Securing the Freedom of the Communications Revolution (Introduction‪)‬

At the dawn of the American Revolution, Thomas Paine wrote that "the design and end of government" was to provide the public with "freedom and security." (1) For the past 200 years, Americans seldom have had to ponder or grapple with the potential contradiction between these two goals because the contradiction emerges most palpably only during times of national crisis. Events like President Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, President Roosevelt's internment of Japanese-Americans, and President Nixon's attempted suppression of the New York Times' publication of the Pentagon Papers underscore the tension between these two principles, as well as the dangers of pursuing one goal at the expense of the other. As Thomas Paine so clearly understood, we must strike the appropriate balance between freedom and security if we are to maintain our American values and way of life during times of national crisis. As with so many other things in our lives, our perception of the relative roles of freedom and security changed forever on September 11,2001 ("9/11"). On that day we were indelibly reminded that freedom is not free, that it cannot exist in a vacuum, and that enhanced security is the price we must pay to preserve it. That day required us to recalibrate the delicate balance between freedom and security. For us in the communications industry, this recalibration is particularly difficult because we must balance the promise of new modern digital technologies that provide global communication with the security concerns, both public and private, based on those transmissions.