When the country faces a crisis of war or terrorist attacks, national security often becomes a reason for the government to take urgent measures. Even in peacetime, it usually used in a variety of different reasons by law, order and the Grand Justices' interpretation. The anti-terrorism act or the usual collect people's information has produced the pros and cons. Supporters argue that anti-terrorism mechanism can promote national security and people's safety and freedom from fear. But opponents argue that counter-terrorism does not suppress terrorist activities, however the national power has already seriously violated the human rights. In 2013, Edward Snowden, a employees of outsourcing company (Booz Allen & Hamilton) of US National Security Agency (NSA), exposed the NSA on national security grounds, improperly collected communication and information of all the people (including foreign heads of state) through PRISM program. That program systematically monitors, intercepts, classifies, storages and analyzes all kinds of information, beyond the scope permitted by constitutional law, led to a public outcry. On political views, government may be allowed, based on national security, to gather certain information and monitor certain people, it may not be interpreted as 'illegal' behavior. However, the public authority uses or even abuses it's power for the reason of 'public danger' and 'national security' to require internet servicers to provide any personal information is just unreasonable and unlawful. This study tries to discuss this issue from 'ethics' perspective, and to interpret the events what principles the government and the people that follow to live a better life (security and/or freedom)? And we want to raise a dialectical debate and discussion to work out a balance between 'deontological' as well as 'teleological' goals for the real-life.