The Threat of Extremism and Violent Environments
With the heightened threat of extremism and violent environments in the postmodern globalized world, many countries have implemented strict legislation to defend their people by ensuring that terrorist activities can be prevented before they occur. Such interventions may have detrimental consequences, such as restricting citizens' rights and reducing their privacy. In many countries around the world today, the distinction between what is considered private and public knowledge is razor-thin, especially in repressive states like China.
Infringement on Civil Liberties
Governments are systematically infringing on citizens' civil liberties by gaining access to private information about them, often without their permission or consent. While the extent of the surveillance is unknown, governments have admitted to collecting vast amounts of information about their citizens by monitoring communication through emails, conversations on social media, public camera surveillance, and recording phone calls (Foucault, Senellart and Burchell 74). These practices were stepped up by many governments across the world after the 9/11 attacks, with the United States government passing the USA PATRIOT Act (Boykoff 470). The basis for enacting such laws is that national and public security is more important than individual freedom. This raises the question, can freedom and security coexist in the digital age?
Balancing Freedom and Security
In order to ensure that they are protected, citizens have to concede some degree of private and public autonomy. This is because nowadays, the amount of data that has to be analyzed for security agencies to establish a pattern of behavior that might indicate a security risk is huge. Furthermore, such patterns are online, and there isn't one wire that security agencies can tap for an individual suspected of engaging in terrorist activities. Unlike the era of the world war, when the means of communication were fewer and surveillance could be targeted at an individual, the digital age requires that numerous channels of communication are examined if security threats are to be identified in time. Thus freedom and security cannot coexist; there has to be more of one at any given time.
Works Cited
Boykoff, Jules. “How Patriotic Is The Patriot Act?: Freedom Versus Security In The Age Of Terrorism How Patriotic Is The Patriot Act?: Freedom Versus Security In The Age Of Terrorism.” The Journal of Politics 68.2 (2006): 470-471. Web. 17 Feb. 2017.
Foucault, Michel, Michel Senellart, and Graham Burchell. Security, Territory, Population. 1st ed. New York: Picador, 2009. Print.
