There's been a lot of debate around the tradeoff between national security and civil liberties. Both sides of the argument seem to weigh in on hypothetical scenarios that have been taken to the extreme. What do you think are the REALISTIC concerns that we should keep in mind?

Steve Kornguth, University of Texas
“The balance between individual privacy and public wellness has been of historical concern. For example, the episodes of Typhoid Mary and childbirth fever in 19th century brought ready awareness to the need for public health policy and potential conflict with personal privacy on the part of food handlers and physicians respectively. New technologies now permit us to screen food and patient fluid samples rapidly for evidence of communicable disease. To maintain public health and security it is appropriate to determine the balance needed between knowledge and privacy rather than view these as mutually exclusive issues.”

Dick Powers, INSIGHT
"When you can't guess where your next vulnerability may be, you have to do up front analysis to plan on how you react under certain scenarios. That is exactly what the war gamers in the Pentagon do. You are usually operating from an infrastructure that has some redundancy. So the key is having modeled various scenarios to see what you can do if certain events occur. This does not lead to an incursion on privacy at all in most cases. However, as a philosophical point, if you don't have physical security you have no freedom or privacy anyway."

Fran Maier, TRUSTe
"The Bush Administration's indication that it will appoint the first-ever United States Chief Privacy Officer (CPO) as part of its proposed Department of Homeland Security shows that there is a willingness to balance the needs of security with American's right to privacy. When creating any homeland security policies, the Dept. must first and foremost, inform our citizens about what information is being collected about them and why. The Chief Privacy Officer must never forget that the Dept. will be most effective when Americans cooperate to the fullest; being totally open and honest in situations when they're asked to give up their personal data for security purposes. My experience at TRUSTe has also taught me that citizens will value a mechanism for quick redress should privacy safeguards fail to protect citizens' privacy."

William Penrod, Klink & Co., Inc.
“As a nation, we faced the issue before, for example, during World War II. Frankly, I do not believe in the rhetoric of either extreme. Certainly, we will face some limitations on our civil liberties to ensure a safer environment, whether at work with the introduction of biometrics – fingerprint or retinal identification; while shopping with surveillance cameras in malls and on streets; or traveling with a searches of bags. Most people will be willing to forego some minor and probably temporary inconveniences and restrictions. However, I do not foresee the American people willingly accepting drastic intrusions into our everyday life when the circumstances do not warrant the intrusions. For instance, detention of citizens without access to counsel, etc. I believe in our way of life and our Constitution. It has worked before and it will work today.”

Vince Schiavone, ePrivacy Group
"After 9/11, we may stand to lose our ability to be anonymous, yet this should not infringe upon our privacy. Individuals must be ensured of their privacy up until the point that they use it to shield themselves from being held responsible for their actions. Finding and maintaining this balance will require thorough and continuous oversight."

Tari Shcreider, Extreme Logic
“The crux of the issue is our need for intelligence gathering and the subsequent profiling of citizens residing within protectorates of the United States. The fundamental principle of risk management is threat analysis. In order to analyze threats, baselines must be developed on the population and anomalous events/trends tracked. The characteristics of these events create the patterns that may suggest a clear and present danger. Ensuring that only the statistical relevance of these events are used for national security purposes is the challenge that we face today.”

Timothy Dimoff, SACS Consulting and Investigative Services, Inc.
“If the citizens of the United States want improved security then we have to be willing to adjust our attitudes and expectations on our day-to-day privacy issues. You simply can not increase security without the adjustment to privacy. This does not mean that everything we do is now fair game to Big Brother watching, but it does mean our daily public life and those that are interacting around us at airports, public events, etc. may be monitored more closely. If it is my son, daughter or wife that is being provided this extra security I feel much better and I am willing to understand and accept this adjustment.”

Marc Willebeek-LeMair, TippingPoint Technologies, Inc.
"In the end freedom is about choice. From a cyber-terrorism perspective, what network service providers or enterprises need is the option to enforce whatever security policy their customers want or they deem appropriate for their business. The reality is that we have a growing dependency on the network infrastructure to conduct business and run our lives. It is also a fact that there is an increase in malicious traffic that can seriously impact business operations and personal communications. New technology is emerging that can actively separate malicious traffic from known good traffic, and these filtering technologies can be deployed to provide varying degrees of protection. Whether it's an enterprise security policy, a service provider's security SLA, or a consumer's home network protection, the tradeoff between security and privacy is a choice we should have."

Michael J. Brenner, University of Pittsburgh
"There is a legitimate concern for encroachments on individual privacy, as well as the dilution of long-established legal rights of people who have been apprehended and incarcerated by the government on the basis of charges of alleged criminal/terrorist activity. From past episodes of heightened alert in national security -- World War 1, World War 2 and Korea -- the net benefit of national security tends to be minimal, while the infringement on civil rights tends to be considerable. And I think this administration -- and Ashcroft in particular -- has shown a striking insensitivity to the legal requirements for detention of individuals. This has become manifest in the treatment of American citizens as well as immigrant residents in the United States."

William Thalheimer, Imaging Automation
"For citizens who have nothing to hide and are who they claim to be, presenting documents to gain access to restricted buildings or secure permission to drive a car, enter a country or board a plane is a long-accepted security procedure and does not violate individual privacy. Document checks have been going on for decades, but now we are discussing finally giving people the tools they need to make sure what is being presented is authentic - to close a gaping security hole and ensure that identities are protected. The authentication of documents such as drivers licenses, passports and visas does not invade privacy but merely confirms identification. Citizens do not have to give up privacy rights in order to achieve security."

Mark Corrao, Strike Force Technologies, Inc.
“Civil liberties end when national security is compromised. The good f the many outweighs the good of the few. Civil liberties pertain to the individual while national security applies to all. However, the issue to do away with civil liberties to protect national security is very complex. We are being requested to prove on an individual basis.... Who, What, Where and When. The word ‘WHY’ does not come into play (as it did in Nazi Germany). The loss of freedom is based on the question ‘WHY’. All the other ‘W's’ are already known and available in one form or another. To centralize this information individually if it can mean the safety of national security is not the loss of freedom. Identity is already a proven.... your birth, marriage, divorce, death, where you live, your religion, your children, your lifestyle, what you eat, how you sleep, etc.. is known. A digitized national security card is not a loss of civil liberties it is a protection. Do you think of your drivers license as a loss of civil liberties? Of course not! When the government starts to ask you ‘WHY’ that is when you need to worry that the term ‘National Security’ is being abused.”

Hamilton Beazley, Strategic Leadership Group
“Security once lost can be regained. Liberty once lost cannot be. Because freedom is the greatest gift of the democratic system, freedom itself is what we are trying to secure. Not unbridled freedom, of course, but balanced freedom that respects the rights of others within the context of community. If we have not secured our freedom, we have secured nothing. If we must sacrifice one or the other, we must sacrifice just enough security to maintain that freedom. It is a dangerous tightrope to walk, one that requires an understanding of paradox, an appreciation of the complex, a love of liberty, and a worldview that encompasses infinity. God help us.”

Byron Rashed, SSH Communications Security
"Although privacy is a right under our Constitution, modern day issues may change the way we view privacy. Americans have to take a close look at the facts and weigh whether or not we are willing to give up some of our right to privacy for the sake of national security. Most security measures are completely transparent and are very targeted. Using state-of-the-art detection technology such as airport x-ray devices high tech surveillance systems and de-encryption tools would not effect our civil liberties that are safeguarded with checks and balances. The issue of privacy would remain as we see it now with acceptable inconveniences, as long as privacy guidelines are established and adhered to. This is a minimal price to pay for the safety of all and future generations."

Derek Smith, ChoicePoint
"Are biometrics and DNA good or bad? Are they going to take society to an enlightened environment or some kind of police state? My conclusion is that information has more power to do good, provided we have safeguards to prevent evil. I want a debate on this. Society can draw the line. We'll abide by whatever society rules."

Mary Cheh, George Washington University
"Fighting terrorism involves a greater use of informants and surveillance, and profiling. You have to look at groups that are likely to have some involvement -- and exclude others, because you have to be efficient. We can use these tactics and still protect individual liberties. The areas where we've gone too far are not in our tactics, per se, but in the ideological/political perspective that the government is taking. For example, this business about 'illegal enemy combatants' and holding people in detention without access to lawyers or courts. Or the game of secrecy the government is playing with immigration hearings and hiding the names of people being held. The government is sacrificing protections of individual rights in areas where it may not necessarily have a payoff for fighting terrorists. This administration's approach to solving problems has been unilateralism and secrecy."

Gary S. Miliefsky, Excelcion, Inc.
“Our country is at grave risk of cyber-terrorism that knows no borders. The concept of Chief Security Officer (CSO) is new to America - in fact the premier issue of CSO Magazine shipped this month. I think the ‘big brother’ watching you syndrome is misguided. I'd also say that if we have nothing to hide, then it's a small price to pay to have our privacy at risk for the safety of knowing our citizens, critical infrastructure, Skyscrapers and airlines are safe.

Ken Xie, Fortinet
"Our privacy is essential to our sense of personal security, and thus it is impossible to speak of trading the former for the latter: Compromise either, and both are diminished. Even with this in mind, many new technologies have the side effect of making it ever easier to do pre-emptive monitoring of our behavior - whether from satellites, from video cameras at intersections, or from our cell phones. Our challenge is to recognize that the mere availability of these powerful new techniques should neither compel nor justify the invasion of privacy in the name of increased security - because when privacy is lost, security is lost as well."

Haim Zelikovzky, CellGlide
“National security versus civil rights debate? What debate? Ladies and Gentleman, this is not a Hollywood spectacle we watch. WE ARE ENGAGED IN A WAR. Considering that the next terror attack may happen tomorrow (heck, it may even happen today), and that a terror attack using mass destruction weapons is a viable scenario - does anybody has any doubt about this debate? I assure you that this debate abruptly ends as soon as (God forgive) one of your loved ones is involved in an act of terrorism. Unfortunately, it happened to me. I have no doubt what the answer is.”

Nadya Aswad, Guardent, Inc.
“We heard many published accounts of law enforcement requests right after Sept. 11 to get information about individuals, account numbers, activity, etc. While companies want to comply, there must be mechanisms in place to ensure that information that is supplied to law enforcement addresses the specific request and doesn't go beyond the scope and expose personal information about other customers or employees. Also, privacy policies (often in privacy statement posted on a website) should state that the company will comply with law enforcement orders.”

Kim E. Petersen, SeaSecure LLC
“Law enforcement and security organizations have been laboring to make fundamental changes in our country's infrastructure to stem new terrorist attacks. An important, albeit tangential, responsibility of the security community is to create technologies and programs that accomplish security goals while minimizing intrusions into innocent persons' privacy. There are several ways to achieve this; most important is to ensure that an accurate assessment of risk and vulnerability is conducted of all critical infrastructure. This allows our security forces to focus and confine intelligence and law enforcement efforts to those most important facilities, which are both vulnerable and likely to be attacked. Through a measured and scientific confinement of effort, we govern the risk of applying unwarranted -- and potentially upsetting -- security measures to every conceivable target, however unlikely it may be in reality.”

• Respond on the Message Board
• Back to Previous Page