Teenage Perspectives on Right to Privacy and NSA Wiretaps

GOVERNMENT WIRETAPS INFILTRATE AMERICAN households more as headline news than eavesdrops as leaked word of domestic spying spreads.

Granted presidential authorization more than 30 times since Sept. 11, 2001, National Security Agency (NSA) spying kindles a fiery discussion over government boundaries at a time when security tops national priorities.

Student proponents of government monitoring privileges reason along similar lines with the nation's leadership.

"I would tap phones, but just not tell anyone about it so they wouldn't complain," junior Aaron Vaslow said. "But probably the practicality of tapping everyone's phone is impossible. I agree with what Bush is doing."

But opponents cite an intrusion of civil liberties as justification to cease unwarranted surveillance.

"I'm not just going to sacrifice my rights for someone else," junior Jessie Roark said. "We have other ways of securing our safety than forcing citizens to give up their rights."

Roark said the wiretaps violate her right to privacy; a right with which others find difficult to part.

"Like a few small parts of rights I would sacrifice [like my right to assemble anywhere], but nothing big," sophomore Michael Lombardo said. "I would add more security in certain areas [but not violate people's rights]."

Yet the Bush administration assures that domestic spying insures the safety of the country. Even so, some say the acts undermine the Constitution.

"I think it's worrying that Bush is not smart enough to find legal means of securing the country," Roark said.

While the legality of the NSA's actions remains undetermined, politicians harbor strong opinions over constitutionality of the President's authorizations. But some students express indifference.

Sophomore Matt Quetsch says he has no issue with someone hearing what he says over the phone.

"I don't care, they are not going to listen to my phone conversations anyway because they have no reason to suspect me," Quetsch said.

The White House continues to deliver the message that the NSA only monitors the most suspicious of U.S. residents which students like Quetsch don't believe includes them. But Roark hastens to draw the line.

"If the police have legitimate reason to suspect you of something, then fine," Roark said. "But if they have no reason to tap your phone, then they have no right."