The security of a person or a nation is one of the primary concerns that exist in the modern world. People feel the need to have some form of protection by installing home and car alarms, purchasing protective weapons and other products that will ensure their lives and properties stay safe.
The debate about ethics and the approach that is used by Homeland Security and people’s privacy has been around for a long time, and still, there seems to be no clear cut answers.
One of the major concerns of the government and Homeland Security is terrorism. It has become a worldwide concern and especially since September 11, 2011, the United States Homeland Security has changed several policies.
The issues that came up in the threat of a terrorist attack have spread their influence to all institutions and law enforcement authorities. The recent modifications to the jurisdiction of Homeland Security have seen significant changes with the out coming results and people’s concerns.
The first implementation that followed September 11th was more advancement in the gathering of intelligence relating to the world terrorism, how it operated and at what rate it was spreading. The issue was that most local authorities and police services had no prior training in the counterterrorism tactics and the technology of surveillance was minimal.
This meant that there was no specific technique which allowed for proper identification of acts that could be considered terrorist, and there were no policies or procedures that would specifically deal and find solutions to the problem. One of the primary issues that relates to abusing the privacy of citizens is how important is individual security to that of the whole nation.
Do authorities have the right to violate people’s personal space, secrecy and privacy in order to prevent the greater evil? Would it be morally acceptable to listen into the conversations of the whole population, to sort out any threats or possible terrorist conspiracies?
Presently, there are authorities and law enforcement divisions, including Homeland Security, which monitor internet and telephones. There are key words that relate to narcotics, weapons, strategies of attacks and many other aspects of what the authorities consider “terrorist lingo”. The list is very extensive and a lot of words are being used by people without any idea to perform or carry out terror related acts (Jordan, 2011).
In reality, the regular public cannot control or find out the truth because the government has a lot of information which is classified. This creates mass fear that people are constantly watched and monitored. One of the most common things that are said by authorities is that if people are not involved in any matters relating to the state security, they should not worry that they are monitored.
Even if there is some suspicion by Homeland Security, they might listen in on several phone calls, or read through a few emails, but once they realize the context, they continue on to more dangerous suspects. Even though an honest person should not have anything to hide, it is still unpleasant to know that someone is watching or listening to your private conversations.
It is not a secret that the security policy has been enacted that will enhance the authorities in the fight against world and specifically the United States terrorism. Even before September 11th terrorist attacks, the federal government would get involved by funding local policing and law enforcement agencies to advance tactics and techniques of espionage and counterterrorism.
The regulatory changes that were made in the recent years provide equipment and knowledge specific to terrorism. Training is another important key component in the direct action of preventing future attacks, but unfortunately, not all people employed with such institutions follow their training or ethical conduct.
Even though there is extensive psychological and character testing, some people are able to hide their true reasons or become desensitized later. The indirect action is classified by the interconnection between intelligence groups that gather the data and look at a more distant and general technique of fighting terrorism (Dunn, 2008).
There are several important issues to consider when analyzing ethics of Homeland Security, as it operates on a smaller and more direct scale. The local authorities play an important role in the community policing, but in case of pro-active approach there is bound to be some displeasement form the local public.
Homeland Security and even local law enforcements are sometimes forced to stereotype and mistrust citizens, even though it happens without specific want to discriminate or segregate certain individuals. The policy outlines as everyone being a possible suspect but due to limitations in the amount of enforcers and resources, authorities have to decide what specific individuals to target.
This in turn, causes for the reputation of such agencies to suffer because people realize that there is a possibility they are not trusted and considered suspect. Even though this fact happens for the greater good, sometimes people are unable to recognize the larger problem and blame security organizations for being overprotective and suspicious.
The decentralization of governmental institutions and law enforcement agencies leads to more police involvement in the local communities, whereas national security consisting of FBI forces is significantly lower in personnel. The unification and close cooperation on the federal and local level will provide for better communication and resolution of the common goal (Marion & Oliver, 2006).
The possibility of the infringement of constitutional rights of people where privacy through surveillance can be compromised is an ongoing battle. In the end, it is much better to prevent terrorist attacks and save lives, than to stay completely free of any negative views and opinions. Authorities often have a certain predisposition from the public and people feel insecure in case they have committed some minor infractions.
The opposing argument is that people will feel much safer with the courts establishing justice and protecting individuals based on their rights and freedoms. At the same time, local public can proactively participate in the training and gain knowledge as to recognition of potential terrorist acts.
The victims will be considerably interested in responding and so, local communities can become strengthened through public participation and education.
Those accused or suspected of terrorism will face harsher penalties and the sentencing process will be modified. The horrific nature of terrorist acts demands a hardening of the justice system, as the committed violations are a danger to the local society and the security of the whole nation (Charvat, 2012)
Even though there are several possible and existing issues, an increase in the public participation and awareness proves that people are ready to take action together with police and Homeland Security in the fight against terrorism. It is much better to be safe, than hurt people’s feelings through privacy being violated, as time will heal those wounds while a person’s life cannot be brought back.
References
Charvat, J. (2012). Homeland security organization in defense against terrorism. Fairfax, VA: IOS Press.
Dunn, W. N. (2008). Public policy analysis: An introduction (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Jordan, A. (2011). American National Security. Baltimore, MD: JHU Press.
Marion, N. E., & Oliver, W. M. (2006). The public policy of crime and criminal justice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.