As part of a series of political blog posts, this will be (as you may have guessed) on the legitimacy of the NSA. Before I begin, however, I want to clarify some key stances I take, and briefly address them in order to preface this series. I may or may not go in to greater detail on these specific issues in further writings.
The purpose of government: The protection of rights. With obligations first to its citizens.
Rights: Individuality.
I believe that the protection of rights, is the protection of individuality. The government as a body should protect the expression of individuality, and laws should be crafted as such, in order to prevent an individual's expression, should it hinder another's individuality. We can all relate this back to the classic example: I have the right to swing my fist, until it comes into contact with your face.
Any questions/concerns can be directed to me via email, but I will address this more in a later writing.
Speed limits. They're great, right? Speed limits help to keep order and peace, maintain an efficient traffic system, as well as protect people from potential danger. While some would contend that these limits would hinder their expression of individuality, they would be correct. Some people find excessive speeds to be exhilarating. However, allowing everyone to drive at any speed could cause greater danger to many. Though some drivers may very well be responsible, there will always be reckless individuals who will abuse that speed. While the expression of individuality does not directly harm another's individuality, the mere fact that it is allowed to go on puts others' safety at stake.
Many citizens decry the NSA as being pure evil, without taking a step back to consider it for what it is. The NSA uses wire-tapping, email and Internet usage filtration, and other means of digital storage in order to spot threats to national security before it's too late. Before I continue my defense of this, let me clarify: I do not believe this ability should be used in any way, shape, or form of enforcement for civil or criminal law, and should be for national security only. Many, in fact most citizens use on-line or electronic communication for noble causes, and legitimate reasons, but not all do. As stated in regards to speed limits the expression in and of itself will not (when practiced by the responsible) endanger others, but the mere allowance of this to go un-checked, or un-filtered jeopardizes national security. Contrary to a popular belief, the NSA doesn't just read through people's emails so they can know about their social life. Instead, filtration is often employed for finding key words, sayings, or phrases. It is then analyzed, and action is taken. However, all material is stored for future use. For example, a terrorist cell could develop a code, a way to communicate that sounds normal, but avoids all the target words, and therefore bypass this system. If that is discovered, the material will be needed in order to be reviewed. The NSA is not the bad guy in this situation, in fact, it is one of the organizations that helps protect us from the bad guys. To think that this is an infringement on our privacy would be lucrative, as there is no difference in the way your life goes on with or without the organization. And to declare the potential lives saved not to be worth it, for sake of your "privacy" would be a failure to uphold the sole purpose of a United States Citizen.
Speed limits and the NSA. They may be more similar than you first thought. Both help to protect the individuality of many, while 'infringing' on individuality in only the slightest manner.
No comments:
Post a Comment