It has come into question how much governmental involvement should be within the citizen’s phone call records and messages. A popular argument states that this action is permissable to acquire something of higher priority, that is, safety. However, I argue that everyone possesses a right in privacy, unless they disrespect another’s privacy, in which their right is forfeit.
Governmental abuse of the right of an unknown party for the sake of safety to said party is only acceptable if the meaning of the word safety is properly defined, and achieved consistently. Nevertheless, this is contradictory. If a third party has the ability has a subjective reason to digress the privacy of another, then the rule itself is by itself void. As a result, it is evident that the governmental access to privacy like phone call records and messages are equivalent to stealing, consequently abusing human rights.
Governmental access to privacy is only acceptable toward those who breached the privacy of someone else with the reason that their action conveys a direct dispute of privacy rights. In other words, the promise of privacy applies to each person equally. For example, homocide is by definition denies the right of life of another person. Therefore, they should not have the right of privacy and the government should investigate their personal messages, etc.
Overall, the government could only access to such private information with permissions. This respects the rights of anyone involved. Which ties together to the safety argument in the beginning. Essentially, achieving maximum safety is best by acknowledging basic human rights. Which could not be achieved if the government meddles in private phone call records and messages.