In security is not ensured so it is

In order to protect all citizens the government is tasked with national security; therefore making it necessary to sacrifice certain individual constitutional rights. Agencies like the FBI and NSA, believe it is essential to monitor personal information for national security. “…The “USA PATRIOT Act” that Congress enacted in October 2001 to enable the Federal Bureau…(FBI) and the National Security…(NSA) to collect information…in preventing future terrorist attacks. (Patriot 4)” As a result, by collecting our personal information, the government has the right to secure and strengthen our national security. To secure our security and avoid future disasters, agencies must view personal interactions, even if it means giving up privacy.  “But by sifting through this so-­?called metadata, they may identify potential leads with respect to folks who might engage in terrorism (Obama 4.)” The data that the government sorts through can help aid in locate potential threats which can prevent future attacks. Consequently, if the government is not able to collect citizens personal information, security is not ensured so it is imperative to sacrifice certain rights. “… the government assures us that as long as we don’t consort with menaces to national security, our phone calls and Web searches are of no more interest to Uncle Sam…”(Surveillance 8.)”  As long as citizens don’t perform tasks that risk national security, the government won’t have a need to view personal communications or information. Ultimately, it is the government’s duty to secure citizen’s privacy at all costs.    Equally important to national security is the integrity of the constitution and the privacy of citizens it is sworn to protect. “The right of the people to be secure…against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation…(Patriot 4.)” According to the 4th Amendment,the citizens in the united states have the right to be secure. Therefore, by being sworn to this amendment, citizens cannot be seized and searched unless a judge has signed off and a reasonable cause is presented. “…My team’s assessment was that they help us prevent terrorist attacks. And the modest encroachments on privacy that are involved in getting phone numbers or duration without a name attached and not looking at content(Obama 10.)” Correspondingly,The government sorted out what information was necessary to collect so they could protect citizens from any possible national threat. To protect citizens 4th amendment rights, the government can only obtain the time and phone number of a person if there is any sign of any danger to the country.Even after all this, the analysts are “allowed to use this information only in a limited way, to map a network of telephone numbers calling other telephone numbers,” Litt continued. And finally, the analysts don’t know the names that match the phone numbers.(P12) Likewise, Robert Litt concludes that individuals privacy is protected by the 4th amendment. The government is sworn to protect its people but equally important of ensuring national security.  With many safeguards and security measures put in place,the government reassures its citizens that any incidents involved in collecting the data are ensured by the righteousness of their constitutional rights. Some may argue that the 4th Amendment rights are being violated in the name of national security; however, there are safeguards in place that protect our constitutional rights. “Such steps seem small, however, compared with the rapid rise of surveillance powers and the grim history of governments corrupted by the temptation to watch their peoples too closely. (Patriot 16)” The opposing side points out that if our 4th amendment rights are not being violated then large corporations would not be able to misuse our personal data for personal advantages. This concludes to the argument that the government protects our constitutional rights but also must ensure security. “But I think it’s important to recognize that you can’t have a hundred percent security and also then have a hundred percent privacy and zero inconvenience.”(Obama 11) Nevertheless, in order for the nation to be safe, citizens  must give up some of their privacy.Obama guarantees that with all of the safeguards put into place, it would be difficult for government to invade on our fourth amendment rights. “Their quick capture was a triumph for law enforcement but left an unsettling realization in its wake: everyone else on those teeming Boston sidewalks was also being watched and remembered. (Surveillance 3)”  Although, the patriot act was instituted after the twin tower 2001 to protect national security, many citizens felt that too much was power given to the agencies violate our 4th amendment rights.The Boston Marathon incident was a rightful example of how national security was put in place to protect citizens from terrorist but not invade on their certain rights. Overall, some may believe in the case of national security, their rights are violated but, the government argues that too many safeguards are put in place to protect their privacy.