Freedom

Josh Franco

Freedom

Professor Mueller

English 103

12 February 2004

Freedom

Freedom is the pillar of all democratic countries. The United States is the beacon of freedom. People travel across oceans, rivers, mountains and deserts for the chance to live a free life. Free from prosecution, oppression and the ills of their nation. I am amazed to see the honor and pride people have in the United States, whether it be their native home or not.

However, after September 11th, 2001, freedom came under fire. In response to the terrorists attacks, the United States Federal Government sought to reinforce the pillar of freedom. To stabilize a wavering structure, the Government drilled metal bolts and attached high-tension wires from itself to the pillar. Freedom could no longer stand on its own.

Each individual has a distinct voice and are entitled to express their thoughts about the events surrounding Nine-Eleven. Opinions regarding freedom do matter and I want to examine the multiple perspectives on the issue of freedom. Is the Government’s stabilization of freedom too much or not enough?

In “Security Versus Civil Liberties” (Posner) Richard A. Posner brings forth the issue of security versus civil liberties. Posner claims that it’s a “profoundly mistaken approach” to demand that terrorism accommodate itself to civil liberties and states, “Neither, in my view, has priority.” To support his claim, Posner explores the worlds of law and history to support the notion of a “fluid approach.” Such an approach allows for increased importance of one value over another when a time or situation calls for it. In the world of law, since the Constitution is vague, it allows for judicial interpretation and such interpretation allows for judges to weigh “competing interest.” The author also assumes that legislative and judicial officials are responsible and are able to weigh the costs and benefits of holding one value over another. In the world of history, Posner contends that the lesson is “opposite” because “officials have repeatedly and disastrously underestimated” the dangers that exist. Listing a number of events, such as Pearl Harbor and North Korea’s invasion of South Korea exhibit that no-action can lead to over-reaction. The author returns to the idea of law and states, “law is a human creation rather than a divine gift.” The purpose of law is to promote social welfare, a term synonymous with security.

Posner’s article is absolutely brilliant! I love the two-path approach of showing how, through law and history, that security and civil liberties are “fluid” and changing with the times. Neither of them are forced to conformed to the other, establishing that both are equal in value. The argumentation on how the laws exists for the sole purpose of maintaining the welfare of society formulates the notion that laws protect, and if they do not, then the law must change. The actions of a terrorists cannot be controlled, however, the government can take proactive steps to ensure the well-being of the citizens that give in legitimacy. If the government takes no action and allows liberties to be held in the highest regard, then what’s the point of the government? The government is required to defend its people! The reason a government exist is because individual liberties don’t offer blanket protection. A single person’s individual liberties are not greater than society’s safety.

In “The Tools of Freedom and Security” (Lewis) Peter Lewis presents the issue of how to gather information without employing same “draconian” methods of the cultures the United States is battling. Lewis explores six areas of data collection: regulation, encryption, biometrics, government programs, public surveillance and smart-cards and how each can be used to fight terror and impact citizens. Since terrorists use the same means of communication, the need to “tap” into them in required, however the concern of law enforcement abusing such power needs to be addressed. Encryption is the process of protecting data from unauthorized access and viewing. Lewis supports that requiring a “back door” to access encrypted data would “weaken personal privacy” and financial transactions. Under the subject of biometrics, Lewis explains that it allows “unique physical and chemical characteristics” assess the identity of individuals but reduces the “concept of anonymity.” Government programs such as “Carnivore and Echelon” are computer networks that permits government to “sniff” out individuals and corporate communications for specific words such as bomb. Such communication interception, Lewis argues, can give companies competitive advantage because of having information about another competitor that could undermine their business practices. The public surveillance is is brief and the author notes that the courts have upheld the idea that citizens’ “expectation of privacy” in public space is low. The final area is smart-cards that contain a computer chip that contains information such as medical and welfare-benefits data and the ability to access secure locations. An individuals entire history can be on the card. The cards would be prone to counterfeiting and weaken anonymity. Each area supports Lewis claim that “the loss of fundamental liberties” is unacceptable.

Lewis’ article is very informative and I like how he presents different areas for inspection. He sided with civil liberties which is proved through his argumentation of presenting positive uses, but stressing possible negative implications. Lewis describes a subject area, offering empirical evidence but closes each area with a negative impact. The area of public surveillance is weakest because Lewis cannot effectively defend against cameras and data collection is public places because the courts ruled that when people venture outside the home, their privacy expectations decrease. I was left asking the question, “Why?” at the end of the section. Sharing pictures, oh no, “serious privacy concerns.” Putting the adjective “serious” isn’t enough for me, I wanted more elaboration. Overall, the article worked for me, I learned a lot about the specific means of acquiring data but I closed the book wanting more analysis.

In “Living Under the Electronic Eye” (Guernsey) Lisa Guernsey raises the issue of whether or not the government should be given the authority to use digital surveillance capabilities on its citizens. The author offers a claim and counter-claim to explain whether the means are justified. Guernsey explains that a “wealth of new electronic information is already available to law enforcement” supporting the claim that additional means are not needed but counters with empirical evidence that right after the September 11th attacks seventy-four percent of Americans were willing to give up personal freedoms to keep the country safer. Guernsey offers additional evidence of the “Red Scare” during the 1950s and after then Oklahoma City federal building bombing in 1995, polling indicated that a majority of the population was willing to sacrifice freedom to maintain freedom. The United States Federal Government had proposed the passage of additional eavesdropping measures on “electronic communications,” or the Internet. “It is unclear how effective these forms of electronic surveillance may prove to be.” Guernsey then presents the notion that a return to the “labor-intensive techniques” of infiltrating should be used rather than sole dependence on digital surveillance.

Guernsey’s is argumentation is quite balanced. I like how she proposes the issue and proceeds to after reasons that are for and against issue. She claimed that government should, but quite often switched her perspective on the issue, producing a counter claim. The article was published almost three weeks after September 11th, feeding on the confusion and emotions that swirled throughout the nation. The Federal Government was quick to offer legislation that would prevent another attack. I am not sure whether or not the plan was just single ideas being thrown out in discussion or a part of the PATRIOT Act. The title of the article is a bit deceiving because I was expecting the personification of electronic surveillance as this creature that sees all and knows all. By offering the alternative of using more “labor-intensive” means of gathering data, Guernsey balances out the article. Instead of stating what happened and the two views, she presents an unmentioned idea which quells the desire for “something else.”

I discovered that an issue can raise an unlimited number of perspectives. Besides that obvious fact, it’s how the perspectives are delivered that is so interesting. Examining and responding to three essay is a lot of work, but it’s helped me to understand the construction of arguments and its numerous forms. The first takes a structural-functional approach, explaining how governments respond to the needs of society. I related best with the first essay because it seems as if the author is a political scientist, something that I aspire to be. The second has a great deal of information, but it doesn’t provide the elaboration needed to convince an audience. Well, at least I wasn’t convince and even more skeptical about the negative implications of a Big Brother. The last article was balanced, and didn’t seem to favor freedom more than safety. The author used evidence to support two sides, a relief from the slanted publications.

The question resurfaces: Is the Government’s stabilization of freedom too much or not enough? Enough. Too much. You decide. Freedom is afforded because a government allows it. If the government must take action, then so be it. “Freedom is not free.” I look forward to obtaining additional tools to understand the genuine arguments of individual. It’s been to open the book and free the mind. The one-dimensional plane of looking at an argument is becoming more three-dimensional.

Works Cited

Guernsey, Lisa. “Living Under the Electronic Eye.” New York Times 27 September 2001: D6+. Rpt. In Perspectives on Argument. By Nancy V. Wood. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice, 2004. 607-610.

Lewis, Peter. “The Tools of Freedom and Security.” Fortune 29 October 2001: 195-199. Rpt. In Perspectives on Argument. By Nancy V. Wood. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice, 2004. 601-604.

Posner, Richard, A. “Security Versus Civil Liberties.” Atlantic Monthly December 2001: 46-48. Rpt. In Perspectives on Argument. By Nancy V. Wood. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice, 2004. 598-600.