. Although I understand that you are addressing the issue of privacy, I think it is commonly known that what goes on the internet stays on the internet. In our society, people readily use networks such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and MySpace. They share information—pictures, birthdays, interests, relationship status—without much of a second thought. The amount of information mere strangers have access to is unimaginable and daunting. It is not as if the government is going to target an individual for some small, unimportant wrongdoing. Rather, they are keep an eye out for potentially threatening or dangerous situations that are exposed through technology. You believe Snowden to be noble and “doing the right thing”. If he truly believed he was protecting the rights of Americans with only positive intent, why did he flee? He could have stayed and fought, brave enough to fight for his beliefs in the American public. By running away, he comes off as a coward; brave enough to reveal some of the most significant secrets but too scared to own up to his words. At some point, citizens of a country have to trust and support their government in order for their society to function. Furthermore, we have to trust that they are keep certain secrets for a reason and the overall goal is to protect their country and people. At the end of the day, Snowden is a US citizen and he broke the law, plain and simple. Whether people believe he was right or wrong, him seeking refuge abroad is not the answer.

// 02/24/2014 at 11:34 pm

Molly said...

I do agree that there should be some type of rules and regulations on the internet to help inhibit theft, illegal downloads, and pornography etc. but I think that is a venture easier said than done. The internet being a “third space” where no one owns or really runs, who is going to be in charge of establishing and enforcing these rules of cyber space? Would these rules be applied internationally? How will these rules be implemented? Firewalls? Also, I feel like the internet was developed as space free of hierarchy and control, so would the development of a rule system be completely going against everything the internet initially stands for? I can’t even fathom how a regulatory system could be successfulyl created and implemented. Also, I feel as though hackers and groups such as “anonymous” would continue to find ways to understand hack and cheat the regulatory system, creating more issues. Actually the more I think about, the more impossible it seems. If it was an international code of law that ruled the internet, how would we find a happy medium of what is acceptable to some countries and what is not? For example, America and China would definitely have opposing opinions as to what should be allowed and what shouldn’t, posing fundamental problems to the very development of cyber law in the first place.

// 02/25/2014 at 11:55 am