by Keith Worth

Created on: August 13, 2008   Last Updated: January 28, 2011

Privacy and security seem locked in an eternal tug-of-war. Whenever one side gains ground it appears to be at the expense of the other. It is apparent technology is allowing security the foothold it needs to drag privacy through the mud, metaphorically speaking. As security grew to a major priority in the wake of 9/11, privacy became an early causality of the war on terror. The increasing security measures impede upon civil liberties in a trade off that is oft considered to be a price too high to pay.

At some point during the Bush administration, the definition of the US seemed to shift in the public mind from United States to Unwelcome Surveillance. Many would argue that being a citizen of America enters the denizen in a contract with the government trading certain freedoms for protection and shelter within its borders. To counter this, one can simply confer with the constitution: the one written to preserve freedom with such amendments as the freedom of speech and the freedom of expression. Some argue that the weakened sense of privacy in the nation is trivial compared to the increased security the government offers us through such methods as the Patriot Act. They even may go so far as citing the roughly 50% conviction rate of suspected terrorists due to the U.S intelligence. However, these same supporters of the Patriot Act make no mention of the amount of said convictions that were overturned and make obviously no mention of those wrongly accused.

Recent advances in technology and anti-terrorism laws make it not only possible but also legally acceptable to monitor without detection by the subject under watch. For example, the Patriot Act allows the FBI to employ stealth in tracking their quarry, as evidenced by Brandon Mayfield when agents infiltrated his home on several occasions his family was not present. Fun fact: remove the specifics concerning the FBI, Mr. Mayfield and the Patriot Act from the previous sentence and you have one of the definitions of stalk almost verbatim. The infringement upon privacy did not stop there for Brandon. Using the aforementioned technological advances such as phone taps and monitoring software, the FBI trespassed silently upon Mayfield's conversations in both the medium of vocal telecommunicated and texted email. The hidden irony here is that despite the obvious breaches of basic civil rights and privacy being executed by the agents of the Bureau, it was Brandon Mayfield that was falsely arrested and briefly incarcerated. Upon the man being released from prison with only a formal apology it becomes apparent even our freedom can be taken away from us due to the cold war of privacy and national security, with only an apology given to justify the government's actions.

At this point, one might be wondering just what s/he has to do be considered a suspect and effectively have all his/her rights to privacy stripped away by the ever-vigilant eye of U.S. intelligence and law enforcement. Some of the factors determining who receives such investigative measures are features such as religion, heritage and associations. While it is illegal in our equal opportunity nation to deny someone a job based on race or beliefs, no such laws protect our citizens from this discrimination. According to the Patriot Act, having even the most coincidental link such as similar beliefs or skin color to the terrorists of 9/11 is probable justification for the unwanted and often unnoticed observation from the county calling itself the "land of the free". They may wish to amend that as the increased security measures further smother privacy, perhaps to along the lines of "land where the cost is any sense of confidentiality".

Learn more about this author, Keith Worth.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.