“In light of the current issue on Edward Snowden and the allegations that the US National Security Agency has been infiltrating private information, do you think a country should prioritize national security over personal privacy?”

“The word ‘privacy’ trivializes what’s at stake. It leads us to think that we’ve got nothing to fear if we’ve got nothing to hide. I’m more interested in the questions not being asked—why and how information is gathered, stored and used. I think people should at least demand answers on these questions to start a more meaningful discussion.”

Harvey Chua, President, The Ateneo Assembly

 “You have to really think about what would serve the public welfare more. I think if the government will be asked, or if I worked for the government, then maybe [I would choose] national security. If I am a citizen, I’ll choose privacy. It’s a very difficult trade-off. As a private citizen, I believe the right to privacy should be respected.”

Fernando Aldaba, PhD, Lecturer, Economics Department

 “Ideally, no, which is why prior restraint exists to prevent the government from violating a citizen’s rights unless a substantial interest is at stake. Practically, however, no nation as powerful as the United States can afford to refrain from invading an American’s right to privacy… in the name of national security. The reality is simple: In this day and age, the one who holds information has the bigger stick. The greater danger, however, lies in the precedent set on what a government may do against the very limitations designed to protect citizens’ rights.

Mateo Escueta, IV-BS CTM

“Many factors come in to play. Why this is an extremely provocative issue for the US is because they pride themselves with democracy. Even with their international policies, proliferations of democratic ideologies are part of the scheme. Of course, personal privacy is of extreme value and no country should be able remove that right. However, many aspects of our private lives are being voluntarily surrendered. It is the infrastructure of today’s information exchange that makes it so easy for us to do away with our traditional notions of privacy.”

James Michael Araneta, Lecturer, Environmental Science Department

 “The state has its duty to protect its sovereignty over its own citizens against foreign intrusions. However, this should not be done at the expense of its citizens’ right for privacy… National security, I believe, does not only mean safety from foreign threats but also safety within the state itself. If the citizens, through the actions of the state, do not feel safe, I would not say that the state has achieved national security. After all, national security, in my opinion, should be founded and deeply grounded on civic liberty.”

Julber Osio, III-BS ME

“As members of the American civil society, it is part of their obligation to surrender portions of their freedom to the government in exchange of security, protection of their rights and other services rendered by the government. When worse comes to worst, citizens relentlessly point fingers towards the government, not realizing that the reason behind the incompetent national security lies roots from their failure to cooperate with the safeguards necessary. Lousy administrators are not the sole causes of a poor government. Disobliging citizens are just as damaging as well.”

Bianca Reyes, III-AB POS-MPM