It helped me better understand what exactly I was representing and the beliefs the organizations had. The debate made me look at the topic of Privacy vs. Security from a different aspect. Since I was representing both sides of the debate, It changed my perspective on how I view the issue. In the beginning, I felt more towards one way but by the end of my assignment I became more neutral. The goals of NSA should provide security for U.S citizens but should not take it into extreme measures unless it’s absolutely necessary. They should give some leeway when monitoring people and in only extreme circumstances. If they feel like someone is a threat to the
U.S government or its people then they should have that right to investigate them. People shouldn’t necessarily feel threatened when their phones are being tapped. If you know you’re not a threat to the country, then you shouldn’t have to worry about anything. I just think there should be a limit to what they can have access to. I think most of the arguments made on both sides seemed rather convincing. There’s positives and negatives to each side of the argument because we want privacy but we also want security. We can’t have much privacy if we want to be fully secured from future terrorists. You have to be able to sacrifice certain aspects in your life to get
what you want. I think each side made a good argument about Edward Snowden and how they felt about what he did. Side one thought what Edward Snowden did was very courageous and brave. He believed what the U.S government was doing was unethical. No one wants their personal information out in the open for many strangers to look over.