How does the U.S. balance privacy with national security? This article analyzes how the three regulatory regimes of information collection for criminal investigations, foreign intelligence gathering, and cybersecurity have balanced privacy with national security over a 50‐year period. A longitudinal, arena‐based analysis is conducted of policies (N = 63) introduced between 1968 and 2018 to determine how policy processes harm, compromise, or complement privacy and national security. The study considers the roles of context, process, actor variance, and commercial interests in these policy constructions. Analysis over time reveals that policy actors’ instrumental use of technological contexts and invocations of security crises and privacy scandals have influenced policy changes. Analysis across policy arenas shows that actor variance and levels of transparency in the process shape policy outcomes and highlights the conflicting roles of commercial interests in favor of and in opposition to privacy safeguards. While the existing literature does address these relationships, it mostly focuses on one of the three regulatory regimes over a limited period. Considering these regimes together, the article uses a comparative process‐tracing analysis to show how and explain why policy processes dynamically construct different kinds of relationships across time and space.

中文翻译：

---

互补与矛盾：1968-2018年美国联邦政策中的国家安全和隐私风险

美国如何在隐私与国家安全之间取得平衡？本文分析了刑事调查，外国情报收集和网络安全这三种信息收集监管制度如何在50年的时间里平衡隐私与国家安全。对1968年至2018年间引入的政策（N = 63）进行了基于竞技场的纵向分析，以确定政策流程如何损害，损害或补充隐私和国家安全。该研究考虑了背景，过程，参与者差异和商业利益在这些政策构建中的作用。随着时间的推移，分析表明，政策参与者对技术环境的工具性使用以及对安全危机和隐私丑闻的调用已经影响了政策的变化。跨政策领域的分析表明，参与者的差异和流程中的透明度决定了政策结果，并突显了商业利益在支持和反对隐私保护方面的冲突作用。尽管现有文献确实解决了这些关系，但它主要集中在有限的时期内三种监管制度之一。综合考虑这些机制，本文使用比较过程跟踪分析来显示并解释政策过程为何跨时空动态构建不同种类的关系。它主要侧重于有限时期内的三种监管制度之一。综合考虑这些机制，本文使用比较过程跟踪分析来显示并解释政策过程为何跨时空动态构建不同种类的关系。它主要侧重于有限时期内的三种监管制度之一。综合考虑这些机制，本文使用比较过程跟踪分析来显示并解释政策过程为何跨时空动态构建不同种类的关系。