Argumentative Research Essay (Essay Sample)

Student’s Name Instructor’s Name Course Date Final - “The-Nothing-to-Hide Argument” Introduction In the modern society, the term "privacy" has become omnipresent and can be seen in every day in different forms ranging from online transactions to social networking sites. To address this matter of privacy, Professor Daniel J. Solove presents a Nothing-to-Hide essay argument. The underlying argument presented in his article is that the issue of privacy has a far much implication which is more than just a person hiding a wrong. Solove arguments answer the fundamental questions regarding the controversial issues on the government's rights of accessing extensive personal information without the public consent. The "Nothing-to-Hide" argument clearly favors government surveillance of the public so as to enhance security. Therefore, based on Solove arguments, it is necessary to understand why privacy matters and have an actual definition of privacy to preserve privacy in the modern society. Although government surveillance and data collection enhance national security, it significantly interferes with privacy. Definition of "privacy." Privacy is often considered as an abstract concept that only becomes a concern for individuals when their privacy is taken away. There have been several attempts to understand privacy majorly by seeking to pinpoint its essence, its essential characteristics or the shared denominator that joins the different things classified under the title of "privacy" (Bird 669-671). However, privacy is a very complex notion and may be difficult to reduce it to a unique essence. It is usually regarded as a plurality of various aspects that do not have a common element but nonetheless contain a resemblance to one another. To examine the "nothing-to-hide argument," it's essential to evaluate its adherence on understanding privacy. Almost all policies or laws concerning privacy relies upon a given understanding of privacy. The manner in which issues are conceived has a marvelous implication on the legal and policy solutions that are employed in solving them (Solove). Nevertheless, the privacy interest in surveillance and collection data is minimal compared to preventing terrorism. In its effort to collect individual's information, the government should ensure that it is safeguarded against any manipulations. It is essential to point out that privacy is not all about concealing illegal activities. Rather it constitutes several concepts regarding personal information that should not be disclosed in any way. Surveillance can hinder legal activities such as free association, free speech, among other first revised rights that are essential for democracy. In some instances, privacy can be interfered by the disclosure of a person's deepest secrets. The disclosure of secrets may result in harm in that the hidden information eventually spreads to others. Nevertheless, there are various forms of invasion of privacy which include blackmail and inappropriate use of personal data. Also, a person's privacy can be overrun if the government hoards an extensive record about the person (Lunsford, Andrea et al. 467-486). Therefore, privacy consists of several things that make it impossible to shrink them into one simple idea. Why Privacy Matters The government's access to individual's private information can create harm against the person. This kind of damage caused by surveillance is referred to as aggregation, and it emerges from a combination of small bits of superficially simple data. When this little bits of information are fused, it becomes much more telling. As a result, the government might glean pieces of information which a person would otherwise wish to be concealed. The arguments provided by Solove asserts that there is no threat to individual privacy unless the state exposes unlawful activity where a person may not have a legitimate justification for disputing the case presented ( Solove, Daniel et al. 9-11 ). Another harm associated with government surveillance is referred to as exclusion. This harm takes place when individuals are barred from knowing how their personal information is being used. Besides, people are disallowed from accessing this information; thus they wouldn't be able to correct the errors in that data (Lunsford, Andrea et al. 467-486). As a result, the government may have incorrect information data about particular individuals, and this may land these people into problems. Solove argues that much of the information collected by the government is fundamentally related to national security and people shouldn't access such data. Apparently, this brings about a structural problem which is mostly concerned with the way in which citizens are treated by the government which eventually creates a power discrepancy between people and the government. Solove argues that the deliberations on surveillance and data collection by the government do not focus on hitches related to the processing and storage of the information collected. Rather, they merely focus on gathering and utilization of individual data. He further explains that the nothing-to-hide conception only emphasizes on one or two types of privacy glitches while overlooking others ( Solove, Daniel et al. 9-11 ). Thus, from this perspective, privacy is not endangered by a single extreme act, but rather by a progressive accumulation of small inconspicuous acts. It can thus be deduced that even if people have nothing to hide, the government can harm them unintentionally, due to carelessness or error. Solve contends that the noting-to-hide argument becomes less persuasive when one understands the enormous amounts of privacy apprehensions that are associated with government surveillance and data collection ( Solove, Daniel et al. 9-11 ). Solove's arguments on the value of privacy provide a precise definition of needed to enable the modern society to preserve its privacy. Arguments for Surveillance and Data Collection The key argument supporting data collection government surveillance is based on the notion that it prevents crime thus saving lives. Seemingly, this argument is valid since the biggest threat that countries particularly the United States faces is terrorism and cyber-attacks (Bird 669-671). To counter these threats, there is the need for ...