The attacks on American soil on that solemn day of September 11, 2001, sparked a dispute that the single standard of privacy should not be abandoned in the search for security bigger. The security measures in place were planned to protect our democracy and its freedoms, but they only erode the very existence with the advent of a socialist paradigm. Benjamin Franklin (1759) warned more than two centuries ago: “Those who can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security. » Implementing security measures has both economic and social costs. Government bureaucrats can and will use information for personal political purposes. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the “law” is, leading to a lack of diffusion of the rules. Real leaders with political agendas jeopardize our individual privacy rights and freedoms. The word "privacy" did not grow with us throughout history because it was already a cultural concept by our founding fathers. This term then solidified in the 19th century, when the term "privacy" became a legal lexicon as Louis Brandeis (1890), a former Supreme Court justice, wrote in a law review article, that “Privacy was the right to be left alone.” .” As mentioned earlier in the introduction, the Supreme Court is the final authority on all matters relating to privacy and security. We began with our ancestors' concept that privacy was an agreed-upon concept that became enshrined in our legal language. There is evidence that government access to individual information can intimidate the privacy that is at the very center of the government-populace association. Moral in the middle of paper ...... life. Much has changed in our government's view of what are considered violations of our individual rights. The argument is not about the ideal of privacy or the ideal of security, but about the improper use of government-collected data being misrepresented and used inappropriately in violation of our own civil rights and liberties. This is enabled through government-sponsored silver-tongued legal representation so that the government can exercise its ability to use loopholes in the legal system. The Supreme Court that we entrust to make legal and moral decisions about privacy and security is a judge appointed by the same political system (the government) that created such distrust. Our ancestors warned us in their speeches and tried to save us in their laws. We have failed them by our actions and by our greed.