In recent decades, technology has made rapid progress in the non-public sector. Devices like the iPhone and the Internet have fundamentally changed the way we live our lives, much of which is positive and much of which is negative. As this technology makes our lives easier in many ways, it amplifies many threats and risks along with terrorism. These issues have been examined in several cases within the Supreme Court, and there are two fronts: Privacy and National Security. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Make no mistake, these nationwide privacy and security issues are not black and white. The gray region is so large, which is why the first-class line between privacy and protection at the national level is so difficult to define. In 2015, a study conducted through the Pew Research Center suggests that 54% of Americans disapprove of authorities collecting data from private cell phones and the Internet to save them from terrorism. On the other hand, the top 42% approve, while the rest are not sure. Additionally, 74% of Americans said they should not give up privacy and freedom for security reasons, although 22% said the opposite. This suggests that Americans usually choose their private privacy over nationwide protection. However, I think one of the reasons why non-public privacy is desired is because people are uncertain whether the authorities will protect their interests and what is best for them. In the US Supreme Court, privacy versus national security findings depend substantially on the context in which they are found. Wiretaps are a great example. For example, in the 1928 case Olmstead v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that wiretaps could be carried out with a warrant. However, in 1967, the Supreme Court ruled that you must have a warrant to wiretap telephones in Katz v. United States. “Judges had phones [in 1967] and they knew to show their most non-public stuff on those phones.” Says Jennifer Granick, director of civil liberties at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society. Granick went on to say that wiretap cases look different depending on their character dynamics. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay When it comes to the private and national security debate, I assume that national protection will often be more important than privacy as long as authorities continue to protect the rights of its citizens. However, excessive measures of violating people's non-public privacy should not manifest themselves until they are necessary. For example, I don't think the government should collect the telephone data of everyone, but rather those suspected of a crime or collaboration with a terrorist regime. Furthermore, I no longer assume that there is a clear line dividing what is and is not permitted to protect national security and people's personal right to privacy. It will usually be a gray area and people will constantly disagree with each other about what the best option is. My and other people's reviews also depend significantly on the context of specific situations. You can't draw this kind of quality line on this kind of huge, converting topic.