The Washington Post

In the battle between privacy and security, security always wins.

The revelation that the National Security Agency is gathering millions of phone calls every day re-stokes the ongoing debate the country has been having since the terrorist attacks of Sept.11, 2001: What is the right balance between protecting our privacy and protecting our country?


A phone. AP photo.

It's the same argument that happened around the passage (and reauthorization) of the Patriot Act, the use of drones against American citizens and the targeting of leakers by the Obama Administration. And, time and again, the American public makes clear that their desire to feel safe from attacks foreign and domestic trumps their desire for privacy.

President Obama made quite clear where he comes down in this push-and-pull between security and privacy during a press conference with Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan last month.

Here's what he said in response to a question about the Department of Justice's seizure of a large number of phone records from Associated Press reporters (it's long but worth reading the whole thing):

"I can talk broadly about the balance that we have to strike.  Leaks related to national security can put people at risk.  They can put men and women in uniform that I’ve sent into the battlefield at risk. They can put some of our intelligence officers, who are in various, dangerous situations that are easily compromised, at risk.

U.S. national security is dependent on those folks being able to operate with confidence that folks back home have their backs, so they're not just left out there high and dry, and potentially put in even more danger than they may already be.  And so I make no apologies, and I don't think the American people would expect me as Commander-in-Chief not to be concerned about information that might compromise their missions or might get them killed.

Now, the flip side of it is we also live in a democracy where a free press, free expression, and the open flow of information helps hold me accountable, helps hold our government accountable, and helps our democracy function."

Read between the lines of that answer --and, in truth, you don't have to do all that much interpretation -- and it's quite clear that Obama has, and will continue to, default to the desire to protect the country rather than protect peoples' privacy.

(Civil libertarians will argue that choosing between security and privacy is a false choice -- and that always citing national security concerns as a justification for the gathering of so much private information puts the government, whether controlled by a Democrat or a Republican, on a very slippery slope.)

So, why do majorities of the country express support for the gathering of phone calls, the use of drones and, to a lesser extent, the Patriot Act? (A February 2011 Pew poll showed that 42 percent said the Patriot Act was "a necessary tool that helps the government find terrorists" while 34 percent said it "goes too far and poses threats to civil liberties".)

Because fear is a very powerful motivator when it comes to public opinion.  And because most Americans, while they value their privacy, tend to view themselves as people with little to hide. The general attitude is "I'm not breaking any laws so why should I worry about the government collecting some phone calls if it helps them stop an attack?" (You can almost hear civil libertarians' minds blowing over that line of thinking.)

The "security > privacy" equation has governed decisions made by a Republican and now a Democratic Administration since Sept.11, 2001.  Barring a wholesale change in public sentiment, which seems extremely unlikely, that same approach is likely to predominate not only through the final three years of Barack Obama's presidency but also in the next administration -- no matter which party wins the White House in 2016.

Chris Cillizza writes “The Fix,” a politics blog for the Washington Post. He also covers the White House.

The Freddie Gray case

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Campaign 2016 Email Updates

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!
Comments
Show Comments
The Republicans debated Saturday night. The New Hampshire primary is Feb. 9. Get caught up on the race.
Highlights from Saturday's GOP debate
Except for an eminent domain attack from Bush, Trump largely avoided strikes from other candidates.

Christie went after Rubio for never having been a chief executive and for relying on talking points.

Carson tried to answer a question on Obamacare by lamenting that he hadn't been asked an earlier question about North Korea.
The GOP debate in 3 minutes
Listen
Play Video
Quoted
We have all donors in the audience. And the reason they're booing me? I don't want their money!
Donald Trump, after the debate crowd at St. Anselm's College booed him for telling Jeb Bush to be "quiet."
Listen
Play Video
New Hampshire polling averages
Donald Trump holds a commanding lead in the next state to vote, but Marco Rubio has recently seen a jump in his support, according to polls.
New Hampshire polling averages
A victory in New Hampshire revitalized Hillary Clinton's demoralized campaign in 2008. But this time, she's trailing Bernie Sanders, from neighboring Vermont. She's planning to head Sunday to Flint, Mich., where a cost-saving decision led to poisonous levels of lead in the water of the poor, heavily black, rust-belt city. 
55% 38%
Upcoming debates
Feb. 11: Democratic debate

on PBS, in Wisconsin

Feb 13: GOP debate

on CBS News, in South Carolina

Feb. 25: GOP debate

on CNN, in Houston, Texas

Campaign 2016
State of the race

To keep reading, please enter your email address.

You’ll also receive from The Washington Post:
  • A free 6-week digital subscription
  • Our daily newsletter in your inbox

Please enter a valid email address

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Please indicate agreement.

Thank you.

Check your inbox. We’ve sent an email explaining how to set up an account and activate your free digital subscription.