The attacks on American soil that solemn day, September 11, 2001, sparked a dispute over whether the degree of singular privacy should not be surrendered in the pursuit of greater security. The security measures in place were designed to protect our democracy and its freedoms, but are simply eroding existence itself by initiating a socialist paradigm. Benjamin Franklin (1759), more than two centuries ago, warned: “those who can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor safety.” The implementation of security measures has both an economic and social cost. Government bureaucrats can and will use information for personal political goals. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the “law” is, causing widespread lack of rule. Current leaders with political agendas jeopardize our individual rights, liberties and personal liberties. The word “privacy” has not grown with us throughout history, as it was already a cultural concept of our founding fathers. This term was later consolidated in the nineteenth 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 started with our ancestors' concept that privacy was an agreed upon concept that was written into our legal jargon. It has been shown that government access to individual information can intimidate the privacy that is at the heart of the association between government and the population. The moral... middle of the paper... life. Much has changed in our governments' views on what are considered violations of our individual rights. The discussion is not about the ideal of privacy or the ideal of security, but it is about the misuse of government-collected data being misrepresented and misused in violation of our own civil rights and liberties. This is enabled through government-sponsored Argentine-language legal representation so that the government can exercise the ability to exploit loopholes in the legal system. The same Supreme Court that we charge with making legal and moral decisions about privacy versus security is a judge appointed by the same political system (government) that implemented that distrust. Our ancestors warned us with their speeches and tried to save us with their laws. We have failed them with our actions and our greed.