In light of the recent snapchat hacks and NSA leaks, privacy is currently the epicenter of digital conversations, even at Harker due to the recent PCR hack and preceding HHMS hacks. Managing our digital footprint is no longer our only concern when it comes to maintaining privacy; we now have to be aware of the breadth of government reach into our private online information. This change brings a new debate, one in which we all play a part. “I welcome this debate. And I think it’s healthy for our democracy,” said President Obama last June at the Fairmont Hotel as he referred to the contentious topic of mass digital surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA). Before former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked classified government information, he clearly knew there was something to be leaked as he sought employment by Booz Allen Hamilton in order to gain access to the NSA’s information, as he admitted in an interview with The South China Morning Post last June. When he did reveal the government’s Internet surveillance programs, he, not surprisingly, started a heated debate that has lingered during the months since. Did he save us all from a blatant invasion of privacy by the government or did he betray us all by undermining government secrecy? Hero or traitor? While the faults of the NSA in no way justify Snowden’s constitutional violation, they do reveal a fundamental governmental hypocrisy: the government relies on the consent of the governed, but the governed themselves do not have the information to determine whether to consent. By instigating nationwide controversy and discussion about privacy and safety, Snowden has now forced the government to be more accountable for and attentive to the fourth amendment rights they guarantee citizens. The government has a responsibility to maintain the nation’s general welfare. One of the most comprehensive paths to take in order to do so is to monitor the digital sphere. However, the government would better serve all parties involved by increasing transparency, rather than betraying the trust of its citizens. The tug-of-war between national security and personal privacy leads to a larger question: how do we balance our regard for privacy with our desire to participate even more in the online world? A clean Internet identity no longer entails simply deleting provocative pictures or comments. It requires us to create a muted virtual version of our visceral selves, filtering out any aspects of our personalities and lives that could prove to be detrimental to both ourselves and the community. Engagement in the digital world is a game of give and take. And while it may entail an uncomfortable intrusion of our personal lives, the government does have an ultimate responsibility to protect the nation as a whole rather than to protect individual privacy on the internet. Ultimately, a secure online presence requires us to be aware of the subtle boundaries and cautions we must take to ensure that we protect our own privacy. In a world where the definition of “personal privacy” is increasingly vague due to the power of data mining, our notions about the acceptable extent of governmental invasion of privacy become proportionally hazy. In light of the recent snapchat hacks and NSA leaks, privacy is currently at the epicenter of the digital conversation, even at Harker due to the recent PCR hack and preceding HHMS hacks. Managing our digital footprint is no longer our only concern when it comes to maintaining privacy; we now have to be aware of the breadth of government reach into our private online information. “I welcome this debate. And I think it’s healthy for our democracy,” said President Obama last June at the Fairmont Hotel as he referred to the contentious topic of mass digital surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA). Before former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked classified government information, he clearly knew there was something to be leaked as he sought employment by Booz Allen Hamilton in order to gain access to the NSA’s information, as he admitted in an interview with The South China Morning Post last June. When he did reveal the government’s Internet surveillance programs, he, not surprisingly, started a heated debate that has lingered during the months since. Did he save us all from a blatant invasion of privacy by the government or did he betray us all by undermining government secrecy? Hero or traitor? While the faults of the NSA in no way justify Snowden’s constitutional violation, they do reveal a fundamental governmental hypocrisy: the government relies on the consent of the governed, but the governed themselves do not have the information to determine whether to consent. By instigating nationwide controversy and discussion about privacy and safety, Snowden has now forced the government to be more accountable for and attentive to the fourth amendment rights they guarantee citizens. Although the government has not fulfilled their duties in the most ethical of ways, they do have a responsibility to maintain the nation’s general welfare; admittedly, one of the most comprehensive paths to take in order to do so is to monitor the digital sphere to a certain extent. However, the government would better serve all parties involved to increase transparency with regard to such extensively personal investigations rather than betray the trust of its citizens. The tug-of-war between national security and personal privacy leaves us with a larger question: as general communication trends towards a more digital presence, how do we balance our regard for privacy with our desire to engage in the online world? The fact that every electronic move we make can be tracked is incredibly unnerving, but those very actions are necessary if we wish to keep up with our fast-paced surroundings. Having a clean Internet presence no longer entails solely deleting provocative pictures or comments. It requires us to create a muted digital version of our tangible selves, filtering out any aspects of our personalities and lives that could prove to be detrimental to both ourselves and the community. Engagement in the digital world is a game of give and take. And while it may be a hinderance or even an uncomfortable intrusion of our personal lives, the government does have an ultimate responsibility to protect the nation as a whole rather than to protect individual privacy on the internet.