My first thought regarding the limits of security policy is that security should not breech personal privacy. However, after thinking about it I realized that there are really no limits to security. Governments will do what they deem necessary to remain safe. One might think that since we are in America and we have First Amendment rights, the government does not breech our privacy. This is not true. The government can tap personal phone lines, and they do.
So, is this too far? I certainly feel stalked even though I know the Department of Homeland Security is not wasting it’s time on my phone line. Whats the point of Freedom of Speech if what we say can be secretly monitored and possibly held against us?
Though I can’t say I agree with the level to which the United States can tap into anyone’s personal business, there are some people I hope the government is monitoring. After all, it is for our security that such policies are in place! There are certainly some shady people that its arguably necessary for the government to keep tabs on.
I went to the official Department of Homeland Security website and, of course, got no specific information considering its a government website and the government offers limited information especially regarding security. However, I did learn one thing. Today the national security threat advisory is on yellow meaning there is a “significant risk of terrorist attacks.” I don’t know how often its on yellow, but its still a terrifying thought. Some random Thursday in October is a code yellow for national security threats! It makes me a little more satisfied knowing the U.S. government is monitoring lots of individuals and behaviors and incidents.
Perhaps this does not answer the question of whether or not security has limits or should have limits, but this is my brain dump on the matter. There is a double standard with security: I want my personal liberties and I want to be protected. Though I don’t want the government nosing around in my life, I certainly feel more safe with the knowledge that they poke around in some peoples lives!
I like how the U.S. is able to quantify it's security level based upon color levels. While national security is yellow, airline security is orange. This makes me wonder what causes these levels to fluctuate? The chart uses vague terms to describe the risk of a terrorist attack ranging from "low" to a "severe" risk of a terrorist attack. Now what exactly is the difference between a "high" risk of an attack and a "severe" risk of an attack. Additionally, I find it interesting that the chart assumes that there's always going to be some risk of a terrorist attack. I may be overextending myself here, but I see elements of realism within a simple security chart. The fact that there is always a risk of a terrorist attack sort of reinforces an aspect of realism that we can never be sure what other states' intentions are.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I haven't thought through this enough, I'm pretty tired, but I've always found the government's attempt to quantify threat levels to be interesting.
Great post though!
I agree that the threat levels are grounded in realist ideals. Its a kind of paranoia that is only addressed in realist IR theory. Since its national security we are talking about I'm not surprised that traces of realism are evident. After all, its easy to talk about liberalism and constructivism when discussing political interaction with other states, but not so easy to apply when discussing security against terrorist attacks, which demands a kind of necessary paranoia.
ReplyDelete