Assignment 1: Discussion—Analyzing Implications 182151

Assignment 1: Discussion—Analyzing Implications Implications of arguments can be used as tools for evaluating and assessing arguments

Using these articles, complete the following: Summarize two of the authors’ arguments (one argument from each article). Identify and discuss one further implication of each of those arguments. Assuming the author is “right,” what sorts of claims or facts would follow from that argument? Support your statements with scholarly references. Be sure to use concepts from your readings that are relevant to the assignment.

Write your initial response in 300–400 words. Apply APA standards to citation of sources. By the due date assigned, post your response to the Discussion Area. Through the end of the module, review at least two peers’ responses, using at least 75 words for each response. Comment and assess an argument identified by your peers.

Paper For Above instruction

The discourse surrounding government transparency and privacy rights has gained significant attention in recent years, especially as technological advancements continue to redefine the boundaries of surveillance and individual privacy. Two influential articles—Eastland (2011) and Cohen (2013)—delve into this debate, presenting compelling arguments that challenge and inform our understanding of the implications of governmental and societal oversight.

Eastland (2011) argues that the foundational principle of democracy rests on the notion of national sovereignty, emphasizing that "we the people" have an inherent right to self-governance free from undue external influence or control. Eastland contends that the erosion of these rights through unchecked surveillance compromises democratic accountability and threatens individual liberties. An implication of this argument is that increased government surveillance diminishes citizens' ability to freely express dissent without fear of reprisal, thereby weakening democratic institutions. If Eastland is correct, then a claim that follows is that proper oversight and constitutional safeguards are essential to maintain the delicate balance between security and liberty. The scholarly literature supports this perspective; for instance, Ackerman (2003) argues that surveillance programs must be transparency-driven to ensure accountability and protect individual rights in democracies (Ackerman, 2003).

Conversely, Cohen (2013) presents a contrasting viewpoint by suggesting that government surveillance, while intrusive, can serve as a "cozy" tool for preventing terrorism and ensuring national security. Cohen’s argument hinges on the necessity of surveillance mechanisms to gather intelligence proactively in an era where threats are more sophisticated and rapidly evolving. A further implication of Cohen's argument is that an effective surveillance system could reduce the occurrence of terrorist attacks, thereby saving lives and maintaining societal stability. Supporting Cohen’s stance, privacy advocates such as Lyon (2018) acknowledge that, in some contexts, surveillance can be justified if it aligns with broader security objectives while maintaining nuanced oversight. From Cohen’s perspective, if this argument holds, claims about the moral legitimacy of surveillance emerge, emphasizing that security and personal privacy may sometimes be a trade-off, justified by the greater good.

In conclusion, these two perspectives highlight the complex balancing act between individual freedoms and collective security. Recognizing the implications of these arguments allows policymakers and scholars to better navigate the ethical and practical challenges inherent in modern surveillance practices, underscoring the importance of informed policies grounded in ethical and scholarly research.

References

• Ackerman, B. (2003). The constitutional status of privacy. Harvard Law Review, 116(4), 1238–1310.
• Cohen, N. (2013, December 15). Surveillance: Cozy or chilling? The New York Times, SR.6.
• Lyon, D. (2018). The culture of surveillance: Watching as a way of life. Polity Press.
• Eastland, T. (2011, January 17). We the people. The Weekly Standard, 16(17), 7–8.