Category: National Security

In my essay I am going to answer the question of what is more important our privacy or national security. Both sides of the argument are considered in the work.

I am convinced that national security will constantly be more necessary than privacy as long because the government continues to protect the rights of its citizens. However, immoderate measures of the invasion of peoples private privateness must not take place when it is now not necessary. In my opinion, I don’t think that the authorities wish to accumulate everyone’s mobile phone data. However, only these suspected of towards the regulation or cooperation with a terrorist regime. Not only but also, I do not believe that there is a perfect line dividing what’s permissible and what’s to now no longer protect United States of America wide protection and people’s private acceptable to privacy. That can additionally usually be a range, and different individuals will usually attempt each different on what’s the easiest option. From my point of view, privateness is and must proceed to be an integral dimension of residing in a free democratic society. This is the vary a total lot of human being’s revel in, as even though they have received their privateness violated. Most Americans are law-abiding residents who do no longer commit unlawful acts closer to the country, they prefer to go about their lives minding their very personal industrial business enterprise and now not having to worry about outdoor interference. The awesome line between privateness and national security may additionally now not be so excellent in everyone’s mind. Although law enforcement agencies keep the United States and its residents reasonably safe, the residents that obey the legislation and do no longer do something unlawful many times surprise why they are problem to any kind of search when they can truly component out via documentation that they’ve no way finished something incorrect. Security is a trouble that we come upon each day. Whether it is riding down the limited get right of entry to toll road or taking walks into the stores; we are cautious of what is occurring round us.

Men and women across this country are dedicated to enforcing laws; laws that are designed to make sure the protection of our communities and our nation. So, in conclusion, I think that national security is a priority for this government and whatever measures they take is for the overall benefit of the country.

In considering whether torture is justified when used for national security, I will use several arguments in this essay.

The first is that it is an unreliable source. Despite torture being repulsive and illegal, the technique is often used for gathering information which many people think it makes it just. Many people use the ‘ticking time bomb, reference when defending torture, stating that to torture one individual to get information that could potentially save hundreds is lawful and justifiable. However, the stressors that are employed during the torture process force the brain out of its adaptive range of function it operates within. Torture increases rates of false positive discoveries and fails the basic tests of definitive, reliable, and replicable information discovery. Torture fails during interrogation because it is a direct assault on our core integrated social, psychological, neural functioning.

For example, one of the most commonly used types of torture is sleep deprivation. Sleep deprivation is an especially deceitful form of torture because it attacks the deep biological functions at the core of someone’s physical and mental health. Due to the direct attack on the persons mental health, sleep deprivation has often led to false confessions and hallucinations. Steven Frenda (a professor at California State University) states: “In an experiment, participants were asked to complete computer tasks across multiple sessions. During the sessions they repeatedly received warnings that pressing the Escape key on their keyboard would cause the loss of study data. In their final session, participants either slept all night in laboratory bedrooms or remained awake all night. In the morning, all participants were asked to sign a statement, which summarized their activities in the laboratory and falsely stated that they pressed the Escape key during an earlier session. After a single request, the odds of signing were 4.5 times higher for the sleep-deprived participants than for the rested participants”. These results replicate the number of false convictions made from using sleep torture for interrogation.

Recently the current U.S president, Donald Trump, defended the most popular type of interrogation torture ‘waterboarding’ by stating: “Even if it doesn’t work? They deserve it anyway, for what they’re doing”. And the following statement: “Build these iron cages, and they’ll put 20 people in them, and they drop them in the ocean for 15 minutes, and pull them up 15 minutes later”. These statements were made during a conference due to the U.S doubling down on disturbing torture techniques that have already been proven not effective and simply an inhumane way to target and discriminate against a certain race, which in this case was Muslim. The technique Trump was raving about is no other than the infamous ‘waterboarding’ technique. This is a technique that has been classified as one of the most dangerous tortures in the current time due to the fact that the victim is repeatedly brought to the edge of death only to be ‘revived’. The victim is bound securely to an inclined bench (the person’s feet are usually raised), then a cloth is placed over the victim’s eyes and forehead, and water is applied to the cloth in a controlled manner. Gradually the air becomes more and more restricted due to the cloth, increasing the carbon dioxide levels in the victim’s blood, creating the perception of drowning. Like other techniques waterboarding is directed at a certain part of the body, in this case the respiratory system is under siege. However, in order for this technique to extract reliable information, one most hope that the oxygen deprivation will not affect the brain, which studies show, happen most commonly in this situation. The deficits include cognitive memory, visual and verbal memory, processing speed, etc. Therefore, if the victim’s memory is unstable or affected, there’s a greater chance of false claims and false convictions. The neurological studies and data prove that the concept of torturing the truth out of someone is unethical and unreliable.

The second argument is that torture is a slippery slope. This is the fact that the torture we do now makes us more desensitized to torture in the future. Think back to when you had your first paper cut, it seemed like the end of the world at the time. Now think of the most recent paper cut you’ve had, you probably just brushed it off put a Band-Aid on it and continued with your day. This is an example of being desensitized due to repetition and time. It’s just like becoming a surgeon. The thought of slicing open someone else’s flesh and looking at their insides is what any sane person would describe as gruesome and potentially revolting. However, the more times the surgeon conducts the procedure, the more ordinary the thought becomes, not only to the surgeon, but to society. When we hear a relative is getting surgery, we don’t give a second thought about it, but in the early stages of medicine, the idea must have seemed terrifying. The same thing will happen to the procedure of torture. If we start doing it now and continue, in the future we will be desensitized to the idea and think of it the same as surgery of eating an orange, because the proceeds have become a part of life. Ordinary. We as a society have already started down this slope with video games and simulations that have desensitized anyone who plays it to the idea of violence. Torture will become part of everyday life and at best be frowned upon, like not returning someone’s wallet you found on the ground, or having more of a feast than testing grapes in a store. All minor things that we know happen and accept it as a part of society. Iain Banks (highly respected Scottish author) stated: “Torture is such a slippery slope; as soon as you allow a society or any legal system to do that, almost instantly you get a situation where people are being tortured for very trivial reasons”. It starts with the torture only in ‘ticking time bomb situations’, then it leads to the legalization of torture in criminal interrogation, which then leads to the legalization of torture in suspected criminal activities. And just like cutting someone’s else’s flesh in the process of surgery is someone’s job, torture will become someone’s job as well.

And the last argument: torture harms not only the victim, but also the torturer himself. Even though torture is directed to hurt and violate the victim, the torturers get hurt as well. The two common effects on the torturers are burnout and PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder). Symptoms of burnout, which is also known as vicarious trauma, include: difficulty managing emotions, feeling emotionally numb or shutting down, difficulty sleeping or oversleeping, physical problems, losing a sense of meaning in life, relationship problems, excessive worrying increased irritability or aggression, and destructive coping or addictive behaviors. As you might have noticed these symptoms are also very common in PTSD, generally occur from the work conditions. These symptoms most commonly develop after the ‘work’ is done, and most torturers develop PTSD after the work as well. At first thought of PTSD we usually link it to veterans and soldiers of war, however PTSD in torturers is considerably different, because it is usually caused by the overwhelming guilt and shame of the torturers actions. This sense of detachment often leads them to self-medicate with alcohol, drugs, and suicide. Other difficulties of the struggling from PTSD as a torturer is the inability to talk about your actions and experiences, which eliminates the coping factors of psychotherapy and getting medication. Tony Lagouranis was a former torturer during World War II and was in charge of actively interrogating detainees. He states, while he was actively interrogating detainees, he realized he had gone too far when he went and asked the Nazis for tips. He states that he realizes his sense of what was right and wrong was blurred and still questions his sense of self. He further describes his internal conflicts, nightmares, and flashbacks he struggles with to present day. He also describes the power he once felt is now replaced with “a weakness so fearful it dampened his upper lip”. Another former torturer, Eric Fair, experienced similar systems as the ones I first described. He described his nightmares of the previous people he had tortured. During his time in Iraq, he was ordered to deprive a detainee of sleep by forcing him to stand in a corner and strip his clothes hourly. He states that this detainee now haunts his nightmares nightly. He also states his struggles with overwhelming guilt due to the fact that he realizes that he “failed to disobey a meritless order”, “failed to protect a prisoner in my custody”, and “failed to uphold the standards of human decency by not protecting the detainees he tortured”. And for this he believes he can never forgive himself. These two men are just two representations of the suffering on the other end as well. This proves that by not justifying torture, we are just hurting everyone. There is no winner and there never will be. All torture brings to our world is suffering, there is never triumph, only suffering. To believe that torture is answer is like thinking another war will stop the war at hand.

For all these reasons, I conclude that torture is never justifiable, therefore in not justified when used for national security.

History of the Spanish American War

In February two events crystallized U.S. opinion in favor of Cuban independence. First, the Spanish minister in Washington, Enrique Dupuy de Lóme, wrote a letter critical of President McKinley that fell into the hands of the Cuban junta in New York. Its publication caused a sensation, but Sagasta quickly recalled Dupuy de Lóme. A few days later, however, the Battleship Maine, which had been sent to Havana to provide a naval presence there exploded and sank, causing the death of 266 sailors. McKinley, strongly opposed to military intervention, ordered an investigation of the sinking as did Spain. The Spanish inquiry decided that an internal explosion had destroyed the vessel, but the American investigation claimed an external source.

The reluctant McKinley was then forced to demand that Spain grant independence to Cuba, but Sagasta refused, fearing that such a concession would destroy the shaky Restoration Monarchy. It faced opposition from various domestic political groups that might exploit the Cuban affair by precipitating revolution at home. Underlying strong Spanish opposition to Cuban freedom was the traditional belief that God had granted Spain its empire, of which Cuba was the principal remaining area, as a reward for the conquest of the Moors. Spanish honor demanded the defense of its overseas possessions, including Puerto Rico and the Philippines. Spain sought diplomatic support from the great powers of Europe, but its long-standing isolation and the strength of the U.S. deterred sympathetic governments from coming to its aid.

On 25 April Congress responded to McKinley’s request for armed intervention. Spain had broken diplomatic relations on 23 April. The American declaration of war was predated to 21 April to legitimize certain military operations that had already taken place, particularly a blockade of Havana. To emphasize that its sole motive at the beginning of the struggle was Cuban independence, the U.S. Congress passed a resolution, the Teller Amendment, that foreswore any intention of annexing Cuba.

Neither nation had desired war but both had made preparations as the crisis deepened after the sinking of the Maine. McKinley, having opposed war, hoped to end it quickly at the least possible expenditure of blood and treasure. The U.S. possessed a small well-trained navy, but the army was composed of only twenty-eight thousand regulars. Spain had large garrisons in Cuba and the Philippines, but its navy was poorly maintained and much weaker than that of the U.S. Prewar planning in the U.S. had settled upon a naval blockade of Cuba and an attack on the decrepit Spanish squadron at Manila to achieve command of the sea and preclude reinforcement and resupply of the Spanish overseas forces. These measures would bring immediate pressure on Spain and signal American determination. The small army would conduct raids against Cuba and help sustain the Cuban army until a volunteer army could be mobilized for extensive service in Cuba. Spain was forced to accept the U.S. decision to fight on the periphery of Spanish power where its ability to resist was weakest.

The war began with two American successes. Admiral William Sampson immediately established a blockade of Havana that was soon extended along the north coast of Cuba and eventually to the south side. Sampson then prepared to counter the Spanish effort to send naval assistance. Then, on 1 May, Commodore George Dewey, commanding the Asiatic Squadron, destroyed Admiral Patricio Montoyo’s small force of wooden vessels in Manila Bay. Dewey had earlier moved from Japan to Hong Kong to position himself for an attack on the Philippines. When news of this triumph reached Washington, McKinley authorized a modest army expedition to conduct land operations against Manila, a step in keeping with the desire to maintain constant pressure on Spain in the hope of forcing an early end to the war.

On 29 April a Spanish squadron commanded by Admiral Pascual Cervera left European waters for the West Indies to reinforce the Spanish forces in Cuba. Sampson prepared to meet this challenge to American command of the Caribbean Sea. Cervera eventually took his squadron into the harbor at Santiago de Cuba at the opposite end of the island from Havana where the bulk of the Spanish army was concentrated.

As soon as Cervera was blockaded at Santiago (29 May) McKinley made two important decisions. He ordered the regular army, then concentrated at Tampa, to move as quickly as possible to Santiago de Cuba. There it would join with the navy in operations intended to eliminate Cervera’s forces. Also on 3 June he secretly informed Spain of his war aims through Great Britain and Austria. Besides independence for Cuba, he indicated a desire to annex Puerto Rico (in lieu of a monetary indemnity) and an island in the Marianas chain in the Pacific Ocean. Also, the United States sought a port in the Philippines but made no mention of further acquisitions there. The American message made it clear that the U.S. would increase its demands, should Spain fail to accept these demands. Sagasta was not yet ready to admit defeat, which ended the initial American attempt to arrange an early peace.

Domestic terrorism and international terrorism are the two main types of terrorism we deal with in the United States. Domestic terrorism is defined by the FBI as, “violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature” (FBI, 2016). The FBI defines international terrorism as, “violent, criminal acts committed by individuals andor groups who are inspired by, or associated with, designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations” (FBI, 2016). With all of that being said, we can determine that domestic terrorism is a criminal act that occurs on our own soil, by our own people. Domestic terrorism is said to be committed by our own people, more often sovereign citizens. There have been several incidents over the course of American history in which acts of domestic terrorism have been executed by sovereign citizens. In a 2013 study that surveyed law enforcement intelligence officers, it was noted that sovereign citizens are the top threat for domestic terrorism, coming in higher than Islamic extremists (Sarteschi, 2020).

The Center for Strategic and International Studies found that the number of violent far-right extremists was the top root cause of terrorist attacks and plots from 1994-2020 (CSIS, 2021). Their data also showed that the number of those violent far-right terrorist-like events has nearly tripled from 2018-2020 (CSIS, 2020). I believe as the United States presses forward into time, this number will only grow substantially. I also believe because our country has such a monstrous mental health problem, that the number of sovereign citizens will continue to rise as well. I say this because a large portion of those who claim to be sovereign suffer from some form of mental illness. With our numbers of citizens claiming to be sovereign continuing to rise, we can only come to expect that our domestic terrorism levels are to rise as well. Another rising figure is our number of prosecutions per year in regard to domestic terrorism. In 2020, there were approximately one hundred eighty-five federal prosecutions for such violence (TRAC Reports, 2021). In the previous year (2019), only about ninety federal prosecutions (TRAC Reports, 2021). America is “getting tough” on domestic terrorism finally, and hopefully, this will help deter citizens from committing such heinous acts of violence. A large number of sovereign citizens tend to file various and bogus court cases which vastly contributes to the strain of our court system. One article by the Southern Poverty Law Center described the type of terrorism sovereign citizens like to use – paper. Paper terrorism refers to the clogging up of our court system with meaningless and useless paperwork that is brought forth by the filing of deceptive court cases stemming from sovereign citizens. This is just but one of the main issues surrounding sovereign citizens.

Sovereign citizens are individuals who are anti-government that share the same ideas and beliefs. Even though these citizens reside and live in the United States, they believe that they are not under the United States government or the law. In my career experience, we deal with sovereign citizens like normal citizens but with a little extra caution. We have these individuals flagged in our system so that when an officer goes out to that address, dispatch is able to tell him that there is an individual there who is not law enforcement friendly. Sovereign citizens believe that they make the rules of the land. No judge, law enforcement, or any other being can decide which laws they will obey and which ones to ignore. They essentially govern themselves. Some groups, such as the Moorish, believe that they are the originals of the land and that they must reclaim it. These people have no regard for other Americans; they break into homes and claim them for themselves, they do not pay taxes, and they clog up the American court systems constantly. They believe that no elected official has any say in how they are to go about living their lives. These types of American citizens go as far as creating and utilizing their own vocabulary and they compile their own “legitimate” documents. For example, they use the term conveyance for vehicles. They even have their own vehicle registration system. They refer to their home state as, “the Republic of”. Because these types of citizens change their vocabulary and fully believe that the system in which they have created is legitimate, it makes traffic stops for law enforcement especially difficult. They also like to include the trademark or copyright mark at the end of their names. Little quirks like those set sovereign citizens apart from ordinary citizens.

The correctional management of sovereign citizens is incredibly difficult. There have been several instances in recent American history where law enforcement officers have been shot and killed due to the state of sovereign citizens’ minds. These citizens are very difficult to read and predicting their next move is nearly impossible the majority of the time. They are very violent towards everyone, especially law enforcement whenever they try to take something away from them that they believe is a birthright. They believe that this land is theirs and that the government is always trying to strip their rights from them. Hence why they do not pay taxes, believe they are entitled to everything even if it is not rightfully theirs, and almost always refuse to cooperate when law enforcement gets involved. Ways in which Correctional officers can try to identify those who claim to be sovereign citizens by watching for what the inmate is reading or paying attention to said inmate’s writing. There are certain pieces of literature that sovereign citizens tend to hold on to. Those include the Global Sovereign’s Handbook or anything published by Sovereignty Press. Figuring out which inmates claim to be sovereign citizens can be detrimental to everyone in the prison, especially the correctional officers. Proper training on identifying the different oddities of sovereign citizens can better assist officers and help keep them safe.

The sovereign citizen movement was first constructed, or the idea of such movement, back in 1971. It was originally formed around the principles of white supremacism however, most recently its principles have changed. It is driven by varying racial ideologies, and even people who come from all kinds of ethnic backgrounds. Sovereignty essentially knows no boundaries, and people from all walks of life can claim to be sovereign. As previously mentioned, most of them do not have the proper vehicle registrations or pay taxes. Along with those, they also do not have driver’s licenses, social security numbers, or even birth certificates. They believe that when a baby is born, the social security number and the birth certificate function as a trust fund that the government controls. They have their own lingo – “strawman”, “conveyance”, etc. There have been very few studies that focused on the competency of sovereign citizens. In one of the studies I reviewed, three out of the nine suffered from substance abuse, one out of the nine had depression, and one out of the nine had a delusional disorder (Paradis, Owen, and McCullough, 2018). I think mental illness plays a huge and very important role in the idea of transitioning into and claiming to be a sovereign citizen. Another aspect to note from that same study was that out of thirty-six sovereign citizens, twenty-one of them have felony offenses on their record (Paradis, Owen, and McCullough, 2018). That is nearly fifty-eight percent. Thirty-one percent had a psychotic disorder, and thirty-one percent had claimed that they were substance abusers (Paradis, Owen, and McCullough, 2018). These statistics were somewhat shocking yet very expected. Perhaps having easier access to mental health facilities or substance abuse counselors andor help would help drop the number of sovereign citizens in the United States, or maybe creating a program that is specifically for these types of citizens that helps them realize that declaring sovereignty actually does them more harm than good. Showing them and proving to them that the government is not doing what they are believing it to be doing could help them realize that perhaps all of these irrational beliefs are in their head.

The Federal Bureau of Investigations, since the sovereign citizen movement first started, has constructed a list of sovereign citizens who pose a threat to domestic terrorism. Personally, I believe that the sovereign citizen movement and domestic terrorism go hand in hand. A good example of a sovereign citizen committing an act of domestic terrorism is the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. The mastermind behind the bombing, Timothy McVeigh, and his collaborator Terry Nichols, were both well-established sovereign citizens. Other prominent examples of sovereign citizens who carried out acts of domestic terrorism are the Ruby Ridge incident in 1992, and the Waco compound founded by David Koresh and the Branch Davidians in 1993. There are still many more sovereign citizens ran groups that reside within the United States. These groups are constantly lashing out at the American systems – court, correctional, and political especially.

Sovereign citizens have made their mark on American history throughout time. They have committed several acts of homicide, assault, arson, sexual assault, and even mass shootings. Some of the major well-known acts of terror by sovereign citizens are the father-son duo from Arkansas that murdered two police officers, Ruby Ridge, the Oklahoma City bombing, the Branch Davidians in Waco, and the Moorish clan. Some of the most dangerous work for police officers in today’s world is conducting traffic stops on vehicles that involve sovereign citizens. The danger of traffic stops involving sovereign citizens has steadily risen, and now according to new studies, those types of traffic stops pose one of the greatest threats to police officers. The father-son duo as mentioned earlier, gunned down two officers on a routine traffic stop. There was even one instance in Kansas where people from the Moorish group raided and took control over an already occupied home. People who claim sovereignty have no regard for anyone else. They have extreme one-minded thinking patterns and will do anything that they believe is right even if it goes against our laws and moral standards.

The constitutional management of sovereign citizens is tricky. Most sovereign citizens think disdainfully of our Founding Fathers and the ways in which the Constitution and all its parts came to be. One aspect of the constitution that these citizens believe is illegitimate, is the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment, enacted in 1868, guaranteed citizenship to all the slaves that were freed at the close of the Civil War. Sovereign citizens are under the impression that this particular amendment created a form of second-class citizenship. They view those who descended from those who were granted citizenship after the Civil War as beneath them. Sovereign citizens go as far as creating citizenship cards and even assigning themselves numbers in an effort to validate their own beliefs surrounding this amendment.

In conclusion, domestic terrorism and sovereign citizens coincide with one another. Domestic terrorism and sovereignty are going to continue to climb exponentially. Neither one of these things is going to disappear anytime soon. And because the number of sovereign citizens is going to steadily climb, so will the cases they bring into our court system; the court system will probably never see a break from some of the crazy court cases those types of citizens bring forth and clog our system. Ensuring proper training for officers, whether in facilities or patrolling, allows them to pick up on certain key quirks of sovereign citizens. This will ultimately help keep the officer safer and allow for hopefully smoother handling of situations with those who claim sovereignty. Perhaps providing easier access and even more opportunities that provide mental health help and even substance abuse counseling. After reviewing some studies, it seems as if providing some sort of help could contribute to lowering the number of people who claim sovereignty in the United States. In the end, all of our systems must work cohesively in combating the formation of large sovereign citizen groups and work to keep dangerous acts of domestic terrorism at bay.

For many right-wing terrorists, the key driver that motivates their cause is the fear of extinction of the so-called white race. Whether this be through the prospect of equality for black people within the United States that motivated the Klu Klux Klan (KKK), or the increasing presence of Muslims within Norweigan society that enraged Anders Breivik, it is evident that a great deal of right-wing terrorists are driven by the fear of extinction of the white race. However, in order for this statement to be true, it must be applicable to right-wing terrorist organizations and individuals globally. For many right-wing groups in Asia and Africa, it is clear that their motivation is not the extinction of the white race. Specifically, for Islamist groups that can be deemed as right-wing organizations due to their isolationist and conservative viewpoints, the eradication of the white race and at least the separation of Muslim people from all other people globally is their key motivation. Therefore, the key driver for right-wing terrorists globally is not the extinction of the white race specifically, but the erosion of respective morality within the country or religion that they believe is being harmed.

In numerous forms of extreme right-wing terrorism, the fear of the extinction of the white race is a key driver which motivates their violent actions. Before investigating whether or not this fear is the key driver for right-wing terrorist organizations, it is important to understand what the definition of terrorism is. Still, a disputed term, terrorism can be understood as ‘the deliberate use of violence against a person or persons while employing guerilla warfare tactics in an effort to achieve political, ideological and religious goals’ (Hughbank 2010, p.18). Through this definition, it is clear to see that there are numerous racially motivated right-wing groups and lone actors that constitute terrorists, such as the KKK and Norweigan Anders Behring Breivik. Some extreme right-wing terrorist groups in the United States and globally seek to achieve a ‘Racial Holy War (RAHOWA) which would restore white racial supremacy in the United States – and perhaps beyond’ (Taylor, Holbrook & Currie 2013, p.20). However, there are numerous far-right groups that would also see a form of separatism as adequate, where a separate white bastion in a physical environment’ (Taylor, Holbrook & Currie 2013, p.20) would allow these individuals not to be disrupted by other races. In both of these instances, the key driver of their cause is the fear of the extinction of the white race, whether through the uprising of other races or through interracial relationships. The aforementioned race war is a desire for the KKK, who ‘lash out at the object of their hate’, repeatedly conducting violent actions against darker-skinned people (Brannan 2007, p.207). This has been blatantly demonstrated in events such as the Greensboro Massacre, an event that took place on November 3rd, 1979, where five people from the Communist Workers Party were killed for their participation against the KKK and their support of black workers’ rights (Cunningham, Nugent, & Slodden 2010). During a tense protest which yielded antagonization from both groups, ‘KKK and Nazi members retrieved guns from their cars and opened fire on the demonstrators’ (Cunningham, Nugent, & Slodden 2010, p.1521), demonstrating their willingness to not only use violence to further their cause but to kill those who supported the liberation and freedom of black people. This notion of fear and hatred for the KKK largely stems from their desire to preserve the white race in the United States, with the organization viewing racial equality as the first step towards a mixed-race society. As such, it is clearly not just a key driver for the group, but the key driver. The fear of extinction of the Nordic race, and thus the white race, is also a key motivation for Anders Breivik. Breivik is a Norweigan right-wing terrorist who killed 77 people and injured hundreds more in attacks on the Norweigan Labour Party in 2011. These acts, while targeted at Norweigan citizens, attempted to send the message that there was discontent with the political direction that Norway was heading in and that the increasing presence of Muslims, Socialists, and Feminists within Norweigan society would lead to the downfall of the nation. Breivik’s views, while inconsistent and often times confusing, are ‘strongly linked with racism’ with the consistent ‘stated focus on the Muslims’ highlighting his racist motivations for the attack (Hemmingby, 2015, p.33). Breivik also explicitly ‘writes extensively about ‘the Nordic race’ and the ‘need to preserve it’ by avoiding ‘racial mixing’’, a clear link to classic right-wing terrorist motivations (Bangstad, 2014, p.94). Thus, Breivik believes that by carrying out this terrorist attack, he can incite a race war between Europeans and immigrants of different backgrounds to ensure the preservation of the homogenous Nordic society and halt the Cultural Marxism that he believes is plaguing Northern Europe. For Breivik, while he despises other influences in Nordic society such as Feminism and Socialism, the increasing presence of foreigners and what that might mean for white Nordic people was his key driver for carrying out the attack on the Norweigan Labour Party camp. Thus, it is evident that right-wing terrorist organizations in the West are bound by the fear of the extinction of the white race as a key driver.

Despite the fear of the extinction of the white race being a prevalent factor in Western right-wing terrorism, internationally speaking, numerous right-wing terrorist organizations are in direct opposition to this ideal. In order for this idea to be true, all right-wing terrorist organizations must fear the extinction of the white race and have that fear be a key driver that motivates their terroristic actions. Evidently, right-wing terrorist organizations exist outside of the Western idea of what right-wing terrorism is, for instance in Africa and South East Asia. As such, these groups, if they are ethno-nationalists, would not fear the extinction of the white race, but rather the extinction of their own ethnic group. This can be understood through the lens of Islamic terrorism and how it can be perceived as right-wing outside of its usual categorization as simply Islamism. In order for Islamic terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS to be deemed as right-wing terrorists, it is important to understand what constitutes both terrorism and the right wing. These groups can be evidently denoted as terrorists as they carry out attacks against other people with political and religious motivations. For Al Qaeda and ISIS, ‘They believe that their murderous actions will earn them a place in heaven as a martyr’ (Hughbank 2010, p.19), demonstrating that the desire for a utopian afterlife is what guides their actions. In addition, both of these groups can be understood as right-wing terrorist organizations, as they believe in a reversion of political and religious ideals, alongside the eradication or removal of foreign interference such as Jews and the West. Both Al Qaeda and ISIS believe that the West is ‘engaged in a cultural, economic, and military onslaught that seeks to destroy the religion of Islam’ (Haykel 2016, p.72), therefore they can both be deemed right-wing terrorist groups as they seek the downfall of a particular group of people. Specifically, Al Qaeda became a terrorist organization that despised the West after the ‘American military intervention in the Gulf and its preliminary stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia’(Ibrahimi 2018, p.142). These actions by the United States led to Al Qaeda becoming much more ‘far-enemy-centric, caliphate-based, and anti-Americanist’ (Ibrahimi 2018, p.143). However, according to Rohan Gunaratna, Al Qaeda is not specifically against Americans and their way of life, so much as ‘what they perceive the American government…is doing to Muslim countries’ (2002, p.45). While Al Qaeda’s motivations for their actions may be understood due to the influence of the West in the Middle East, it is clear that they can be seen as a right-wing terrorist organisation as they despise a specific nation and the ideology that underpins it. A major difference between the two terrorist organisations is that Al Qaeda is attempting to ‘destabilize states while ISIS is trying to build one’ (Chaliand 2016, p.442), meaning that they are attempting to establish the Caliphate, the Islamic State, where all Muslims will be under its authority and it is ruled under Sharia law. ISIS is seeking to ‘ensure that a rigidly fundamentalist interpretation of Islam becomes the only accepted religion’ globally while displaying a ‘resistance to Western influence and encroachment’’ (Hoffman 2017, p.99). Thus, it is evident that ISIS can also be deemed as a right-wing terrorist organisation, as they wish to establish a land mass free from apostates and non-believers, a clear showing of hatred for another group and an evident display of the fear of the extinction of the Muslim people. Ultimately, if Islamic terrorist organisations can be seen as right-wing terrorists through their fear of outside influence and desire for regression, the key driver for these organisations globally may not be the fear of extinction of the white race, but the fear of the extinction of their respective races.

As it is clear that not all forms of right-wing terrorism are driven by the fear of the extinction of the white race, it is reasonable to then assume that right-wing terrorist organisations globally can be defined by other universal ideals. In order to comprehend what the key driver is for right-wing terrorism, it is crucial that the different motivations for terrorism are understood. Broadly, terrorism can be divided into four separate categories, those being ‘social-revolutionary, ethnic-nationalistic, religious and vigilantist’ (Heitmeyer 2005, p.144). While the ethno-nationalist element is prominent within right-wing terrorist organisations, ‘other forms of terror… must not be overlooked’ (Heitmeyer 2005, p.145). Evidently, many of these groups are social-revolutionaries, as they desire a change in the political landscape that would see a regression of current day policy to the way that their respective nation was operating in the past. In addition, many of these groups may also be seen as vigilantists, as they believe that they are making a personal sacrifice against the encroaching evil in order to preserve good in society. This idea may also be influenced by a religious viewpoint, with many right-wing terrorist organisations claiming that they are carrying out their actions in the name of God or Allah as is written in scripture. As such, there are many different motivations for right-wing terrorism that cannot be broadly understood as solely ethno-nationalist. Daniel Koehler references Ehud Sprinzak when he suggests that right-wing terrorism can be understood as the desired eradication of ‘‘inferior’ human beings ‘who want to get more than they deserve’’ (2017, p.52). This can certainly be seen within the context of racially motivated terrorist attacks in the United States, where the KKK killed, lynched and injured black people across the country in order to halt the progress of equality. However, this can be equally seen in the modern day Middle East, with ISIS seeking the eradication of apostates and non-believers, usually in the form of symbolically Western individuals such as journalists. As George Michael suggests, ‘the far right is a very nuanced movement, consisting of a multitude of different groups, which often disagree on issues’ (2003, p.36). This can be seen not only globally, but in the context of the United States, where the KKK often targeted Catholic members of the far-right who they believed were not adequately supporting the regressive cause. In addition, they also targeted homosexuals, many of whom were white, demonstrating that the sole motivator for their cause was not only the eradication of the white race, but the shift in the United States moral standpoint. Therefore, in all cases of right-wing terrorism including Islamism, Taylor, Holbrook & Currie suppose that ‘Leaders of extreme right-wing groups…are thus faced with a perceived threat to those values and identities they hold dear’ (2013, p.234). This, unlike the fear of the eradication of the white race, is the key driver for all right-wing terrorist organisations globally, as it is the encroaching change to the status quo and the threat to what they deem to be moral that underpins their respective ideologies. While this idea of a threat to morality could also be applied to other terrorist organisations, the common demoninator that underpins right-wing extremist terrorism is that they ‘are strongly opposed to liberal democracy’ (Ravndal 2018, p.847), regardless of the group or idea that they target. Thus, the key driver for all right-wing terrorist organisations is not the fear of extinction of the white race, but the fear of a shift in the moral standing of their respective countries, whether that be through equality for different races, religions, sexualities or viewpoints.

Ultimately, the fear of extinction of the white race is a key driver that motivates many different right-wing terrorist organisations. Whether it be the KKK or Anders Breivik, these right-wing groups and individuals see different cultures and races as potentially damaging to their own people, and thus carry out acts of violence against them and those who support them. However, right-wing terrorist groups globally, such as Islamist groups, clearly do not fear the extinction of the white race, but rather fear the extinction of the Muslim people, as they commit acts of violence in the name of Allah to preserve their identity. As such, this means that the fear of extinction of the white race cannot be a key driver in all forms of right-wing terrorism, as many groups globally are fundementally against this idea. As such, the key driver that motivates all right-wing terrorist groups and individuals globally is the fear of a change in the moral status quo within their respective nation or area and the liberal democratic idea of equality for all.

Introduction

The concept of civilization may be defined as a collective group, embedded into history and as a cultural entity. Villages, regions, ethnic groups, nationalities, and religious groups, all have distinct cultures at different levels of cultural heterogeneity. The culture of a village in southern Italy may be different from that of a village in northern Italy, but both will share a common Italian culture that distinguishes them from German villages, Huntington is Convince the concept of civilization is defined as a collective group, embedded into the history, the Clash of Civilizations is a hypothesis that people‘s Cultural and religious identity will be the primary source of conflict in the post-Cold War world.

Clashes of Civilizations was proposed by Samuel P. Huntington who is a political scientist in a 1992 lecture at the American Enterprise Institute, which was then developed in a 1993 foreign affair article titled “The Clash of Civilizations, in his response to his former student Francis Fukuyama‘s 1992 book, The End of History and the Last Man. Huntington later expanded his thesis in a 1996 book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remarking of the world order.

Background

The idea of civilization was developed by eighteen-century French thinkers as the opposite of the concept of barbarism. Civilized society differed from primitive society because it was settled, urban, and literate. To be civilized was good, to be uncivilized was bad. The concept of civilization provided a standard by which to judge societies, and during the nineteenth century, Europeans devoted much intellectual, diplomatic, and political energy to elaborating the criteria by which non-European societies might be judged sufficiently civilized to be accepted as members of the European-dominated international system.

Throughout history, civilizations have provided the broadest identifications for people. As a result, the causes, emergence, rise, interactions, achievements, decline, and fall of civilizations have been explored at length by distinguished historians, sociologists, and anthropologists including, among others. Civilization is ‘the inevitable destiny of the Culture the most external and artificial states of which a species of developed humanity is capable a conclusion, the thing-become succeeding the thing-becoming.’ Culture is the common theme in virtually every definition of civilization. The key cultural elements which define a civilization were set forth in classic form by the Athenians when they reassured the Spartans that they would not betray them to the Persians for there are many and powerful considerations that forbid us to do so, even if we were inclined. First and chief, the images and dwellings of the gods, burnt and laid ruins: this we must need to avenge to the utmost of our power, rather than make terms with the man who has perpetrated such deeds. Secondly, the Grecian race being of the same blood and the same language, and the temples of the gods and sacrifices in common; and our similar customs; for the Athenians to become betrayers of these would not be well

The usefulness of Huntington’s clashes of civilization to challenges of international terrorism

Huntington did not provide a systematic explanation of why terrorism is a favorite weapon employed in these clashes. The reason given for the use of terrorism by other civilizations against the West did not go beyond the observation that ‘terrorism historically is the weapon of the weak’ His explanation of the extraordinary conflict intensity of Islam was not based on profound theoretical reasons either. He perceived Islam as a ‘religion of the sword’ with an absolutist ideology that makes cohabitation with other religions extremely difficult. However, many religions, not just Islam, can be and have historically been misused for the purpose of justifying terrorist violence.

Huntington also argued that geopolitically the Islamic civilization has no clear borders but overlaps with most other civilizations and is not dominated by a core state, causing conflict both with neighbors and within the Islamic world. However, according to Huntington, the Latin American and African civilizations similarly miss a core state. Finally, and in Huntington’s view most importantly, the large number of unemployed males between the age of 15 and 30 is a natural source of violence both within the Islamic civilization and between it and other civilizations.

Causes of Clash of civilization

First, differences among civilizations are basic because civilizations are differentiated from each other by history, language, culture, tradition, and religion. Second, the world is becoming a smaller place. Due to increasing interactions between people of various civilizations, civilizations’ consciousness is being intensified. Third, processes of economic modernization and social change are separating people from their local identities.

Fourth, the dual role of the West has enhanced the growth of civilization consciousness. On the one hand, the West is at a peak of power. At a similar time, perhaps as a reaction to it, attraction towards its roots is increasing among non-western civilizations. Fifth, cultural differences are less compromised and resolved than political and economic ones. Lastly, growing economic regionalism has two-fold impacts. On the one hand, successful economic regionalism will enhance civilization – consciousness while on the other hand, economic regionalism may succeed only when it has its foundation in common civilization.

Finally, economic regionalism is increasing. The proportions of total trade that are intra-regional rose between 1980 and 1989 from 51 percent to 59 percent in Europe, 33 percent to 37 percent in East Asia, and 32 percent to 36 percent in North America. The importance of regional economic blocs is likely to continue to increase in the future. On the one hand, successful economic regionalism will reinforce civilization consciousness. On the other hand, economic regionalism may succeed only when it is rooted in a common civilization. The European Community rests on the shared foundation of European culture and Western Christianity. The success of the North American Free Trade Area depends on the convergence now underway of Mexican, Canadian, and American cultures. Japan, in contrast, faces difficulties in creating a comparable economic entity in East Asia because Japan is a society and civilization unique to itself. However strong the trade and investment links Japan may develop with other East Asian countries, its cultural differences with those countries inhibit and perhaps preclude it’s promoting regional economic integration like that in Europe and North America.

Clash of Civilizations in Western Universalism

In the emerging world, the relations between states and groups from different civilizations will not be close and will often be antagonistic. Yet some intercivilization relations are more conflict-prone than others. At the micro level, the most violent fault lines are between Islam and its Orthodox, Hindu, African, and Western Christian neighbors. At the macro level, the dominant division is between ‘the West and the rest,’ with the most intense conflicts occurring between Muslim and Asian societies on the one hand, and the West on the other. The dangerous clashes of the future are likely to arise from the interaction of Western arrogance, Islamic intolerance, and Sinic assertiveness. Alone among civilizations the West has had a major and at times devastating impact on every other civilization.

The relation between the power and culture of the West and the power and cultures of other civilizations is, as a result, the most pervasive characteristic of the world of civilizations. As the relative power of other civilizations increases, the appeal of Western culture fades and non-Western peoples have increasing confidence in and commitment to their indigenous cultures. The central problem in the relations between the West and the rest is, consequently, the discordance between the West’s particularly America’s efforts to promote a universal Western culture and its declining ability to do so.

Civilizational War and Order

A global war involving the core states of the world’s major civilizations is highly improbable but not impossible. Such a war, we have suggested, could come about from the escalation of a fault line war between groups from different civilizations, most likely involving Muslims on one side and non-Muslims on the other. Escalation is made more likely if aspiring Muslim core states compete to provide assistance to their embattled coreligionists. It is made less likely by the interests that secondary and tertiary kin countries may have in not becoming deeply involved in the war themselves. A more dangerous source of global inter-civilizational war is the shifting balance of power among civilizations and their core states. If it continues, the rise of China and the increasing assertiveness of this ‘biggest player in the history of man’ will place tremendous stress on international stability in the early twenty-first century. The emergence of China as the dominant power in East and Southeast Asia would be contrary to American interests as they have been historically construed.

Huntington and Fukuyama’s argument

Huntington begins by claiming that although certain cultural differences occur between varying communities within a state, and likewise between states within a civilization, common bonds within that civilization ultimately lead to civilizations being completely distinct from others. Huntington uses an example that two villages in Italy may be different culturally, however, these two villages will still maintain an overall Italian culture. This Italian culture is different from German culture, for example, but they both are part of a larger European culture, which is part of Western civilization’s culture. Western civilization, as Huntington argues, shares no commonality in cultural values with other civilizations such as the Islamic and Confucian civilizations. Since Western civilization is largely based on the principles of democracy and human rights while other civilizations are not; Huntington argues that this creates a divide between the “West and the rest”. Therefore, Huntington argues that the West and other civilizations will ultimately clash as they do not share a broader cultural identity, short of the human race.

Francis Fukuyama argues such obstacles may not necessarily be democratization in Confucian states as a causal link between Confucianism and democratization has not been made. Fukuyama explains that Confucianism is in fact compatible with democracy because of Confucianism’s strong emphasis on education being a strong foundation for democratic institutions and Confucianism’s history of tolerance and coexistence with other religions such as Christianity. However Stephan Haggard makes the argument that although economic globalization may fail to democratize Confucian states, it allows for a shift in the balance of power from state-centric domination to a more polycentric corporate domination. Thus although Huntington provides reasonable arguments in favor of cultural clashes between Confucianism’s fundamental basis and Western liberal democracy, there are a number of historical and economic factors that are at play that counter the notion that difference in culture or civilization is ultimately the source of conflict.

Impact of terrorism

Terrorism is also used as an instrument in achieving intermediate goals in the long struggle for the ultimate goal of violent political change. The first thing is that terror raises the costs of political stability. Terrorist attacks create a feeling of insecurity, which provokes the targeted government to invest more heavily in security policies. Secondly, terrorist attacks stimulate political responses that worsen the situation of the terrorist group’s actual and potential supporters, this can help in the recruitment of terrorists. Thirdly is that terrorist attacks generate media attention, which allows the terrorist leaders to gain a voice and spread their ideology. Again this will facilitate the recruitment of followers.

Abstract

Domestic terrorism and homegrown extremism have been rather poorly informed by our media since the 9/11 attacks against the United States. I believe that our own belief systems and apprehensions have led us and our government to really dividing our nation’s freedom and security rather then listening to reason and reality. In this research paper, I am going to list my own beliefs based on my own research to tell you why the difference between national security vs freedom has not yet been answered. I believe that there is a connection between these ideals. Starting with the United States terrorism’s own history, I will discuss three important detailed cases to observe domestic terrorism and its plan of policy. These three strategies will include racial profiling, the more severe case of cross examinations, and how gun laws have evolved and its effect on race relations in the United States. These strategies have long lasting effects on freedom and human rights and can ultimately harm our national security through its action. It has an effect on the relations between law officials and our residents, including the population of the Muslim American groups and can lead US officials away from the direct dangers against our country.

In this paper, I am going to focus on real-life examples of counter-terrorism attacks and how America can balance freedom vs national security. There have been a wide list of occasions of counter terrorism acts starting all the way from 2,000 years ago with cold-blooded Jewish rituals. People had not used the word terrorism until 1793 during the French Revolution when Maximilien Robespierre, an influential politician had used it. One of the first counts of United States terrorism that was recorded was in 1622. A tribe of Native Americans brutally attacked Jamestown and killed thirty percent of its civilians. There were also the domestic historical uprisings of terrorist attacks made by the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) in 1867. At first, it was a peaceful social gathering which was led by a Confederate general named Nathan Bedford Forrest. But before long, the clan opposed the peaceful gatherings, and turned to savagery and killing supporters of the Republican party and African American voters. It wasn’t until the 1920s to the 1960’s where domestic terrorism showed up more frequently. Historian, David Rapoport states that this period saw what was called the ‘counter provincial wave’ of domestic terrorism. An example of this would be the 1954 shooting of Congress which Rapoport believes to be the root of the domestic terrorist attack. During the mid 1960’s, there were many more cases of domestic terrorism which still are precedent today. In the 1990’s, terrorist assaults on US terrain were starting from white patriots and the people on the extreme Right group. One incident is the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.

In 2007, there was an article that covered an analysis of cross examinations and the methods that the specialists used. The overall question was: Does cross examination help domestic national security? The specialists came to a conclusion of no, it did not help. Torture as a cross examination device was overall pointless. Torture was utilized if they were sure that they had all the necessary basic information to try and stop a bomb that could explode and kill innocent civilians. One example of this is included in articles by Bruce Hoffman and Alan Dershowitz noting that torture can be utilized in certain situations. First, when operators capture a terrorist at the time between an initial bombing setup and the bomb’s explosives go off. Another scenario is when law officials or agents already have the knowledge that the terrorist has most of the information that could find where the bomb is located, the timing of finding the bomb and defusing it. Many scientists and researchers have mainly focused on the ineffectiveness of torture, the mental and the physical types as a method of cross examination. Torture can make the terrorist feel more safe in certain situations or make the more nervous individual feel like they will say any information on the matter of their cross examination just to end the misery. By this time, the bomb would have been already detonated. Many specialists would not be able to receive their data on time and even if they did, the facts would still be questionable. Torture can be conceived a s counterproductive and much more deceptive. It can ultimately harm the individuals, both mentally and physically.

Before the attacks of 9/11, there was a national action to ban racial profiling in effect. But, after these attacks, many officials looked the other way on the whole idea. There were many reasons for racial profiling of Muslim groups and other individuals who “look Muslim”. Racial profiling supporters believe the reason for racial profiling is survival against terrorists. Despite this ideal, I argue that racial profiling is not only treating others unfairly but it brings up the United States own laws of national security. Racial profiling is the act of focusing on individuals for security custody based on their race, religion, or ethnicity because you believe that they are going to take part in an illegal manner and may harm others. I believe that racial profiling is unfair and unjust because the fact that an individual’s race or religion can make you doubt your own beliefs of safety and national security. You have no idea that the individual is exhibiting unlawful conduct. Despite this, there are very few US households that forbid this type of racial profiling. In 2003, there was research that race may be found as a factor when there is knowledge that can show illegal acts done by individuals of a specific race or ethnicity that can ultimately cause harm and if there is suspicious behavior. Racial profiling done on an individual when there is no knowledge of that person behaving in an illegal manner is to be found false. Many would argue that there are issues with these ideals of racial profiling and when it is fine to use against an individual. When it takes into analysis as an immunity under national security and does not tell us what is an “issue” of national security. Another example is it doesn’t tell us what “suspicious conduct” is. I believe that there are numerous reasons to make a restriction for racial profiling for terrorism purposes. The Muslim group of people are ethnically different. How can we decided who is Muslim and who is not? The main way that we can do this is by addressing their “religious” clothing. Not all Muslims may dress in this mannerism. An example of this would be Al-Qaeda and if they all dressed in a religious manner, they would all fit the profile and it would make them all rather too obvious and rather suspicious. In the 9/11 attacks, some of the terrorists were dressed like Americans and had shaven faces. Many officials have looked for individuals that might blend in best. Racial profiling is not ultimately efficient in the fact that terrorists may not use their own people to make the assault. Some terrorists are known to use their wives or children to make a transfer of weapons. Muslim Americans are not the only risk that challenges us Americans. Other groups such as Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists can put us in danger. By racial profiling against groups of people, such as the 5,000 number of Muslims who were put into question after the 9/11 attacks, can have an effect on our freedom and it doesn’t get rid of the terrorist organizations. It can cause individuals to become reluctant to assist law officials and become frustrated with the American culture itself. We have increasingly updated our national security because of racial profiling. The airports such as LAX themselves have become increasingly more and more loaded with security each year.

National security is a crucial factor of any nation, but I believe that freedom is just as crucial. After the 9/11 attacks, the national US security was taken to a whole other level, with increased border patrol and airport security. The government did not take proper action to enforce stricter rules in who enters the country. I believe that the government did not need to violate our American freedoms that we worked so hard for. The US Patriot Act of 2001 enforces the ability of law officials to search personal information. Some of these acts are necessary but not all of them are. Reading over the Fourth Amendment, it allows the right of the people to be secure against obstructive searches. It is unreasonable for officials to listen to private phone calls and go through private emails. U.S. law officials were made to listen in on private phone calls even when there was no threat to the nation’s security. Even when there was no danger to America, our American freedoms were torn from us to provide national security.

Some researchers may argue that, even if there are current threats on US soil, the national security must be taken seriously no matter the cost of it and its peoples. It will take priority over the peoples freedoms. I believe that taking away the liberty of the people for national security is giving the terrorists the upper hand. They want Americans and American suppression. During domestic terrorist acts, there is some need to place national security above liberty, an example being the Espionage Act of 1917 and the following years amendment, the Sedition Act during World War I. The Espionage Act of 1917 was ultimately supposed to secure the nation and provide more security in the effects of World War I. It ultimately failed and rather put a tight grip om the fear of the nations people. In America where freedom has very high value and its people are determined to go to wits end to hold on to their pride and values, it is rather impossible to place national security before liberty.

Security must be balanced against civil liberty, and any improvement in one results in a diminution of the other. This is the wrong perspective: America is not limited to a zero-sum game. There are effective ways to limit the ability of the government to intrude into Americans’ lives while increasing security. America must adhere to fundamental and firm principles of limited government, and it can do so while also answering the terrorist threat.

Breaks about the National Security Agency’s (NSA) local wiretapping program – otherwise called signs insight activities, or SIGINT initially showed up on December 16, 2005 in the New York Times.The article uncovered that since 2002 President Bush approved the observing of global phone calls and worldwide email messages of hundreds, maybe thousands, of individuals inside the United States without warrants. The NSA’s local wiretapping exercises without legal or congressional oversight are another unmistakable case of issues with the Bush organization’s counter-terrorism system, both lawfully and security-wise. A few legitimate examiners and security promotion associations fight the organization has seriously confined people’s entitlement to protection by disregarding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 (controlling wiretapping of an outside power through an extraordinary court), Title III (overseeing residential criminal wiretapping), a progression of correspondences protection laws and conceivably the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. News associations revealed that President Bush marked a bill immediately gone through the House and Senate, called the 2007 Protect America Act (PAA 2007), which permits warrantless residential electronic spying by the National Security Agency to occur for as long as a half year.

There are no arrangements for assurance against outlandish physical or electronic hunt and seizures. Besides, there is no responsibility. While the facts demonstrate that calls being grabbed by the NSA should be erased, the arrangement about keeping up records of data that has remote insight esteem or wrongdoing is flexible since outside knowledge esteem is a both expansive and abstract measure. From an absolutely security stance, the NSA program allows us to dissect the viability of SIGINT and the organization itself in counter-terrorism tasks. I contend that such a meddling project isn’t just unlawful and unscrupulous, yet inadequate and counterproductive to battling terrorism inside the United States.

To start with, the degree to which wiretapping SIGINT adds to these activities, might be exaggerated. As ahead of schedule as October 2002 the news offices announced that the NSA experienced difficulty entering and following Al-Qaeda cells since they figured out how to sidestep U.S. capture attempt innovation, mainly by utilizing dispensable PDAs or by keeping away from telephones through and through and substituting human delegates and up close and personal gatherings to pass on requests. As the article delineates, an overwhelming accentuation on SIGINT can be counterproductive to counter-terrorism endeavors. Al-Qaeda individuals intentionally endeavor to trigger false alarms by transparently bolstering disinformation. They would then be able to plug up any inner interchanges spills by seeing when counter-terrorism powers follow up on the bogus knowledge. Deciding the legitimacy of data from SIGINT activities has been troublesome notwithstanding for the most experienced examiners since what are gathered are obscure articulations that can be effectively confused.

Second, as per the 2006 USA Today article, NSA authorities asserted household SIGINT activities help battle fear based oppression by utilizing the information created for interpersonal organization examination. Anyway the present informal community examination strategies used to direct SIGINT tasks called snowball inspecting, are not appropriate for the sort of counter-terrorism activities generally done by FBI criminal agents. Research directed by two informal community specialists, finds that the snowball strategy is more qualified for very associated gatherings, instead of a little self-governing cell which is the possible hierarchical structure of decision for the developing wonder of homegrown terrorist agents. The NSA’s snowball examining strategies accumulated a monstrous volume of pointless data that overpowers experts and drove FBI authorities no place, squandering restricted assets and time. Besides, the household SIGINT activities put a gigantic specialized strain on the NSA’s assets, constraining the organization to devour ravenous measures of electricity– over managing its flow PC problems– to support its flow operational limit. This imperils American national security by risking another electrical over-burden, like the one that incapacitated the office seven years prior and left our country defenseless for about three days.

Both of these models show that the NSA, with its SIGINT center, isn’t appropriate for the sort of work successfully directed FBI criminal examiners. They demonstrate that electronic trawls are insufficient, yet in addition counterproductive to battling psychological warfare. The issue with the residential SIGINT program isn’t gathering data. Actually, the inverse is valid – experts are overpowered by the monstrous measure of data they need to look at, aggravated just by dreary administration rehearses that misuse the human and specialized methods for such investigation. (Botch is purportedly likewise to fault for neglecting to establish another information filtering program that could accumulate and examine data progressively productive while agreeing to protection laws, before 9/11.) Getting the correct data is vital, however breaking down it, researching it and dispersing it to the perfect individuals are additionally basic. Neglecting to do these other three stages were central point that prompted the 9/11 and 7/7 assaults.

Give us a chance to finish up this segment by looking at the more extensive ramifications of this program in the battle against psychological militant systems. Regardless of whether the NSA were to come back to working inside the FISA system, one must ask whether that is best lawful way to deal with battling psychological warfare. Expecting that organization’s exceptionally faulty legitimization for bypassing the FISA warrants– purportedly excessively troublesome and moderate to be approved– is valid, one ought to think about that there are government legal locale, yet just a single FISA court. When any security office figures out how to get past the FISA procedure, it could have gotten consent for a criminal wiretap dependent on the Title III from any of the numerous other government courts. Past time and coordinations issues of FISA versus criminal courts, there is a bigger reasonable clash inside arrangement circles. It is between utilizing counter-knowledge versus law implementation ways to deal with counter-terrorism– which have gigantic implications for both the lawful and strategic bearings in the battle against terroristsystems.

Previous 16-year FBI veteran Michael German finds that rather than the present counter-knowledge approach that drives counter-fear based oppression strategy, the FBI and more extensive US government ought to take a more law-authorization based methodology. The ongoing theme issue of a counter-insight approach is its solid requirement for mystery. Strategically, on the ground, mystery obstructs the essential knowledge sharing to battle psychological oppressors out of a need to ensure sources and strategies, and keeps the introduction of good and terrible works on, evacuating impetus for organizations to audit and change themselves when botches are made. Mystery additionally permits more space for injurious practices that undermine America’s human rights and common freedoms establishments and redirecting restricted data gathering assets from different zones, subsequently squandering constrained assets and diverting specialists and experts from genuine dangers.

Watching contemporary situation in the country, we can make reference to that U.S. authorities are stressed over the creating number of locals and unchanging inhabitants of the U.S. who are locked in with terrorism based oppressor practices against the country. Regardless of the way that the American home-created psychological oppressors are suffering one destruction after another, U.S. experts are sure in their virtuoso and alert the inhabitants that neighborhood mental persecution is a certifiable hazard for the country. According to Whittaker (2003), private psychological militants are particularly hazardous because they can hit any flank and with essentially zero forewarning. Whittaker (2003) forewarned that they appreciate American culture, they understand all of the systems to ensure the security of the country’s vulnerabilities. Likewise, they use the Internet, relational connection and publicizing aptitudes in order to affect the adherents. Thusly, the need to focus on the essential issues of the chronicled background of family unit mental fighting has a strong establishment.

To begin, we need to make reference to that the issue of local terrorism has significant roots, and this thought takes its beginnings various decades earlier. For instance, let us recall the way that Leon Czolgosz, rebel who killed President McKinley in 1901, was a neighborhood of the United States and acted without outside help. As shown by Schmid (1983), the most perilous exhibition of local fear based oppression in U.S. history was the impact in Oklahoma, which was made by a veteran of the Gulf War, whose name was Timothy McVeigh, and who was considered in New York. Clearly, the amount of local terrorism strikes has staggeringly decreased conversely with 1970, when Weather Underground, The Jewish Defense League, a social event of Cuban outsiders who confined Castro and Puerto Rican loyalists set off bombs on the space of the U.S., yet the issue has not evaporated yet. Viewing U.S. history of nearby dread based abuse, we need to express that Al Qaeda is a strong mental aggressor affiliation nowadays. Likewise, according to Schmid (1983), it has an indisputable spot in the chronicled background of household terrorism in the United States. Regardless, clearly, the manner in which that Al Qaeda has a couple of inconveniences in its fuse into the ordinary American life can be illuminated by three rule reasons. The principle reason is concealed in the conviction arrangement of Al Qaeda since its representatives execute various people, including Muslims, while this reality guarantees its offensiveness in a huge piece of the world. Schmid (1983) showed that their conviction framework is particularly malevolent for the people who live in the intentional liberal social requests, for instance, the United States. The second reason can be seen in trouble of Americans to be truly dedicated to this relationship by the spot of first experience with the world. It is a reality that the Americans, who are destroyed in to Al Qaeda, prone somewhat focused and vexed, yet they are not improved with properties that various affiliations regard most in their enrolled individuals. Furthermore, the third reason can be elucidated by the activity of American government to control the component of residential terrorism for the motivation to smash it. Into the certification of this reality, we can say that U.S. pioneers search for the assortments to fortify existing measures against neighborhood mental activists.

After September 11, 2001, the FBI got a great deal of additional financing for counter-terrorism and hurled a little furnished power of experts driving the fight against bad behavior to the fight against household terrorism. Numerous authorities were fused into the new joint forces to fight local terrorism. Also, determined specialists dynamically attempted to bring charges against the fear mongers, and it in like manner reduced the element of household mental fighting in the United States. To incorporate, Schmid (1983) saw that various states have set up excellent concentrations to total up all of the data about local terrorism ambushes, where the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) began to give current information about the hazard. Being continuously unequivocal, we need to express that household terrorism fuses acts that bargain human life and are an encroachment of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; the exhibitions which look as a development that has a straightly planned character; the showings that are gone for threatening, or impulse of customary individuals; the shows used to affect the course of action of a lawmaking body by threatening or weight, or to affect the movement of an organization by mass destruction, demise, or capturing of a statesman, and happens fundamentally inside the provincial domain of the United States.

Watching weak sides of family unit dread based abuse for the motivation to understand the adversary better, Zetter (2005) communicated that local mental activist affiliations have issues in their affiliation. The mass violence has genuinely been an aftereffect of bureaucratic and different leveled affiliations having a spot with or like them rebel improvements. Regardless, what is important is concealed in the manner in which that bureaucratic affiliations have the strategies imperative in order to prepare and induce various people to do unlawful exercises by the solicitation of fear monger pioneers, and as history shows up, it was the base of the viciousness with the use of little arms. What’s more, simply bureaucratic affiliations have physical security, data, capacities and capital expected to make weapons, for example, enormous firearms, ambush flying machine and nuclear weapons (fit for killing various people) as masters of the state or diverse affiliations which can store violence.

Since these affiliations are normally underground, terrorists as a rule don’t have such properties. They feel that its difficult to acquire and transmit data bearing end, assemble wealth, fabricate plants for the making of complex weapons or give enough individuals to coordinate attacks against the people. These inadequacies are particularly clear in Al Qaeda, which has constantly been even more around bound social event of radicals, rather than the affiliation which prepared to regulate its gathering and supporters. In such a way, sketching out the as of late communicated facts, we can express that the miracle of dread based abuse in the bleeding edge society is very incredible and it produces social and political entropy, primary effects of which are not enlisted. Zetter (2005) referenced that household terrorism movement normally gains a phenomenal, or an indicated ‘generative’ character through the gem of present day media. In an overall population which has an important crisis potential constantly exists a sufficient number of express affiliations, groups, criminal systems that reject common models of moral nature of people, and social occasions with tremendous enthusiastic prosperity issues who are anxious to do a terrorist act or to take an interest in residential psychological warfare works out. To incorporate, residential terrorism by its political and social mental reasons is energized not by religious characteristics and musings, yet by unequivocal settings for dealing with political issues. Thusly, a commitment with respect to mental activist activities must be finished by express individuals, social events, affiliations, which may cover the real reasons of residential terrorist ambushes behind religious, national or distinctive goals to achieve their destinations, similarly as the forces that are behind the psychological militants.

After analyzing these analyses of domestic terrorism methods like cross examination, gun laws, and racial profiling, I think that there is a fine line between freedom and human rights and warfare strategies. The connection between maintaining some freedom through our laws against terrorism is reliable. Researching the history of domestic terrorism in the United States has given me more thought to the possibility of terrorist attacks on our nation and how us as individuals mentally fight these acts here in America.

References

1. Albert J. Jongman and Alex P. Schmid, Political Terrorism. (New Brunswick, NJ: SWIDOC, Amsterdam and Transactions Publishers, 1983). P. 5. Cited in Boaz Ganor, The Counterterrorism Puzzle: A Guide for Decision Makers. (New Brunswick, NJ: Transactions Publishers, 2005.) P. 16.
2. Robin Wright, “Iranian Unit to Be Labeled ‘Terrorist.’” Washington Post, (August 15, The Terrorism Reader. Ed. David J. Whittaker. 2nd edition. (New York, NY: Routledge, 2003). P. 4-13.
3. Jonathan M. Bryant, “Ku Klux Klan in the Reconstruction Era.” The New Georgia Encyclopedia, (October 3, 2002), .
4. “Weather Underground Organization (WUO) / Weatherman.” MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base, (July 1, 2007), .
5. Kim Zetter, “Why Racial Profiling Doesn’t Work.” Salon.com, (August 22, 2005),

Introduction

In today’s interconnected world, the tension between protecting national secrets and advocating for public disclosure has become a prominent issue. Governments and organizations face the challenge of striking a delicate balance between safeguarding sensitive information for national security reasons and ensuring transparency and accountability to the public. This essay will compare and contrast the arguments surrounding national secrets and public disclosure, exploring the benefits and drawbacks of each perspective.

National Secrets

National secrets refer to classified information that governments withhold from public knowledge to protect sensitive matters such as national security, defense strategies, intelligence operations, and diplomatic negotiations. Proponents argue that national secrets are crucial for safeguarding the country from external threats and maintaining a competitive edge in global affairs. Keeping certain information hidden from the public is seen as necessary to prevent potential harm and preserve the integrity of national interests.

Security and Stability

Supporters of national secrets emphasize that public disclosure of sensitive information can jeopardize the security and stability of a nation. Exposing classified details, such as military tactics, intelligence sources, or covert operations, may compromise ongoing missions and put lives at risk. The potential for espionage, terrorist attacks, or other forms of harm increases when vital information falls into the wrong hands. Maintaining national secrets, therefore, is considered crucial to ensuring the safety and well-being of the population.

Accountability and Transparency

On the other hand, advocates for public disclosure argue that an informed citizenry is vital for a healthy democracy. Transparency and accountability are essential principles in a democratic society, and citizens have the right to access information concerning government actions and policies. Public disclosure promotes trust, fosters civic engagement, and enables citizens to participate in informed decision-making processes. It also acts as a check on potential abuses of power, ensuring that the government remains accountable to its constituents.

Open Government and Citizen Empowerment

Supporters of public disclosure believe that it leads to greater government accountability, reduces corruption, and enhances public participation. By providing access to information, governments can empower citizens to hold them accountable for their actions. Open government initiatives, such as freedom of information laws, allow citizens to scrutinize government activities, make informed judgments, and actively contribute to policy discussions. Public disclosure fosters a sense of shared responsibility, enabling individuals to participate more effectively in shaping their communities and holding their elected officials accountable.

Striking the Balance

Balancing national secrets and public disclosure is a complex task that requires careful consideration. While national security concerns must be taken seriously, excessive secrecy can lead to a lack of trust in government and undermine democratic principles. Striking the right balance involves implementing robust security measures to protect sensitive information while ensuring transparency in areas where public disclosure is necessary for accountability and public interest.

Controlled Disclosure and Redaction

One approach to striking this balance is through controlled disclosure and redaction. Governments can establish processes and criteria for determining what information can be disclosed to the public, while also identifying sensitive areas that require protection. Redacting specific details, such as names or technical specifications, can help mitigate risks while still providing necessary transparency. This approach allows for accountability while minimizing potential harm to national security.

Conclusion

The debate between national secrets and public disclosure revolves around the tension between protecting national security and maintaining transparency and accountability. While national secrets are essential for safeguarding a nation’s interests, public disclosure ensures informed citizenry, accountability, and active participation in democratic processes. Striking the right balance is a complex challenge, but through controlled disclosure and redaction, it is possible to protect sensitive information while upholding democratic principles. Finding common ground between security and transparency is crucial for building trust, fostering citizen empowerment, and maintaining a healthy democratic society.

TikTok is a free social media app that lets you watch, make, and share videos right from your phone often to a soundtrack of top music hits. It was initially available in the United States as musical.ly but was rebranded in August 2018 when the two apps merged. TikTok is immensely popular with more than 100 million users. Users can watch and record videos of them, lip-synching to popular music and sound bites, as with the lip-synching app Dubsmash. Kids can produce short, shareable videos ranging from funny to extreme, as they did on the now-defunct Vine. And just like YouTube, TikTok is an immersive world of videos that allows you to communicate through likes, comments, and even duets with friends and admirers. TikTok also creates celebrities of its own. Overnight sensations such as Baby Ariel and Jacob Sartorius gained popularity on the app online, especially with children and teens, back before TikTok acquired musical.ly. Since then, the list has been joined by even more stars. But it can be a struggle for parents to know if it’s really secure with so much knowledge out there. There are real concerns about children using the app. You have to use privacy settings, as with any social network, to restrict how much data you and your children share. Without reading or editing it first, kids can post stuff. The app has been plagued by other issues: allegations of online predators using the app to exploit younger users, an FTC suit for breaching the privacy law of children, and severe technical failures including one that might have allowed the business to collect user data. Every major Chinese corporation has been alleged to have an internal ‘cell’ accountable to the ruling Chinese Communist Party, with many of its agents charged with collecting secrets.

President Donald Trump said back in August that TikTok had to either be purchased by a US agency by September 15 or face a ban. On Friday, the company, which does not operate in China but is owned by the Chinese company ByteDance, was given a November 12 deadline to enter into a satisfactory agreement to continue its operations in the US. It hasn’t fulfilled the demands of Trump. Instead, Oracle and Walmart revealed on Saturday that they would purchase a 20 percent TikTok stake. The majority will continue to own ByteDance. Trump said the agreement has its ‘blessing’. ByteDance said that in order to mitigate suspected security issues, Oracle has the right to conduct security inspections on the US source code of TikTok. Trump says the deal would lead to an investment of $5 billion in US education, but ByteDance has said it is ‘unconscious’ of any such agreement. The deal would lead to 25,000 new jobs, Oracle suggests, but this seems highly unlikely. This ban is all about national security and fears about the use of smartphones by the Chinese Communist Party to steal data from American citizens. The Trump administration, however, has consistently declined to offer any justification for its allegations.

There are 30 million monthly active users in the United States, according to TikTok. With 46 million app installs last year, the US accounted for six percent of global downloads American users spend on the app an average of 46 minutes a day, totaling 37 billion video views a month. In the United States, 34% of regular active users record videos on a daily basis. The largest age group for TikTok in the United States is 18-24 years of age, which accounts for 42 percent. That’s followed by 27 percent of 13-17-year-olds. In the United States, people aged 13-26 years are as likely to use TikTok as Facebook and Twitter. Around 60 percent of US users are female, compared to 40 percent of male users.

Not the only nation worried about Chinese apps is the United States. For example, WeChat, a messaging, social media, and mobile payment software, was accused by the Australian army of functioning as spyware, saying the app was caught transmitting data to Chinese intelligence servers. But there is also a national security drawback to banning the apps and demanding Chinese divestiture. It harms the moral legitimacy of the United States to push internationally for free speech and democracy. Critics have often argued that the moral authority of America has been seriously weakened during Trump’s presidency, and this action may arguably contribute to the decline. Although cybersecurity issues are raised by TikTok, they are not substantially different from those raised by other smartphone apps. In my opinion, by enacting national regulations on privacy, to determine how data is collected and used and where it is stored, these issues may be better addressed. Another option is to make Google, Apple, and others check the applications for cyber security problems before allowing new versions of their app stores to be made accessible.

The biggest issue posed by the restrictions is their impact on the right of citizens to speak, and whether they violate the First Amendment. TikTok is a channel of communication and content is published and hosted by TikTok. Although the courts have permitted some control of speech, the regulations must promote a legitimate government interest and be ‘narrowly tailored’ to do so to withstand a legal challenge. A legitimate governmental concern is national security.

The bans could also damage the US economy because US businesses could be barred in retaliation by other countries. In addition to reciprocal consulate closures, China and the United States have already gone through a period of reciprocal banning of firms. The United States has put on the Bureau of Industry Security Entity List the Chinese telecom company Huawei, prohibiting US companies from doing business with it. Although this has stopped Huawei from selling wireless hardware in the United States, it has also prevented the telecom giant from selling US software and forced it to use its own chips rather than purchasing them from US companies. The White House was encouraged by over a dozen US businesses not to ban Chinese apps because it would damage their company in China. Other nations use Chinese companies’ US bans as justification for banning US businesses, even if the United States has not specifically taken action against them or their businesses. Such trade barriers are harming the moral legitimacy of the United States, harming the global economy, and stifling innovation. They have also cut off US companies from China’s high-growth market.

In his executive order, Donald J. Trump said that TikTok, a mobile video-sharing application owned by ByteDance Ltd., a Chinese firm, has reportedly been downloaded over 175 million times in the United States and over a billion times worldwide. TikTok automatically gathers large quantities of information from its users, including information about the Internet and other network operations, such as location data and browsing and search history. His collection of data threatens to give the Chinese Communist Party access to the personal and confidential information of Americans, potentially allowing China to control the locations of federal employees and contractors, establish blackmail records of personal information, and conduct corporate espionage. TikTok also allegedly censors material deemed politically sensitive by the Chinese Communist Party, such as content relating to demonstrations in Hong Kong and the treatment of Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities by China. For misinformation campaigns supporting the Chinese Communist Party, such as TikTok videos spread debunked conspiracy theories about the source of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus. Such risks are real. The use of TikTok on federal government phones has also been banned by the Department of Homeland Security, the Transportation Security Administration, and the United States Armed Forces. The Government of India has recently banned the use in the country of TikTok and other Chinese mobile apps. American businesses and organizations have started to ban TikTok on their devices. President further stressed that to protect national security, the United States needs to take drastic action against the owners of TikTok.

TikTok has downplayed its links to Beijing, saying that data it collects on US users is mostly kept in Virginia. TikTok officials also insist that the company has never handed any data over to the Chinese authorities, despite the country’s wide national powers to subpoena private companies for such data. A federal class-action lawsuit involving thousands of American families alleges that TikTok’s independent security analysis found that the app syphons data, including American children’s facial profiles, and sends it to Chinese servers, although the lawsuit does not offer proof that any information has ever been transferred to the Chinese Communist Party.

Software giant Microsoft has reported that it is among a handful of businesses in early talks to acquire the short-form video service after the Trump administration started turning up the pressure on TikTok. For Microsoft, a $1.5 trillion company that through the sale of software and cloud computing services has based its business mainly on corporate customers, buying TikTok will be its first big foray into a social networking site popular among young users. Microsoft officials say it is evaluating a TikTok acquisition that would likely purchase American, Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand services from TikTok, but officials close to the agreement say the final offer could include operations in many more countries.

The executive order of Trump comes on the same day that Facebook released a new product, Reels, a video-sharing app that mimics the core features of TikTok. TikTok accused Facebook of launching a ‘copycat’ service, alleging that the social network is seeking to capitalize on the zeal of the administration to punish China for its own advantage.

In the face of the current situation, TikTok can sell its shares to other companies in the United States to gain the trust of the government. A complete ban on the use of this app will affect the companies badly. However, selling a few shares to another company would still be in its favor as it will earn something out of it at least. Another step that the owner of this app can take is to ask the Trump administration to provide them with solid proof, which indicates that the app has been used illegally to draw out the data of their active users. If there are other issues, the government should share them with the US public. If not, then it will be more fitting to take less drastic steps and represent the American people better.

Contours of the Right of Privacy in a modern world

It is not that this right is a new concept that needs immediate attention and scrutiny- the simple reason behind the rise and recognition of this right in various legal systems is an account of the changing dynamics of the way people interact and connect with each other. There is an information explosion and increased connectivity due to the unprecedented growth seen in Information and Communication Technology (ICT), fundamentally transforming the way we make connections. While these innovations have definitely improved our life, they have also opened up new avenues and concerns. These technologies are developing at a rapid pace and while it is all well and good from a consumerist perspective, misuse of these technologies is becoming equally rampant, which has forced the authorities to step up their guard and accordingly deal with the hazards associated with the use of such technologies. The problem arises when these authorities, in a bid to ensure security and maintain surveillance start trampling on the privacy of its citizens, albeit ‘for the greater good’.

Most of the time the citizen is unaware of these seemingly dubious activities of the state, interspersed by revelations from the ‘Edward Snowdens’ of the world, followed by uproar and debates and repeated assurances from the State and its various institutions of their utmost regard and respect for this basic right, ensuring the citizens of a certain semblance of privacy in their lives. But, as the dust settles and other issues acquire significance, the ‘status quo ante’ is restored and violation of privacy continues unabated and unencumbered, citizens unaware of the eyes of ‘Big Brother’ on the activities of the individual. It is in fact naivety to assume that any person connected to the internet has any semblance of privacy- the applications and the technology we utilize for our convenience record seemingly innocuous details about our preferences, which are then used to collate and construct an online profile of the concerned individual, apart from tracking their actions and preferences. In a world dominated by consumerism and cutthroat competition, this data acquires special significance and adds to the competitive advantage of Big e-commerce companies which utilize this data to the best of their abilities to increase their profits, which is again a corroboration and application of the ‘Big data theory’, extracting value from large scores of data and in use for predictive analytics and user behavior analytics.

Going by the same analogy, the state is also not far behind in its efforts to regulate the life of citizens in some way or the other, regulation through the internet being the latest weapon in its arsenal. It has become quite common to effect violations of privacy under the garb of national security. It cannot be denied that our actions are being observed and recorded by the state, the only question which remains is to determine to what extent such a violation is permissible.

Surveillance in a Modern State

After we have established that Surveillance and violations of the right to Privacy by the state are unavoidable, it is pertinent to understand the other side of the story. Why does the state feel compelled to control and keep a check on the activities of its citizens? The answer to this question lies in the development of economic systems and the functioning of economies. The industrial revolution and the advent of capitalism were accentuated by cutthroat competition and an almost impulsive need to increase efficiency. Therefore, managers were engaged to ensure that workers’ productivity did not suffer because of their laxity, and herein lies the roots of surveillance. With the gradual development of technologies, it became easier to keep a check on the activities and actions of the workers, and eventually, this concept found application in the governance of the nation, as explained by Max weber’s notion of capitalistic bureaucracy. This has been amplified by the exponential growth observed in Information and Communication Technology, which has made it all the more difficult for an individual to ensure anonymity.

Surveillance has become necessary on account of the burgeoning of societies and the increase in the diversity of the populace. As the heterogeneity in the individual’s increases, the anonymity of the actions of individuals also increases and it becomes difficult to attribute and control the unlawful actions of individuals. In such a situation, mass surveillance by the state becomes the need of the hour to ensure social order and control at a much larger scale. As Hagerty and Ericson describe it as “the progressive disappearance of disappearance”, thereby making it difficult for individuals to make it difficult for individuals to remain anonymous or to escape social monitoring without losing their social benefits.

Every notion and every action taken by the state with respect to ensuring security or good governance has an impact on the lives of the citizens. But, we must not forget that it is also the responsibility of the state to protect the sovereignty and integrity of the state and in the face of new threats emerging from cyberspace, certain actions need to be taken. This is the core of the averments put forth by the state and the ultra-nationalists and it will not be wrong to acknowledge that this line of arguments does have the strength and therefore it becomes pertinent to balance and maintain an equilibrium between these conflicting concepts.

Privacy Vs National Security: Understanding the Trade-off

It is very difficult to imagine a private life in today’s connected world, characterized by seemingly endless possibilities for growth and advancement or tyranny and despotism depending on the intention of the user. It is indeed a precarious situation wherein maintaining the safety of citizens requires a breach of their privacy, albeit in a discrete manner. The problem lies in the fact that there is no check on the power of the state to have insight into the details of a citizen, which he has a right of keeping to himself. It is because the city generally has no knowledge of such wide sweeping powers of the state, living in a utopian world wherein the state neither has the ability nor the need to delve into the private lives of the citizens. As shown previously, the same is not viable in the present state of affairs and it is indeed better to accept the reality that such violations will become more prevalent in the years to come.

In such a situation, it is inconceivable to think of any semblance of privacy in the lives of citizens. Roger Marshall highlighted the same in an article published in the Wire, recounting the case of a juvenile offender in America, who was tracked by utilizing the DNA gathered from a glass of cold drink offered by the investigators. While the same can be justified on account of public good and controlling delinquent behavior, this at the same time raises concerns as to the extent to which the state can go to further its objectives in maintaining security, law, and order. The advancement in technologies has increased the scope and the possibilities of such violations and this presuppose the need for having a discussion and finding a balance between these conflicting concepts. The main issue is the need to define the extents to which the privacy of citizens can be violated. This would require contemplation and discussions between the stakeholders, i.e., Citizens, ISPs, and the Government. In the author’s humble opinion, it is better to define the limits and extent of such examinations rather than simply maintaining the façade of respecting the privacy of citizens.

It must be made clear to the citizens that some violations of privacy are bound to happen and that the same cannot be avoided. Moreover, in complex societies adorned with a diverse variety and heterogeneity, ensuring the simultaneous exercise of such rights would require a balanced approach as these rights are not absolute and are subject to reasonable restrictions. Instead of discretely collecting data and utilizing it for a variety of purposes, the focus should be on increasing transparency and educating citizens about the perils of sharing their personal data and the potential harm that they may be susceptible to by sharing such data. Further, adequate safeguards should be deployed in order to ensure that the data collected is not misused. The main problem is the information deficit in the general masses and concerted efforts need to be made in order to educate citizens about the same. Such a discussion would entail dual benefits- reduced scope of misuse as the masses are more diligent about how they use and protect their personal data and securing the cooperation of the citizens in the state’s pursuit of maintaining law and order and keeping a check activity which has the potential of jeopardizing the sovereignty and integrity of the nation.

Right to Privacy: In a National Perspective

The K.S Puttuswamy judgment was historic because it recognized something as basic and intrinsic and quintessential for leading a normal life envisaged under Article 21 of the constitution of India. Prior to this judgment, there had been rulings wherein the court talked about its facets but never explicitly declared it as a part of the fundamental right to life. This judgment has opened Pandora’s box as every action of the state would now be scrutinized and judged at the altar of the citizen’s privacy. Various bills have been blocked and the validity of provisions of legislation has been challenged on account of this judgment. What needs to be seen is whether there is an effective application of this right in the coming years. Take for instance the Aadhar card controversy – it in fact marked the inception of this debate which was followed by a petition filed by the retired High Court Justice and the recognition of this right. However, the actions of the state have continued unabated to secure control over the lives of citizens.

The DNA technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill, 2019 is a prime example of the hegemonic interests of the state in regulating the lives of the citizens. This bill was passed by the erstwhile National Democratic Alliance government in January, despite numerous concerns pertaining to misuse of the data collected, consent, and privacy. This bill seeks to utilize DNA technology to establish the identity of a certain category of persons by maintaining a database (DNA Databanks) and a DNA regulatory board. The main concern regarding the legislation was regarding the possibility of misuse given the deplorable state of the justice adjudication system and the duration for which such data would remain in the database, rendering it susceptible to misuse. These concerns were allayed by the ruling dispensation by highlighting that every law is susceptible to misuse and that the said bill was brought after a lot of deliberation and discussion. Another problematic area is regarding the collection of data in civil disputes as the provisions do not stipulate where such data would be stored.

Recently, a petition was filed in the Madras High Court regarding the linking of social media profiles of registered users with their Aadhar cards. Despite the fact that such an idea was rejected by the division bench of the Madras High court, the Tamil Nadu Government chose to file an appeal before the honorable Supreme Court. The petition was filed highlighting the fact that individuals guilty of incitement by posting inflammatory posts on social media sites got away with the same and that there was a need to bypass the stringent privacy regulations of the intermediaries to ascertain their identities. Since then, the petition has been expanded in its scope to examine the adequacy of the legal framework on cybercrimes and the responsibility of the intermediaries providing telecommunication and online services. Further, the new rules proposed by the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information technology regarding cooperation on the part of intermediaries in identifying originators of offensive content shows that there is a certain nexus between the actions of the state and its need to have control over data and the lives of the citizens. This is precisely the reason behind the apprehension of various activists regarding a potential violation of the right to privacy by the state, justified by the government in order to maintain security and peace.

Conclusion

The discussion in the above paragraphs has clearly shown the necessity to achieve an equilibrium between national security and the privacy of citizens. What is essential on the part of the state to ensure basic respect for privacy and the personal lives of the citizens is something that needs to be deliberated upon and this can be done only by encouraging discussions and recognizing the threat to privacy posed by the modern developments in Information and Communication technology. Formulation of standards regulating the extent to which the data of the masses can be collected and utilized needs to be addressed by adequate legal reforms and changes in the enforcement machinery. Growth in ICT is taking place at an exponential rate and so are the possible threats of misuse and exploitation. The problem is that advancements to deal with these threats have not been at pace in the legal framework. The need of the hour is to promulgate legislation and formulate rules for preventing the misuse of the personal data of citizens and protecting privacy.

Further, concerted efforts to educate people about the potential breaches of data and the inherent risks involved in transacting in an increasingly digitized world are also pertinent in light of the new emerging threats. Dealing with these will require the cooperation of both the citizens as well as the government in order to deal with the challenges posed by the modern technological developments