I believe civil rights are more important than security. I do not believe there is a reason to call America great if all of the citizens have to give up their freedom so the government can protect us. I don't think it is right for the government to limit media, censor the Internet, or spy on its people. Not even under the guise of security.
I personally agree,Human rights are defined, most notably in the U.S. Bill of Rights. They are defined because the Founding Fathers realized that if they were not defined, they would be more likely to be abrogated or lost entirely. The Founding Fathers understood the temptation on the part of governments to give and remove human rights arbitrarily, because they had experienced such things before the Revolutionary War -- in the Stamp Act, in the quartering of British soldiers on American households, and in illegal searches and seizures, in no taxation without representation.
Though it is not fool proof, security comes from minding your own business. Of course, there is always going to be rogues out there who will harm others. But, for the most part, when you are kind and keep to yourself, others return the favor. When civil rights are taken, you actually lose security.
Yes, civil rights are more important than security, because a nation that would rather have security than freedom deserves neither. People need to be free. The people in North Korea are told that they have security, but they do not have freedom by any means. Civil rights are the measure of freedom, which is better than security.
I personally think that While in the U.S. this idea is a bit controversial, in other countries it is standard, accepted, and cherished. The codification of human rights, and the widespread acknowledgment of this, is one of the things that makes the modern world modern. To roll back human rights, even for some individuals, is to return to a more primitive, hierarchical, and un-American theory of human relations. One example, of course, concerns women.