Security vs. Privacy as a Moral Dilemma

The choice between privacy and security is a hotly debated subject, and the current development in technology elevates it to a new level of moral dilemma. Modern technology allows companies and the government to collect every bit of information about people from phones and social media they use. Those who support the governmental right to collect data cite national security as justification: to prevent criminal activities, monitor abuse cases, and catch criminals. Many argue that only those breaking the law would be affected. If a user agrees to give their information to a third party, they automatically agree to give up on their privacy. These arguments are often cited to paint mass surveillance via technology as something necessary to ensure human safety.

While they offer a purpose for mass surveillance, they do not factor in the inevitable cost. Although surveillance can help catch criminals in an act or track them after, it is the government’s responsibility to do so, and this is not a price their citizens should be paying. People who argue that only law-breakers fear supervision still lock their information behind passwords: they are content with other people giving up their privacy, not their own. Whereas some states may use it to protect human rights, others can use it to violate people’s rights rather than protect them. As many people are entirely unaware of what kind of information they are giving away, it can be argued that it is unlawful.

Mass surveillance is an unsurprising subject in the modern day of social media and smartphone usage. As technology evolves, so does governmental and corporations’ ability to watch people’s every step. However, society should not sacrifice people’s privacy in the name of the greater good as it would go against the very basis of human rights.